Tag Archives: U.S. CONSTITUTION

Mark Caserta: We must not allow crisis to bring about Arbitrary Rule and destruction

11 Sep

Mark Caserta is an opinion columnist and editor for Free State Patriot

September 11, 2021

Shortly after Barack Hussein Obama won the 2008 presidential election, the man who would later become his chief of staff spoke at a Wall Street Journal corporate CEO conference.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste”, regurgitated then Congressman Rahm Emanuel. “And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things that you could not do before.”

Every society needs a set of rules by which to live to prevent chaos and ultimate destruction. Our U.S. Constitution was established to do just that!

In existence for more than two centuries, our Constitution establishes and maintains the relationship between our government, the states, and our people.  Over time, the Constitution has been amended infrequently, but always in a manner designed to guarantee the basic protections of the people.  Thousands of amendments have been proposed over the years, but only seventeen have been ratified.

It’s imperative all Americans have a clear understanding of the intent of the Constitution.  Like the Bible, (yet not nearly as exhaustive) it provides rules by which should live. It guarantees every American’s fundamental right for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

Besides creating a national government with a system of checks and balances among three branches and separating the powers of federal and state governments, our Constitution is predominantly designed to protect the individual liberties of American citizens.

Also, like the Bible, it’s a Divinely inspired document progressive liberals have committed their lives to mitigating and removing from society. While liberals have nothing profitable to offer in terms of morality and principled conduct, they are consistent in their devotion to remove boundaries. Whether a border, a wall or and a traditionally accepted behavior, behavioral limitations have no place in a radically permissive America.

I refer to my opening line in this column to describe what has been happening to the world around us. 

One must understand progressivism.  The progressive movement is a tenacious attack against all things Biblical or conservative in nature.  For example, television programming just twenty years ago was dramatically less suggestive and permissive than it is now!  Utilizing a long-range plan, liberal television executives gradually desensitized viewers to sex, violence and foul language, primarily focusing on young people.  Over time, they persistently pushed the envelope and tilted their sliding scale of morality to the left.  They didn’t do it overnight, they did it “progressively”, hence their moniker.

Currently, progressives are leveraging fear to institute an ideology of “Arbitrary Rule” which empowers leftist leaders to abuse emotional shifts in society to manipulate and irradicate traditional standards. Supported by a complicit media we are witnessing the advocacy of a leftist’s cancel culture that ostracizes anyone failing to align with a new world order which despises America’s traditional belief system, afforded by the U.S. Constitution and pre-imminent to the success of our great nation.

Per the modus operandi of liberals, promoting the idea of socialism is a major part of their plan to destroy our infrastructure of entrepreneurialism.  The success of socialism is the biggest lie of the twentieth century.  It has never worked!  While it promises equality and prosperity, it always delivers poverty and tyranny.  The only equality it propagates is that everyone is equally poor! 

I have a dear friend who escaped the tyranny of his nation years ago who told me, “Mark, the only people who support communism are those who have never lived under it!”  He is a great American.

I’ve studied and written about progressivism for over twenty years. I can say without hesitation liberals have sustained a disturbingly successful attack on America.

Believe me when I say COVID-19 is the best thing that ever happened to the progressive movement!  It is their gold at the end of the liberal rainbow.

Progressives are using a pandemic to manipulate Americans to willingly hand over their constitutional rights and entrepreneurial spirit so the government can “save” them from destruction and provide all their needs – as the government defines them.

And once we’ve handed them over, we will never have them again.  Liberal politicians will make “constitutional” changes to ensure patriots may never again successfully rise against tyrannical rule.  Laws will change. Rights will be trampled upon under the guise of protecting others.

Americans will have no choice, monetarily or otherwise, but to succumb to the demands of government.  It’s happening right now, before our very eyes.  And sadly, we are allowing it.

Brave men and women have died to see our Constitution live. We owe it to our past and our future to honor their gift of freedom to us. Don’t be fooled into allowing crisis to bring about destruction.

It’s time for another American Revolution, this time at the polls.

