Jul. 17, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
The very sovereignty of the United States and the resolve of the American people to stand firmly upon the principles of our republic are being challenged by the crisis at our southern border.
In the second of my series of columns exposing the progressive movement in our country, we’ll examine the liberal ideology behind their desire to “reform” the immigration policies of the United States.
Many recall President Obama’s first inaugural address in January 2009 when he suggested we must begin “the work of remaking America.” Understand what liberals peddle as “reform” is simply the progressive unraveling of our nation’s laws and redefining them to help propagate the progressive movement. Necessary to this change is reconstructing the very landscape of America’s demographics and gradually whittling away at our constitution.
The United States has a long history of welcoming immigrants from all parts of the world. America values the contributions of immigrants who continue to enrich this country and preserve its legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity.
However, America places no small value on the decision to become a U.S. citizen. To become a citizen you must apply for a “derived” or “acquired” citizenship through parents or apply for naturalization. The process requires a display of commitment to the United States and loyalty to its constitution. Their reward includes the rights and privileges afforded a U.S. citizen.
Integral to this process is “The Immigration and Nationality Act” set in place post-World War II and meant to control immigration into the United States. The law negated exclusion of immigrants based solely upon their country of origin, but protected our nation from those who were unlawful, immoral, diseased, politically radical, etc. and was accepting of those willing to assimilate into the U.S. economic, social and political structure.
Admittedly, poor enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws has rendered our borders porous far too long. But President Obama’s perceived open-door policy and his subsequent level of neglect of our nation’s borders is unprecedented! Among other things, it represents an unrestricted threat to our national security by anyone willing to exploit our vulnerabilities.
Make no mistake about it. Liberal reform of our nation’s immigration policies would render the current immigration laws null and void and virtually eliminate any incentive for immigrants to naturalize or assimilate into the culture of the United States, thereby having no ownership in its continuance.
But progressives thrive on arbitrary power, not the rule of law. They pursue immigration reform under the guise of humanitarianism while portraying conservatives as prejudiced and outright “haters” simply because we refuse to capitulate to those who would reframe America around their own cancerous liberal theology.
For liberals, bypassing the lawful assimilation of immigrants into the United States, among many potential deleterious effects, adds to a populace dependent upon a government willing to sustain it and devoid of any commitment to the sovereignty of our nation.
But most importantly, it broadens the scope of individuals, void of constitutional acumen, who may be dubiously proselytized into a predacious progressive movement.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Jul. 10, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
The United States’ greatest enemy may very well be “an enemy from within” — the progressive movement.
This is the first of a series of columns intended to define and expose the tactics I believe progressive visionaries plan to employ in the U.S. over the next several years.
One must first understand the idiopathic process of the progressive movement is literally revealed in the name. Through a progressive, resolute methodology of challenging the status quo, liberals doggedly advance the standards from right to left. They understand that rooted mindsets will not change overnight, but through a gradual desensitization to liberal theology, they can create an ideology more befitting a “new age” of Americans.
Progressives often leverage the liberal factions of our judicial system and the classroom in their quest for fundamental change. Over the next several weeks I plan to deal with the evolving strategies we’re witnessing in the United States and how to recognize and avert them.
Abe Lincoln was quoted as saying, “The philosophy of the classroom today will be the philosophy of government tomorrow.” In my youth, religion was a welcome part of the classroom. Saying the Lord’s Prayer and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance was simply part of our daily morning routine. Most of my teachers even had a Bible on their desk, and why not? It was the accepted foundation for all we knew and loved about America. And nearly every classroom wall displayed the Ten Commandments.
Scripture was something we reverenced and referenced nearly every day.
Then in 1962 the Supreme Court ruled that official prayer had no place in the public school system. While many blame Madalyn Murray O’Hair, an outspoken atheist of the time, her role was minimal.
The decision resulted from the case of Engel v. Vitale in which parents challenged a prayer written by a New York education board. These multi-denominational parents did not want their children subjected to state-sponsored devotions which the high court equated to the government “respecting an establishment of religion.”
The relatively benign invocation in question read, “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.” Still, parents were adamant that it shouldn’t be uttered in the public sphere.
In the following year, 1963, the Supreme Court handed down another important ruling dealing with prayer in public schools. In Abington Township School District v. Schempp, the court declared school-sponsored Bible reading and recitation of the Lord’s Prayer unconstitutional. And in 1980, the Ten Commandments were eventually removed from the classroom.
It’s been 50 years since the Supreme Court first ruled that official prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. The landmark decision has given liberals the opportunity to debase Christianity and begin progressively removing God from the classroom where it would instill conservative values in young minds.
Since then, this liberal “progression” has marred the path for our nation’s youth and indeed unconstitutionally “impeded” the “free exercise of religion” in America.
Removing God from the classroom was integral to the progressive agenda.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Instead, He chose to drink a beer and shoot some pool…
Democratic congressman Henry Cuellar ripped President Obama for being “aloof” and “detached” by not visiting the Texas border to see first hand the immigration crisis. Cuellar made the comments on MSNBC:
“He’s so close to the border. And let me say this: when I saw, and I hate to use the word bizarre, but under the circumstances, when he is shown playing pool in Colorado, drinking a beer, and he can’t even go 242 miles to the Texas border, and plus, if he doesn’t want to go down to the border, there’s the Air Force Base where HHS is holding some of the young kids from the border. He could at least make that trip to San Antonio, but again, border community leaders wants to see him down there on the border, and I think the optics and the substance of it is that he should show up at the border,” said Cuellar.
And he had some advice for the White House.”If they are worried about putting a face, the president’s face, to this human crisis, humanitarian crisis, I think it’s worse if he doesn’t even show up. Either way, he’s going to be tied into this humanitarian crisis. he either can roll up his sleeves and go down to the border, or he can just look aloof and detached and not go to the border, send surrogates down there, and say that he’s got everything under control.”
He adds, “It Just floored me, because if he’s saying he’s too busy to go to the border but you have time to drink beer, play pool.”
The president was in Colorado last night — drinking beer and playing pool.
(THE WEEKLY STANDARD)
Jul. 03, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
The Obama administration has been so ridden with scandal, Americans are becoming desensitized to the muck and mire surrounding Capitol Hill. But scurrilous behavior and a blatant disregard for the constitutional functions of our republic can’t be ignored.
During the Obama presidency, headlines have been inundated by scandals involving dereliction by the Justice Department such as the Fast and Furious gun-walking operation, the unwarranted surveillance of the media, and most recently the IRS targeting of conservative groups.
Liberals may want these stories to just go away, but America deserves better.
But the chief law enforcement officer of the United States, the man charged with upholding our nation’s laws, Attorney General Eric Holder, has instead been grossly negligent in his duties to the American people.
Consider Operation Fast and Furious, the infamous gun-walking program by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms that allowed guns to flow into Mexico in an attempt to track them back to notorious drug cartels.
The program was approved at the highest levels of the Justice Department and put thousands of illegally purchased weapons into the hands of drug lords. One of these guns was found at the murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry in December 2009. During Congressional investigations, Holder dodged questions, was inconsistent in his testimony and refused to comply with Congress’ subpoena for documents related to the operation. With bipartisan support, Holder became the first head of the Justice Department in U.S. history to be held in contempt of Congress.
Evidence also shows that Holder committed perjury when he testified under oath to Congress about the Justice Department’s investigation of Fox News Chief Washington Correspondent James Rosen.
Last year in May, Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee that he was not involved in nor had knowledge of a potential prosecution of Rosen as a “co-conspirator” in alleged violations of the Espionage Act. But three days later, the Justice Department released documents authorizing such an investigation of Mr. Rosen, which required approval from the Attorney General. This proved Holder knew of the investigation. Holder has since placed a “gag order” on members of the Justice Department, prohibiting them from answering further questions about the scandal.
Holder is also grievously failing the American people by refusing to appoint a special prosecutor to independently examine the IRS scandal. Mounting evidence shows that IRS officials were directing the illegal practice of targeting groups based on political affiliation, which is a federal crime.
Holder is just a tool in the Obama shed for “progressively” changing America. It’s an indescribable shame that there are liberals willing to compromise the very soul of our nation to propagate their progressive agenda.
Conservatives must not falter during these tumultuous times.
As President Reagan warned, “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth.”
My advice to conservatives: Become even more tenacious about demanding justice in the United States and speaking out against the progressive movement.
Only conservatives stand between our republic and those who would sacrifice it.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
WASHINGTON – The CEO of a major a federal contractor, which has several contracts with the Treasury Department, says it should be relatively easy for IRS contractors to retrieve the “lost” emails of Lois Lerner, the IRS official at the center of the tea party-targeting scandal.
Ron Gula is CEO and chief technical officer of Tenable Network Security, an information technology services company nestled in the suburbs of Washington, D.C., that has major contracts with many federal agencies, including the Treasury Department’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service and United States Mint.
“It is very unlikely that the emails in question are not stored on a backup machine someplace else,” Gula told WND.
Gula also said questions about the lost emails from Chairman of the House Oversight Committee Darrell Issa, R-Calif., for Monday evening’s hearing are spot on.
Over the weekend, Issa called IRS Commissioner John Koskinen to testify Monday evening about the IRS’ “email systems, data retention policies, and document production processes.”
“Because the IRS has refused to provide basic information about these matters to the committee in advance of the hearing, and in the interest of promoting a frank and thorough discussion at the hearing, I ask that you provide answers to the factual questions posed below,” Issa said in a letter to Koskinen.
In his letter, Issa asked Koskinen to provide further details about the “failure of the hard drive,” identify employees involved in examining the hard drive, explain steps taken by the IRS to recover the information and give dates of those attempts. He also asked for the identities of all IRS employees who had any role or responsibility in maintaining or servicing IRS email servers since 2009 and for other details on the IRS archival systems.
After reviewing the letter, Gula said, “Many of the questions outlined for [Monday’s] session are on the right track.” He said the emails in question could also be stored on any number of laptops and systems such as spam filters, which process email throughout the IRS.
Gula noted that because IRS contractors have the same access as employees to email systems, there shouldn’t be any issue retrieving lost data.
“In my experience, contractors who were authorized to do work for organizations like the IRS have full access to email and corporate resources,” he said.
To make email work for an organization the size of the IRS, Gula said, “there must be a great deal of redundancy and separate systems to deliver email reliably.”
WND found that several large corporations hold the IRS’ Total Information Processing Services, or TIPSS-4, contract to handle the IRS’ email servers and provide staff to work, in many cases, on site at IRS offices.
Those companies include: Accenture, Unisys, AT&T Government Solutions, Avaya Government Solutions, Booz Allen Hamilton, CGI Federal, Computer Sciences Corp., Deloitte Consulting, General Dynamics, HP Enterprises, IBM, Leidos, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman Systems and Pragmatics.
Issa called an archivist from the U.S. National Archives and Records Administration and invited White House counsel Jennifer O’Connell to testify Monday in a continuation of the investigation.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/06/contractor-easy-to-find-lerners-lost-emails/#iCsMZpD5MCPOiXGr.99
Jun. 19, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
The recent offensive launched by Sunni insurgents is the first real challenge to Iraq’s security since the American withdrawal in 2011. But the stakes are high for the United States as well.
America is only as secure as the strength we portray to the world in the integrity, determination and moral fiber of our leadership. Sadly, the fact that this administration is perceived as sorely lacking in these attributes is conducive to challenge.
A recent Washington Post editorial board column described Obama’s foreign policy as one based on “fantasy,” employed in a world in which the president believed “the tide of war” was receding and the United States could “without much risk, radically reduce the size of its armed forces” as well as its tenacity in temperament.
“President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality,” the column read. “Other leaders, in this vision, would behave rationally and in the interest of their people and the world. Invasions, brute force, great-power games and shifting alliances — these were things of the past.”
But leaders around the world are “old school” and operate in reality when it comes to military prowess.
An effective military isn’t simply based on its size and capability, but the enemy’s perception of its willingness to deploy assets if an immovable, non-negotiable line is crossed. And we can’t negotiate with terrorists. Conciliation empowers them.
President Obama did, however, make the right decision when he brought our troops home in 2011 to allow the Iraqis to take ownership of their own freedom. For years I’ve maintained that the U.S. has erred in thinking that freedom can be delivered by a U.S. carrier. Freedom’s value is relative to the price at which it was secured. In the case of the U.S., thousands of men and women have paid the ultimate price, not only to secure our freedom, but assist the Iraqis in achieving theirs.
But the naivete with which our commander-in-chief “trumpeted” our withdrawal was a huge military mistake brought on by political aspiration and was a gift to our enemies in the Middle East. And now any hesitancy to react with at least drone strikes to bolster the Iraqis and provide them a foothold would be foolish. But once again, the world is watching Obama’s passive and indecisive reaction to aggression.
The 4,500 Americans killed and the far larger number permanently wounded is too great of a price to pay to see all that they fought for lost. Iraq War veterans across the country are watching with dismay as the same insurgency they fought and defeated returns to control in Iraq.
The larger issue is that we have a president whose repetitive display of ineptness in dealing with our enemies is emboldening aggression across the globe.
The U.S. can only expect to avoid major military conflict by electing leadership able to reposition America in the eyes of our enemy.
And show the world the United States is unshakable about protecting our freedom.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
May. 29, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
Crisis management is a familiar term for any organization providing a service to the public.
Very simply, it’s the process by which an organization deals with a major event that threatens to harm the organization, its stakeholders or the general public.
The size and scope of a crisis management team will vary depending on a particular organization’s product and the potential impact of a breakdown in the service it provides. And there are certain foundational principles by which they operate.
First, there is a pipeline of communication established which enables information to travel rapidly and efficiently from the source to the appropriate team member. This “rapid response” system is usually tested periodically to ensure its efficiency.
After a potential crisis is reported, the team immediately begins “information gathering.” It’s critical to have the facts to address the issue effectively.
Once the situation has been properly assessed, a determination is made whether to “go public” with a statement. Unqualified personnel are always restricted from communicating to the press and are directed to defer questions to a responsible party.
Most crisis management failures result in the first few hours of an incident. Any indication an organization is being less than forthright about the details of the event can result in catastrophe.
An example of an effective crisis management effort was the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Despite being considered the largest marine oil spill in history, the initial response and ongoing effort by BP officials to communicate responsibly to the public enabled the company to survive.
An example of poor crisis management would be the Elk River chemical spill where a dangerous chemical used to wash coal and remove impurities was released into the Elk River. Freedom Industry officials did a poor job providing answers to the public, and the company was forced into insolvency eight days after the spill.
Now due to the nature of politics, crisis management techniques are deeply embedded in our nation’s government. Crises have long been leveraged politically, and rest assured every governmental department of consequence employs a team charged with averting crisis.
But there is a noticeable distinction between crisis management teams with which most are familiar and the strategies employed by the Obama administration. This administration appears to see them as opportunities rather than setbacks.
Some recall in 2008, when during an interview, then Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel said:
“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.”
This capricious view of tragedy aligns perfectly with the Obama administration’s inability to bring resolution to even a single crisis involving his administration. It brings to question whether it’s the president’s goal to fix the crisis or leverage it to fulfill his agenda.
Actually, the only effective crisis management I’ve observed is not designed to protect the country, but rather to protect this president.
Americans will do well to remain vigil and alert to this strategy in the coming months leading up to elections.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
May. 15, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
Why do you suppose liberals refuse to ever hold Barack Obama accountable for the lies and poor decisions he’s perpetrated on the American people?
It’s interesting how they refuse to call the president out on any mistake no matter who gets hurt or how great the loss. Instead they resort to diversions and tactics designed to devalue his involvement, unless of course it was one of those “rare” photo op, publicist’s moments. One might think Obama did everything short of firing the shot that killed Osama bin Laden — but he wasn’t even in the situation room during the attack on our consulate in Benghazi.
And if anyone disagrees with the president, well, it must be racism. In fact, it’s been suggested more than once on this very opinion page that the reason West Virginians don’t support Obama has nothing to do with dwindling jobs or the president’s war on coal. It’s because he’s black.
It’s time liberals learn incompetence comes in all shapes, sizes and colors. Playing the race card is simply indicative of an inability to defend the facts related to Obama’s failures.
One such failure emanates from the president’s unschooled foreign policy. His perceived lack of strength and strategic savvy prohibits him from competing on the world stage while his policies of appeasement and accommodation are prompting rogue leaders across the world to successfully rattle their sabers against the U.S.
But liberals share no conviction over Obama’s failures and aren’t interested in truth.
Liberals aren’t even interested in finding the truth about the terrorist attack in Benghazi and in fact have referred to any such pursuit as “drivel” and “old news” and prompted by politics.
Let me be clear. No true American patriot would ever refer to the unexplained death of four brave Americans serving their country as “drivel.” I doubt the families of Ambassador Stevens, computer specialist Sean Smith and former Navy Seals Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty would agree with such an insensible remark.
And I submit that liberals, not conservatives, are playing politics. Conservatives seek the truth for the healing of a nation. Liberals only seek closure of the investigation before a smoking gun is located.
And liberals don’t mind the president telling an occasional lie if it serves the “higher” progressive purpose.
It doesn’t bother liberals that the president knowingly misled the nation about the true nature of the terrorist attack in Benghazi, blaming it on an obscure anti-Muslim video.
It’s insignificant that Obama repeatedly lied to Americans about being able to keep their healthcare plan if they liked it and that millions are losing their existing plans.
It doesn’t matter that he lied about lowering annual insurance premiums for families by $2,500 with his signature healthcare initiative.
Liberals never attempt to defend any of these falsehoods. They simply believe the end justifies the means.
In fact, when it comes to Barack Obama, liberals value his contribution to the progressive movement far beyond truth, and they will go to any length to protect him.
The rest simply doesn’t matter.
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
May. 08, 2014 @ 12:00 AM
Today’s progressive movement and the liberal policies it has generated arose from a conscious repudiation of the principles on which our nation was founded.
Americans must be keenly aware of the progressive yearning to fundamentally transform society into one which imposes no “concrete” sanctions for immorality and no restrictions within which we should live our lives. We are in a sense “gods” within ourselves able to transcend through reason.
Progressive confutation stems from their view that society is changing and “intelligent” people must adapt accordingly. They claim Christians are archaic in their beliefs and “modern” Christianity should be tolerant of varying lifestyles. And precepts by the Bible’s writers or our nation’s founders were penned without “clairvoyance” of the future — discrediting any possible unction by an omnipotent God.
But God’s Word says in Matthew 7:13, “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”
Now, the progressive movement hasn’t “broadened” the road overnight. Its tenacious approach calls for constant pressure against the “status quo” designed to move the parameters of acceptance further and further to the left.
But unchecked, where will it end?
The single largest barrier facing liberalism is God’s Word and the influence of Christianity in our society. It’s imperative for liberal “theologians” to question the plausibility and intent of biblical scripture to uproot preconceived notions of morality or principle.
Some recall Barack Obama’s June 2007 rant against the “Christian Right” for hijacking religion and using it to divide the nation:
“Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together… Part of it’s because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us,” Obama said.
In retrospect, this quote should be added to Obama’s growing list of infamous accolades as the single most “hypocritical” statement ever made.
Liberals want us to believe our nation wasn’t founded on Christian principles. But Thomas Jefferson, our third U.S. President and drafter and signer of the Declaration of Independence said:
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?”
Liberals want us believe we’re not a nation blessed of God. But in Genesis 12:3, God told Abram, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse…” God is referring to Abram’s descendents, the nation of Israel, with whom our relationship must be symbiotic. Our nation’s obedience to God has heretofore secured His blessings according to the 28th chapter of Deuteronomy.
But I believe as progressives promulgate disobedience to God’s Word, those blessings will be revoked accordingly.
There’s one more “biblical reference” found in Matthew 12:36 which is apropos for the progressive movement.
“But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.”
Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.
Free State Patriot 