"Speaking truth in times of great moral conflict and universal deciet, will always be a TART mission"–TART

Author Archive

We Are Moving To a New Site!!!

To all of our followers:

We at “The American Round Table” are pleased to inform you that we will be moving to a new website: http://tart.theconstitutionalknight.com/ . This move is due to the fact that we have grown and our number of followers has increased. We will still be continuing our mission to bring you stories on the battle to protect and preserve our constitution. We hope you will chose to continue following us in our pursuit of this vision.

This move will be effective at 12pm on 08/26/2013.

Thank You,

Milton Jefferson

Contributor to TART


TART will be transferring to The Constitutional Knight’s blog

This recent move has already taken place. We will be operating under the banner of “The Constitutional Knight” from now on. So we are asking that all of our followers please “Like” or “Follow Us” there. We will be looking to convert this TART into a podcast and posting links via this blog and The Knight.

Thank you for your support,


Milton Jefferson

The government can, Private companies cannot or else it means war

Last night my lovely fiancee and I were talking about our insurance coverage. Then I started thinking about how people complained because private insurances charge women higher rates than men and how that was a “war on women”.

Yet when the government (senate finance committee’s) proposed taxing medical devices to raise 40 billion dollars in “revenue” and listing tampons and breast pumps as one of the said medical devices to be taxed, no one shouted war on women/moms.

What about auto insuran…ces charging higher rates for men, is that a war on men?

Or when auto insurances charge higher rates for red cars, is that a war on red?

When insurances charge higher rates for fat people aka hi bp people, is that a war on fat people?

When insurances charge higher rates for people who smoke once every 3 months aka 4 times a year aka 320 instances in an 80 year lifetime, is that a war on people who smoke?

Yet when government taxes a 16oz soda drink? Its ok. Its not a war on fat people.

When the government taxes tobacco and alcohol? Its ok its not a war on people who celebrate graduations or the birth of their baby boy.

I mean honestly i get why insurances do it there are statistics involved. They have to insure that they can pay out and yet continue covering their other customers.

But what i dont get is how the government can take a “flat rate” standard potion of a persons income for “social security insurance” or “disability insurance” regardless as to whether the person smokes, drinks, or eats like a glutton. Maybe thats why those programs are failing because they were designed as though people are entitled to them no matter what they do nor what they bring upon themselves.

So why charge people the same “common” “fair” ssi and disability insurance rates from their pay checks but yet turn around and tax them differently when it comes to funding the salaries of politicians? why?
Its just a thought im currently pondering.

Oh and as for the next first lady, i hope the cause she takes up isn’t telling “educating” parents what to feed their kids but rarher telling parents how to budget their money, how to save for  a rainy day, what fund will work best to put their children through college and most of all when it comes time to choose between an iPhone 5/ps3/xbox/etc v.s. new school clothes for their kids i hope she will “educate” parents on which one to choose….that is all for now.

By: Milton L. Jefferson

“Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” Benjamin Franklin

Sexism alive and well

The College Republican branch at Fordham University invited  a woman…..thats right a woman named Ann Coulter to speak at their campus on November 29. After finding out the speaker whom college republicans had invited was to be a woman, the university president Joeseph Mcshane said,

“The event is funded through student activity fees and is not open to the public nor the media. Student groups are allowed, and encouraged, to invite speakers who represent diverse, and sometimes unpopular, points of view, in keeping with the canons of academic freedom. Accordingly, the University will not block the College Republicans from hosting their speaker of choice on campus.

To say that I am disappointed with the judgment and maturity of the College Republicans, however, would be a tremendous understatement.”

Wow the president appalled at the college republicans maturity for inviting a woman.

Just Kidding:

Well I was only joking about the woman part the president is really “Disappointed” in the college republicans over their choice and thats just an “understatement”. I only added the woman twist to see what it feels like to be a liberal throwing out people to become poster minorities and use them to drum up supporters who want to silence free speech. Look this president hasn’t blocked the college republicans [CR’s] choice. Therefore no one should try and block the presidents choice to use his free speech in a method he wishes. The big issue people are raising in this story is thefact the president simultaneously knocks the CR’s conduct while bashing Ann Coulter as not being a legitimate voice for conservatism like he did here:

[“There are many people who can speak to the conservative point of view with integrity and conviction, but Ms. Coulter is not among them. Her rhetoric is often hateful and needlessly provocative—more heat than light—and her message is aimed squarely at the darker side of our nature.

As members of a Jesuit institution, we are called upon to deal with one another with civility and compassion, not to sling mud and impugn the motives of those with whom we disagree or to engage in racial or social stereotyping. In the wake of several bias incidents last spring, I told the University community that I hold out great contempt for anyone who would intentionally inflict pain on another human being because of their race, gender, sexual orientation, or creed.
“Disgust” was the word I used to sum up my feelings about those incidents. Hate speech, name-calling, and incivility are completely at odds with the Jesuit ideals that have always guided and animated Fordham.