Tags: , , , ,

Mark Caserta: 1st Amendment right support varies with political ideology

20 Jan

1st amendment

me

Mark Caserta is an opinion columnist and editor for Free State Patriot

January 20, 2019

 

Where do your 1st Amendment rights begin and end?

It would seem liberals believe the standards vary based on one’s political ideology.

Arguably, no document represents our nation’s most fundamental founding principles more than the 1st Amendment to our U.S. Constitution, which states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While the so-called “Establishment” clause and the “Free Exercise” clause prohibit government from interfering with our religious rights, the amendment further protects our right of “freedom of speech”.

Note, the progressive movement is notorious for vehemently exercising the Establishment clause against Christians who desire the freedom to worship openly. For example, they disingenuously claim that placing a nativity scene or the Ten Commandments in a public venue can somehow be construed as government showing favor of one religion over another and attempting to force U.S. citizens to adopt a “government preferred” religion.

Balderdash!

Additionally, they conveniently ignore the amendment’s protection of our “freedom to exercise” our religious views without government interference.

But only views of Christians! I’ve never heard any progressive lament over an individual being prohibited from exercising the tenets of Islam! In fact, I believe liberals work as hard to protect the Muslim religion as they do degrading Christianity! The hypocrisy is disturbing.

Understand, Deep State progressives will leverage and promote only that which supports their liberal agenda. And they will tenaciously fight against anything or anyone who stands in their way.

Sadly, until a few years ago, our Tri-State area has been fairly sheltered from these liberal lunatics. But as with any stray critter, if you keep the barn door open long enough, you will attract a variety of vermin.

And trust me when I tell you the gestation period of liberal vermin is very short. Before one knows it, they will become an infestation. One only need to look around our city to see our leaders have had the barn door open too long.

But, I digress to the “freedom of speech” portion of the 1st Amendment.

A recent column by News Editor Tony Rutherford of HuntingtonNews.net, (HNN) an online news agency serving our area since 2000, revealed a fired Cabell County teacher is suing for 1st Amendment Civil Rights violations.

Details of the lawsuit in the United States District Court, Southern District of WV., are available for viewing at: http://www.huntingtonnews.net/sites/default/files/n64/Turbin%20suit.pdf

Per the HNN column, during the 2016-2017 school year, Mary Durstein taught World Studies, at Huntington High School, where on January 9, 2017, she was called to the office and administrator, Todd Alexander, ordered her to delete her Twitter account which reportedly supported conservative media posts, such as those from Fox News.

Durstein posted several tweets and retweets about politics and a variety of other topics and accumulated approximately 20-30 followers of her Twitter account.

It’s worth noting, Durstein was active on her account while at home and elsewhere – only when she was not on duty as a teacher. When tweeting and retweeting, Durstein used only electronic devices or computer equipment that she owned. She and her followers tended to like and retweet items of a conservative nature and that supported President Donald Trump and his “America first” agenda.

Another column, regarding the events of January 9, was written in the Charleston Gazette-Mail. This column, by Erin Beck, entitled, “Cabell school system investigating teacher’s anti-Muslim tweets”, may be read at: https://www.wvgazettemail.com/news/education/cabell-school-system-investigating-teacher-s-anti-muslim-tweets/article_916ef170-f2ac-5239-a14d-fc67029df63d.html

It’s interesting, (but not surprising) that the Charleston paper would intentionally present the story from what I consider to be a “fake news” viewpoint, apparently “slanting” the indeterminate details of the story to fit their progressive agenda.

Disagree? You decide. Here is a line from the column:

“A Huntington High School social studies teacher who posted numerous hateful views on Twitter deleted her account amid a school investigation of her social media use on Monday.” The columnist went on to claim, “Many posts were Islamophobic”, and that Durstein incorporated profanity when describing Barack Obama in numerous tweets, but showed support for President-elect Donald Trump.

Folks, we have two issues at hand here, both of which incorporate the progressive, Deep State assaulting conservatives and their right to the same free speech with which liberals “stain” our society ad nauseam.

The attempt to squelch Ms. Durstein’s right to openly state her views in a public venue by a few left-wing progressives is unacceptable and must not be tolerated. Equally as intolerable is the liberal Charleston-Gazette attempting to influence readers of her guilt before the results of any investigation.

It’s time to close the barn door and rid our city of the sanctuary seeking vermin.

The conservative majority in our area must stand up against this progressive onslaught. Our city leaders and who I believe to be a complicit liberal media, such as the Herald Dispatch and Charleston Gazette, do not seem to be interested in anything but advancing their own progressive agenda.

I encourage everyone to seek the truth and stand on principle. It is the only way we can win in what I believe to be the fight of our lives and for our lives.

 

Tags: , , , ,

Doug Smith: U.S. Constitution has served “We the People” for over 200 years

4 May

doug 2

Doug Smith:  Free State Patriot historian and social editor

5.4.2018

constition 2

US Constitution

Article 1, Section 8

Congress shall have power to… (among other things)

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws about Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Article 2, Section 2

The President

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

Article 3, Section 2

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

Evidently, we no longer teach civics in the public schools of these United States. Equally evidently, we neither teach it nor require it as basic knowledge of judges, or members of congress, or presidents.  If you like the extra-legal decisions made in support of your desired position, you may cheer this fact. You should not.

Case in point.

Yet another judge has chimed in to make his ruling that President Trump cannot stop the DACA program because his decision to do so is arbitrary, and besides, he is Trump. Now this judge is entitled to dislike the President. After all, I did so for the previous 8 years. But he is no more able to stop the President’s decisions because of that than I was.

To be clear: DACA is not a law. (See above. Congress never passed any law upon which DACA is based, this was simply a decision by the President, carried out by the Secretary of DHS, to “fail to faithfully execute existing law”, to wit, immigration law, because he did not like it. President Trump, whose instincts in the matter are to faithfully and vigorously enforce immigration law, nevertheless tried to do the right thing. He announced that he was going to rescind the arbitrary  decision of President Obama, and begin enforcing the law once again. However, he also tossed the ball to Congress, whose ball it was, and said, if you folks want to do something about the people affected by this decision, well do your job. Write a bill, pass it and send it to me, and THEN we can have a law to execute.

That is the sound of crickets. No bill. No law. (By the way, President Obama had a totally Democrat Congress for 2 full years. He could have gotten a law enacted then. Or, he could have compromised with the GOP, and still gotten some sort of law to deal with the situation of DACA aliens. He chose not to)

So, President Trump announced that he would end the program of failing to enforce a law that Barack Obama did not like, because, well, it IS the law. And evidently, from the actions of Barack Obama and the Congress for 10 years, that is what they WANT the law to be.

Now judges may rule that laws do not pass the Constitution, and require review if SCOTUS upholds them. What judges may NOT do, under our Constitution, is infringe upon the power of the President to enforce “existing law.” (The judge may try ruling the Law to be unconstitutional, and start the judicial review process, but he may NOT, as Judge Roy Bean did, tear a page out of the law book with the words “That’s a bad law. I repealed it.”) So, a judge may no more rule “You can’t stop enforcing the laws on immigration for non-citizens brought here illegally as children” than he can rule “You can’t stop anyone who drank milk as a child from stealing milk.”

Congress may make such laws. But not the courts. When they do, it costs a lot of money and time and suffering of injustice before they are finally slapped down by SCOTUS.  For the left, it has become the game plan, because one judge can usurp Congress’ authority and keep things going their way for a long time, without the tedious necessity of actually winning elections, then letting Congress do their job.

Tedious, and a losing proposition, because Dems are typically pressing minority opinions against the will of the people by using the court ploy.

Before you applaud the strategy, consider its cost, and danger. King Henry II and Archbishop Thomas Becket were at odds over the appointment of judges, resulting in Becket s murder and Henry nearly losing his throne. A war ensued.

Arbitrary tax laws and judges resulted in King John facing the Barons at Runnymede, and the Magna Carta being signed.

The city of New London, backed by perhaps the worst decision in SCOTUS history, took a house from a lady named Kelo under eminent domain, so they could sell the property to a developer to build a headquarters for Pfizer drug company and bring them tax money. (Congress ought to pass a law overriding the Kelo decision, but that is for another story.)  However, in a case of cosmic justice, the HQ was never built, and Pfizer left the state completely due to Ct tax increases.  Today the site is an empty lot, overrun with weeds.

Historically, arbitrary judges are not without consequence. And you should fear and loathe them.  You can predict the actions of a judge who is bound by law. You can read the law and know they cannot take your home, or car, or fine you, or force you to pay higher taxes, just because they want to. You can know that if Congress raises your taxes and you don’t like it, you can toss the bums out. Not so a judge, who rules that your area MUST charge you more taxes to pay for something he decides they should pay for. (That is making law from the bench.)

You may cheer today when a judge rules against Donald Trump because you don’t like him. But if judges can rule based on their personal likes and dislikes, tomorrow, or next year you may encounter a judge who doesn’t like, well, YOU!

Do you want him to be able to rule on your life, liberty, or pocketbook based on that dislike? Or would you prefer him bound by the laws we all think we live under?

Our judiciary needs to be taken to school on the Constitution which is the source of their authority. It does not matter that they don’t like it or think it antiquated, it is our law. And they should have to abide by it, just as should POTUS, and Congress.

Abraham Lincoln noted that our Civil War was going to determine whether “government of the people, by the people, and for the people, would perish from the earth.”  Four years of war, and half a million deaths was not enough to kill it in sound and fury.

We should not abide arrogant people usurping it and causing it to perish by dry rot, either.

We, the people are a mighty force, when we remember that fact.

We, the people, established the Constitution, and this form of government.

We, the people, fought a great war to preserve this form of government.

We, the people, need to reach the point of looking at the lack of common sense and decency flowing from those directing our institutions and shaping thought and say, Enough!

Read the Constitution. Then decide that you are going to hold any leader, from a judge, to a School Board Member, to a President, to that standard. This is our law folks. It’s done well for over 2 hundred years. Let’s try it again.

 

 

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Liberals mislead regarding First Amendment

11 Jun

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Jun. 11, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

I recall during a presidential debate in 1999 when the moderator asked the candidates to identify their favorite political philosopher. George W. Bush created a firestorm in the liberal media when he spontaneously and unflinchingly replied, “Jesus Christ, because he changed my life.” The media had a field day castigating Bush for bringing Christianity into politics.

For years, progressives have diligently sought the complete and absolute removal of Christianity from politics. And frankly, we’ve allowed them far too much success. The phrase “separation of church and state” has been bantered about so often by liberals, that many people believe it’s in the Constitution. But not only is the phrase not in the constitution, neither is the concept as propagated by progressives.

The text of the First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As you can see, the First Amendment doesn’t contain the words “separation of church and state.” The words can, however, be traced back to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802 in response to a concern voiced by the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut about religious freedom. In his letter, Jefferson used the phrase as a metaphor depicting the First Amendment as a “wall of separation” between the church and government interference in religion.

Also notice that there are two parts to the First Amendment that reference religion: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Today, much is said about the establishment clause, but very little is said about the free exercise clause.

While progressives often attempt to rewrite history to advance their agenda, our Founding Fathers had a keen perspective on the unique and important relationship between religion and the world they wanted to create for themselves and their heirs.

declaration signing

Leading up to the Revolution, these men witnessed their civil liberties trampled upon by the King of England and Parliament. The First Amendment was meant to protect these basic civil liberties and to ensure government was never able to force a particular religion upon the people or suppress their right to practice it openly. Their recognition of the importance of religious freedom to American democracy prompted the framers to enshrine it forever in the First Amendment.

But through the years, liberal courts and progressives have perverted the Framers’+ intent, essentially trampling upon the free exercise clause through misrepresentation of the establishment clause. Liberals would have you believe that any open display of worship, such as prayer in public schools or displaying the Ten Commandments, is somehow government “making a law respecting the establishment of religion” or “state sponsored religion,” which is absurd.

The strict separation of religion and government was not meant to prohibit openly practicing religion; it was meant to protect it!

It’s time we accept that religious freedom was never meant to be freedom from religion.

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

Tags: , , ,

%d bloggers like this: