Tag Archives: politics

Mark Caserta: A Strategic Plan to Restore Affordable American Beef – Families are hurting

19 Oct

A STRATEGIC PLAN TO RESTORE AFFORDABLE AMERICAN BEEF

Strengthening Domestic Cattle Production, Protecting American Ranchers, Expanding Competition, and Preserving Food Safety

October 19, 2026

The Honorable Brooke L. Rollins
Secretary of Agriculture
United States Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20250

RE: Policy Recommendations to Strengthen America’s Beef Supply and Improve Consumer Affordability

Dear Secretary Rollins:

I am writing to submit a series of policy recommendations designed to address the rising cost of beef for American families while strengthening domestic cattle production, protecting American farmers and ranchers, encouraging fair competition, and maintaining the highest standards of food safety.

American consumers should not have to choose between affordable beef and supporting the hardworking farmers and ranchers who produce it.

I recognize and appreciate the Department’s ongoing efforts, including its Plan to Fortify the American Beef Industry, the Strengthening Processing for U.S. Ranchers (SPUR) Program, and the Ranchers First Initiative.

My recommendations are intended to complement these efforts, identify opportunities for additional action, and establish measurable objectives for both producer sustainability and consumer affordability.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

America’s beef industry faces a fundamental challenge: historically limited cattle supplies, following years of drought, herd liquidation, rising production expenses, and other economic pressures, have contributed to elevated consumer prices.

According to USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service, the United States began 2026 with approximately 86.2 million cattle and calves, including 27.6 million beef cows, a decline of 1% from the previous year.

Rebuilding domestic cattle inventories is essential. However, herd rebuilding requires time and may temporarily restrict slaughter supplies as producers retain breeding animals.

Therefore, a successful national strategy must address three separate objectives:

  1. Short-term affordability: Reduce avoidable production and distribution costs, improve market access, and strengthen consumer purchasing options.
  2. Medium-term competitiveness: Improve processing efficiency, strengthen competition, and support independent producers.
  3. Long-term sustainability: Rebuild America’s cattle herd, strengthen domestic food security, and improve resilience against future droughts and animal disease.

I respectfully submit the following recommendations for consideration.

1. ACCELERATE DOMESTIC CATTLE HERD RECOVERY

Drought conditions, high input costs, and financial uncertainty have contributed to reductions in the national cattle herd.

American ranchers need the financial confidence and operating resources necessary to rebuild.

Recommended actions:

  • Expand targeted drought-recovery assistance for qualified cattle producers.
  • Evaluate temporary tax incentives for retaining replacement heifers and rebuilding breeding herds.
  • Increase access to affordable financing for herd expansion, pasture restoration, and water infrastructure.
  • Support forage development, grazing improvements, and drought-resistant agricultural practices.
  • Coordinate existing USDA risk-management programs to better protect producers undertaking herd expansion.

These initiatives should prioritize working American cattle producers, particularly family-owned and independent operations.

Expected result: A stronger domestic breeding herd, increased future beef production, and improved resistance to supply disruptions.

Important consideration: Herd rebuilding is a long-term solution and should not be represented as an immediate reduction in retail beef prices.

2. STRENGTHEN COMPETITION IN MEAT PROCESSING

Concentration in the beef-processing industry remains a legitimate concern for both producers and consumers.

USDA research has documented that the four largest meatpacking firms account for approximately 85% of steer and heifer purchases.

This degree of concentration raises important questions about producer bargaining power, market access, price discovery, and the resilience of the nation’s beef supply chain.

Recommended actions:

  • Strengthen enforcement of existing competition laws through cooperation among USDA, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission, within their respective authorities.
  • Increase transparency in cattle purchasing practices and price reporting.
  • Examine contractual arrangements that may improperly restrict competition.
  • Continue supporting independent and regional processing operations.
  • Evaluate the effectiveness of the SPUR Program and other processing initiatives.
  • Prioritize maintaining viable existing processing facilities while supporting additional capacity where economically justified.

Additional processing facilities alone cannot resolve a shortage of market-ready cattle. However, a more competitive processing industry can create additional marketing opportunities for ranchers and improve supply-chain resilience.

Expected result: More competitive cattle markets, increased producer options, improved transparency, and greater potential for efficient beef pricing.

3. REDUCE PRODUCTION, FEED, AND TRANSPORTATION COSTS

The cost of producing beef ultimately influences the economic sustainability of American cattle operations.

Feed, forage, fuel, equipment, labor, veterinary care, and transportation are significant expenses.

Recommended actions:

  • Expand targeted feed assistance during officially recognized drought emergencies.
  • Evaluate transportation assistance for producers in regions facing unusually high livestock-shipping costs.
  • Examine temporary, narrowly targeted tax relief or credits where measurable producer benefits can be demonstrated.
  • Support improved domestic feed-grain production and distribution efficiency.
  • Review regulatory requirements that impose unnecessary costs without providing meaningful safety or environmental benefits.
  • Require evaluation of whether federal cost-relief programs actually improve producer viability and consumer affordability.

Any subsidies or tax incentives should be temporary, transparent, and subject to performance review.

Expected result: Reduced financial pressure on domestic cattle producers and improved capacity to sustain and expand production.

4. EXPAND DIRECT-TO-CONSUMER AND REGIONAL BEEF MARKETS

American families increasingly seek opportunities to purchase beef directly from local farms and ranches.

Direct marketing can create additional income opportunities for producers and give consumers more purchasing choices.

However, small-scale processing, packaging, refrigeration, and transportation can create additional costs. Therefore, direct sales should be encouraged as a competitive alternative rather than presented as a guaranteed source of lower prices.

Recommended actions:

  • Expand technical assistance for farms developing direct-to-consumer marketing programs.
  • Support mobile slaughter and processing facilities that meet applicable federal or state inspection requirements.
  • Improve access to inspected regional processing facilities.
  • Help smaller producers develop cooperative marketing and distribution arrangements.
  • Simplify unnecessary administrative barriers while preserving essential inspection and food-safety requirements.
  • Improve consumer education regarding local beef purchasing, bulk purchases, and freezer-beef programs.

Expected result: More purchasing choices for consumers, additional market opportunities for ranchers, and stronger regional agricultural economies.

5. PROTECT AMERICAN BEEF IDENTITY THROUGH ACCURATE LABELING

American consumers deserve truthful and transparent information about the origin of the beef they purchase.

The USDA’s strengthened voluntary “Product of USA” labeling requirements, effective January 1, 2026, represent an important improvement.

Under the new standard, qualifying beef must originate from animals born, raised, slaughtered, and processed in the United States.

Nevertheless, voluntary labeling does not resolve every question surrounding country-of-origin transparency.

Recommended actions:

  • Ensure consistent enforcement of the new voluntary American-origin labeling standards.
  • Measure consumer awareness and industry compliance.
  • Examine the feasibility of mandatory country-of-origin labeling for beef.
  • Evaluate the legal and trade implications of any proposed mandatory labeling requirements.
  • Support truthful identification of American-raised beef without unnecessarily restricting lawful imports.

Domestic cattle production should be encouraged through competitive advantages, reliable infrastructure, fair markets, and consumer confidence.

Import restrictions that reduce available beef supplies could unintentionally increase retail prices and should be evaluated carefully.

Expected result: Improved consumer confidence, fairer recognition of American producers, and stronger incentives for domestic production.

6. IMPROVE CATTLE HEALTH AND PREVENT PRODUCTION LOSSES

Animal disease, preventable mortality, reproductive problems, and inadequate veterinary access can reduce the productivity of American cattle operations.

A healthy national herd is essential to long-term food affordability and agricultural security.

Recommended actions:

  • Strengthen USDA veterinary disease-surveillance and response capabilities.
  • Improve access to veterinary services in underserved rural communities.
  • Support appropriate vaccination, biosecurity, and herd-health programs.
  • Expand practical livestock traceability systems that support rapid disease identification and containment.
  • Assist smaller producers with the cost of adopting effective animal-health technology.
  • Improve coordination among federal agencies, state veterinarians, and cattle producers.

Special attention should be given to emerging disease threats that could disrupt domestic cattle production or interstate livestock movement.

Expected result: Reduced preventable livestock losses, improved productivity, and greater stability in the nation’s beef supply.

7. PRESERVE FOOD SAFETY WHILE REDUCING UNNECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS

Food safety must remain nonnegotiable.

American consumers must have confidence that beef entering the marketplace meets rigorous inspection and sanitation requirements.

At the same time, smaller processors and producers should not face avoidable administrative expenses that provide little additional public-health benefit.

Recommended actions:

  • Simplify duplicative paperwork and reporting requirements.
  • Expand secure electronic recordkeeping and inspection-support systems.
  • Provide technical assistance to small processors seeking compliance with federal inspection requirements.
  • Support grants or financing for sanitation, refrigeration, traceability, and food-safety technology.
  • Improve coordination between federal and state inspection programs where legally permissible.
  • Maintain essential inspection, testing, sanitation, and enforcement standards.

Expected result: More efficient compliance, stronger food-safety systems, and reduced unnecessary operating expenses.

8. ESTABLISH A NATIONAL BEEF AFFORDABILITY AND PRODUCTION SCORECARD

Government initiatives should be evaluated by measurable results rather than announcements or appropriated dollars alone.

I recommend that USDA publish a publicly accessible annual scorecard tracking:

  1. Total U.S. cattle inventory and beef-cow inventory.
  2. Annual calf production and domestic beef output.
  3. Average retail beef prices and inflation-adjusted price trends.
  4. Cattle producer profitability and major input costs.
  5. Regional processing capacity, utilization, and competition.
  6. Producer access to independent and regional processors.
  7. Progress of federally funded herd-rebuilding and processing initiatives.
  8. Beef import and export volumes.
  9. Food-safety outcomes and significant animal-disease threats.

The scorecard should distinguish between changes resulting from government programs and those driven by weather, cattle cycles, consumer demand, trade, and other market conditions.

Expected result: Greater transparency, improved accountability, and a measurable basis for determining whether federal policy is strengthening American agriculture and improving consumer affordability.

RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES

First 12 months — Immediate and near-term actions

  • Evaluate and strengthen existing meatpacking competition enforcement.
  • Improve market transparency and cattle-price reporting.
  • Identify opportunities to reduce unnecessary administrative and transportation costs.
  • Support viable regional processing operations.
  • Expand access to direct-marketing assistance.
  • Establish the national beef affordability scorecard.

Years 1–3 — Medium-term actions

  • Evaluate and expand successful processing initiatives.
  • Improve veterinary access and livestock disease prevention.
  • Support producer cooperatives and regional distribution networks.
  • Implement targeted drought-recovery and herd-rebuilding assistance.
  • Evaluate consumer and producer outcomes from labeling policies.

Years 3–5 and beyond — Long-term objectives

  • Achieve sustainable growth in domestic breeding-herd capacity.
  • Improve resilience to drought and animal disease.
  • Strengthen the economic viability of independent American cattle operations.
  • Expand competitive domestic beef production.
  • Establish a more resilient and affordable national beef supply.

REQUEST FOR USDA ACTION

I respectfully request that the Department of Agriculture:

  1. Review these recommendations in conjunction with its existing beef-industry initiatives.
  2. Identify which recommendations can be implemented under current USDA authority and which would require congressional legislation or interagency action.
  3. Evaluate opportunities to accelerate measurable results from existing programs.
  4. Consider establishing or expanding public reporting on beef affordability, production, and competition.
  5. Provide feedback regarding additional actions that could strengthen domestic production while improving affordability for American families.

CONCLUSION

America’s cattle ranchers and American consumers should not be placed on opposite sides of the same economic challenge.

Our nation needs a healthy, profitable domestic cattle industry. We also need families to be able to purchase nutritious, high-quality beef at reasonable prices.

These goals are not mutually exclusive.

A national strategy that encourages herd rebuilding, protects fair competition, reduces unnecessary costs, expands marketing opportunities, and maintains strong food-safety standards can serve the interests of both producers and consumers.

No single policy will reverse years of declining cattle inventories or immediately restore lower retail prices.

However, coordinated action, guided by measurable outcomes and responsible use of taxpayer resources, can help establish the conditions necessary for a stronger and more affordable American beef industry.

I appreciate your consideration of these recommendations and your service to American agriculture.

Respectfully,

Mark Caserta
Writer and Publisher, Free State Patriot
Huntington, West Virginia
304-444-7216

Faith • Freedom • Family

Tags: , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Closed Primary; Open Question?

2 Oct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That distinction matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And there is another number that cannot simply be ignored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That includes registered Democrats.

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

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

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

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

Tags: , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: America has the Oil; So why are prices still high?

1 Oct

Americans are feeling the pressure of gasoline and diesel fuel prices at the pump and are being very vocal about it—with good reason.

No doubt, overall consumer affordability, which is largely impacted by the price of fuel, has become ample political fodder for politicians and the media to wage an influencing campaign on voters for the midterm elections in November.

But, as with most issues, it is very important to dig deeper than political “one-liners” and media hype.

America did not enter the Iran war with a vast amount of unused refining capacity sitting on the sidelines waiting to be called upon. Our refineries were already running hard.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, refinery utilization reached 98 percent in late August and remained at 97.8 percent in early September. On face value, that sounds like tremendous efficiency, and it is. But this efficiency isn’t resulting in lower gas prices, hence the frustration.

How can gasoline prices rise sharply when the United States produces such enormous amounts of crude oil and the price of a barrel of oil doesn’t appear high enough to justify what consumers are seeing at the pump?

The answer may be found not simply in how much crude oil America has, but in how much capacity we have to turn that crude oil into gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and the other petroleum products our economy consumes every day.

The United States currently has roughly 18.2 million barrels per day of operable refining capacity spread across approximately 130 refineries.

Compare that with 2020, when the nation had approximately 135 operable refineries and around 19 million barrels per day of capacity.

Losing five operable refineries isn’t ample explanation for current fuel prices for consumers. It isn’t the amount of crude available that’s the problem. The latest U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve report shows it contained about 284.6 million barrels of crude oil!

The problem is refining capacity.

If a system is operating at 98 percent of its capacity, there isn’t much room remaining when something goes wrong. Refineries require maintenance. Equipment breaks. Hurricanes strike the Gulf Coast. Pipelines can experience disruptions.

Granted, many of these disruptions are “expected disruptions” and are usually built into a production model.

But then there is the unexpected disruption.

For years, America was able to operate its refining system extremely efficiently. Refineries could run at very high utilization rates, crude oil could move through global markets, and finished petroleum products could be imported or exported wherever market conditions demanded.

Then the war in Iran happened.

The Persian Gulf is one of the most important energy corridors on Earth. Any disruption—or even the credible threat of disruption—to crude oil production, shipping lanes, foreign refineries or the Strait of Hormuz can quickly affect global petroleum markets.

When refineries elsewhere in the world lose production or nations suddenly need additional fuel supplies, American refined petroleum products become even more valuable on the international market. That creates additional pressure on a U.S. refining system that was already operating close to its practical limits.

When refinery capacity becomes tight, the difference between the price of crude oil and the wholesale price of gasoline or diesel can increase considerably, resulting in increased prices at the pump.

The political debate inevitably attempts to place responsibility on one president, one political party, one oil company or one government policy. I wish there were a way to eliminate the hyperbole around the issue and spend more time on a viable solution.

The United States has demonstrated extraordinary success in producing oil. American crude production has reached levels once thought impossible. But getting the oil out of the ground isn’t the problem. The answer is having more refining capacity.

Believe it or not, the last new U.S. refinery built with significant downstream processing capacity was Marathon’s refinery in Garyville, Louisiana, in 1977!

I graduated from high school that year—I’m retired now.

If we are ever to rid our nation of these spikes in energy and fuel costs, we must build an energy system with enough reserve refining capacity to withstand a serious international disruption. Considering experts have told us that it takes around 5–10 years for a large, full-scale refinery in the U.S. to come online, we have little time to waste!

This isn’t the time to place blame or leap recklessly to another political party or ideology to solve the problem of affordability—far from it!

It’s time for leadership to come together in bipartisan fashion and craft a plan to address the issue.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: America is Starving for Leadership

28 Sep

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

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

They are elected to represent “We the People”.

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

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

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

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

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

Consider what is happening at sea.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump will not be president forever.

Members of Congress will come and go.

Political parties will rise and fall.

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

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

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

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

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

They are, “We the People.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Every election. Every time.

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

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

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

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

19 Sep

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But responsibility does not rest solely with elected officials.

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

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

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

That is how we keep our republic.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

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

18 Sep

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

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

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

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

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

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

That distinction matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And there is another number that cannot simply be ignored.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That includes registered Democrats.

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

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

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

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

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Pew Research Poll Supports Case for Open Primaries

14 Sep

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

Only about four in ten Americans view either party favorably.

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

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

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

But here is the takeaway.

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

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

Pew’s September 8 analysis reinforces that disconnect.

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

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

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

Republican Party: 58% unfavorable.

Democratic Party: 59% unfavorable.

Both parties unfavorable: 26%.

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

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

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

And that brings us to West Virginia.

The political dynamics in our state are changing.

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

The numbers don’t lie.

West Virginia voters registered outside the Republican and Democratic parties

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

There is an important distinction here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That policy deserves serious reconsideration.

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

That concern deserves to be heard.

But so does the other side of the equation.

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

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

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

These trends should not be ignored.

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

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

Those voters should not simply be written off.

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

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

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

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

Re-open the Republican Primary in 2028.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

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

19 Aug

Democratic Socialism vs. Capitalism — In Plain English

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

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

The difference really comes down to one basic question:

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

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

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

That’s why educating our young people matters!

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

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

Yes, everyone is equal – equally poor.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tags: , , , ,

Mark Caserta: Many Americans are literally giving our country away. Are you one of them?

30 Jul

Mark Caserta has been an opinion columnist for 26 years and was candidate for WV House of Delegates in Wayne County in 2026

Many Americans—including many Christians—are literally giving their country away.

Get angry with me if you want, but don’t complain about what you permit to happen.

Voter apathy is killing our nation.

According to multiple sources, only about 75 percent of Christians are registered to vote. Remember, your vote is your voice.

Of those Christians who are registered, only an estimated 75 percent actually vote. That means, roughly speaking, only a little over 56 percent of those who identify as Christians cast a ballot. Turnout among the rest of the eligible voting population is even lower, which is equally troubling.

And that’s during a presidential election year. In off-year elections, voter participation drops even further.

Nearly every day, I talk with people who tell me they are sick of politics and have lost faith that their vote makes any difference.

Politicians bear a great deal of responsibility for that.

In a constitutional republic, elected officials work for the people. They are hired by the voters for one purpose: to represent their constituents.

Too many politicians have forgotten that. They say what they need to say to get elected, then spend their time advancing their own ideological agenda or that of their party’s leadership instead of faithfully representing the people who sent them to office.

So, how do we begin to change this?

I believe it starts with three simple steps:

1. Politicians must return to the foundational principle of our republic: represent the people who elected you—even when their views do not align perfectly with your own.

2. Congress should act to strengthen election integrity, including measures such as the SAVE Act, which supporters say would ensure that only American citizens vote in federal elections.

3. Every eligible voter—including every Christian—must study the candidates, make an informed decision, and vote.

Just as important, if your elected representative fails to do the job, fire them at the next election.

These ideas are not complicated. In fact, our Founding Fathers intentionally designed our system to be this straightforward.

I still believe there is hope for America.

But hope alone has never changed a nation.

Action does.

Tags: , , , , , ,

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

20 Jul

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

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

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

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

The cultural shift did not stop there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s the desensitization of Americans.

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

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

For me, that decision is clear.

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

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

Tags: , , , , , , ,

← Older Entries