Still, to prohibit Ms. Coulter from speaking at Fordham would be to do greater violence to the academy, and to the Jesuit tradition of fearless and robust engagement. Preventing Ms. Coulter from speaking would counter one wrong with another. The old saw goes that the answer to bad speech is more speech. This is especially true at a university, and I fully expect our students, faculty, alumni, parents, and staff to voice their opposition, civilly and respectfully, and forcefully.

The College Republicans have unwittingly provided Fordham with a test of its character: do we abandon our ideals in the face of repugnant speech and seek to stifle Ms. Coulter’s (and the student organizers’) opinions, or do we use her appearance as an opportunity to prove that our ideas are better and our faith in the academy—and one another—stronger? We have chosen the latter course, confident in our community, and in the power of decency and reason to overcome hatred and prejudice.
Joseph M. McShane, S.J., President”] see letter here

My Opinion= Consistency:

Look is the President an open progressive socialist? yes. Is the president anti-american? possibly. Has the president silence the CR’s? No.

And that last question is by far the most important one just as he encourages others not to silence the speech of other, we too must respect the presidents speech thanks to the great document that we call the constitution.

One last thing that I’d like to add is a memory from my college life. While I was attended college there was a time when I saw signs advertising a speaker who was coming to speak at my University and whom was invited by our local branch of college progressives (i can’t recall the group)  and the man they were inviting was a black socialist progressive professor whom I had often seen on tv arguing with Sean Hannity. This mans beliefs, ideals, and rhetoric was often something that I found to be communistic, misguided, and offensive. The difference is I nor any CR’s on campus protested this mans coming. Just like in the Fordham case those progressives only sought to protect their free speech. Eventually CR’s invited the Genocide awareness project to campus and quickly received protests. Let me tell ou as someone whom was there at the tie the things the protestors were shouting about the CR’s were obscene however I wouldn’t have had them silenced because that would have violated the protesters right to speech. Now some non-obscene examples of what the protesters did were: shout into megaphones at people like myself who were just pasing by; started a petition to have the genocide awareness project removed fom campus; heck there were even guys wearing shirts that said I dig pro-choice chicks which to me just said he liked the easily open sex access with no responsibility…but again it was his right to say those things. See an article about that memory of mine here.

In closing my opinion/my point is this, I expect those who read this and those who may feel outrage toward the Fordham president don’t lash out at him instead encourage him and his speech while also encouraging the CR’s and ms. Coulter with their speech; it is by doing such that we carry on the dreams of our founding fathers.

Speak without fear,

Milton L. Jefferson


Our new Take Action Tab!!!

Do you want to preserve freedom? Do you want less government? Do you want less taxes? Do want to join the fight in helping protect America from Socialism?

If you answered yes to all of the above, then I suggest its time for you to take action.

Here at TART we wanted to make it easier for you to take action, so we created our TAKE ACTION button.

This button depicts a hard working American picking up a hammer to reforge America, so please pick up a hammer and join us.

Look for this button to be included in all articles which might inspire action like those project: regeneration articles.
take action logo

Socialist Professor Attacks American-ness

teaching socialism

An editor for the collegefix recently posted on how a political science teacher published a syllabus  which told students to leave their “American-ness, White-ness, Male-ness” at the door. All in the name of using “Inclusive ” language I thought inclusive language INCLUded  everyone, even those pesky American White Males. Funny this same professor quoted Obamas church UCC. So why isn’t NBC or CNN publishing this story about the UCC’s war on American White Men after all they didn’t hesitate to quote Romneys religious beliefs as a “War on Women”.

All this “Inclusive talk reminds me of this video from Jon Stewart,

You know people are downplaying this already saying no student would do that nor fall for that Anti-American syllabus and bloggers are even condemning those who say this is a sign Socialism  has taken over our universities, like I do believe. I mean if its not true that Socialism is now the institutionalized philosophy of University’s then why was I able to find this syllabus much like the one currently in dispute.

Click here for the other syllabus I found!!

Nor why my textbook during college stated this: “In offering a sociological understanding of crime, this book suggests that the “get tough” approach is short-sighted since it ignores the roots of crime in the social structure and social inequality of society. To reduce crime, we must address these structural conditions and appreciate the role that factors such as race and ethnicity, gender, and social class play in criminal behavior.”

Look Around, it happening now!

Make sure you question with boldness,

Milton L. Jefferson

New Battle Cry Should be: Fiscal Cliff = Clinton Era!!!

First: What is the Fiscal Cliff?

There has been a LOT of chatter and news regarding the “Fiscal Cliff” which I think is receiving almost as much attention as the 2012 election; but what is this cliff? In investigating this I first decided to seek information from a neutral fact based source. Here is the site where I accessed the information:


My Thoughts: After reviewing the information from the site, it seems the fiscal cliff is essentially a laundry list of tax cuts which will expire unless action is taken.

Second, What say the Politicians?

In looking for the truth I find it best to seek mutiple sources of info from multiple spectrum’s  So I asked my elected officials about it. In my case I live in Florida so here are the names of the officials I asked as well as what they said and my thoughts:


Marco Rubio: “In regard to the state of our nation’s economy, our nation’s spending habits, sequestration, and the fiscal cliff.”

“Sequestration and all the tax law that expires at the end of 2012 will lead to what many experts are referring to as the fiscal cliff or “Taxmaggedon.” The poor policy choices of Congress could force our already fragile economy deeper into chaos. I’m particularly concerned that the fiscal cliff will bring the U.S. economy into a double-dip recession.”

My Thoughts: So experts are saying this cliff leads to bad things? Hmmm Taxmagedon sounds like a much more appropriate name.


Bill Nelson: “about the so-called “fiscal cliff,” a number of spending cuts and tax increases scheduled to take effect on January 2, 2013 unless Congress changes the law.”

“These provisions include an across-the-board increase in income tax rates, a 10 percent reduction in the defense budget, an 8 percent reduction in funding for many domestic programs, and a 27 percent drop in reimbursement rates for Medicare doctors.  Failure to deal with these looming tax increases and spending cuts could push the U.S. economy back into recession.”

“I support extending the Bush tax cuts for middle-class families while allowing them to expire for upper-income taxpayers.”

My Thoughts: “About the so-called fiscal cliff, so if politicians didn’t coin this name who did? So basically this is a reset which equals spending cuts and tax increases sounds like what it takes to get the books balanced.  Why only let the upper guys go off the cliff, if the cliff is good enough for them why isn’t it good enough for everyone? After all I thought his ad said he was fighting for ALL of Floridas FAMILIES. Why then would he only allow SOME FAMILES to go off this cliff?

I also asked:


John Boehner:

“About the so-called fiscal cliff, the combination of automatic defense cuts and tax rate increases that’s just weeks away from taking effect. The fiscal cliff threatens our economy and our national security, and I’m committed to working with both parties to stop it.”

He stated he intended to stop it by, “Stopping all tax rate hikes”, “Reforming our tax code”, “Cutting spending & saving our entitlement programs”, and “Protecting our troops”.

My Thoughts: “About the so-called fiscal cliff”, wow you sound just like Bill Nelson. Hes committed to stopping the fiscal cliff but at what cost of compromise. Saving entitlement programs will help stop the Fiscal cliff? What?


I find term Fiscal Cliff to be a scare tactic/term. Really from all the info that I’ve gathered, the fiscal cliff is basically a reset on the BUSH/OBAMA eras which means with all the Bush/Obama policies gone we will basically be living in the Clinton era again? Funny thing, Doesn’t Obama and other Dems always speak highly of the Clinton era? Hasn’t Obama said he wants to go back and do like Clinton did. Well wouldn’t the “Fiscal Cliff” grant the president his wish? I think we should be calling this “The return to the Clinton era” not the “Fiscal Cliff”, calling it a cliff makes me think of the Coyote cartoon.

I say let us go off the cliff TOGETHER. Don’t just throw the upper class Coyotes of the cliff while allowing the middle class road runners to stay behind. I have heard Dems bahing republicans for refusing to throw just the coyote off this cliff. So it seems to me that on this one I side with republicans. Throw both of them off or neither of them. Most of all I think when the Dems and media begin to use this cliff term to try and bully republicans into slitting the throats of coyote families across America, the republicans should fight back and say “Whys it so bad for the middle class to go back to the tax policies of the CLINTON ERA?”  I think if you start phrasing the cliff like that this attempt to paint GOPs as the bad guys will fall on its face. Now I’m not saying I’m for going off the cliff no matter what. I am saying that what ever happens we can’t allow some American families to be treated differently based on their salaries or social status. After all a great man once had a dream where America let go of all prejudices and only judged people based on their character, not based on race, creed, nationality, political party, NOR SALARY!!!!! The Equality MLK referred to wasn’t meant as everyone is equal, it meant everyone should be treated equally. Don’t help man because hes homeless, then turn around and not help a man because he makes over $250,000 dollars a year. If your going to render assistance render assistance to everyone who asked for it or don’t render it to any one.

This has been Milton L. Jefferson reminding you to

Stay consistent my friends!!!


Update 12/04/2012:

I found this video of Obama saying let the high end middle class go off the cliff or in other words let the wealthy be the only ones to go back to Clinton era rates. But didn’t everyone in the Clinton era pay those rates regardless of salary/income. So really this would be a new socialistic take on the Clinton era, Obama gets his way in regards to the fiscal cliff negotiations. Below is the video: