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



Obama and Amendment X [10th]


Obama For America, claims military shouldn’t receive special treatment

Last week:

While I was on vacation and out of the country, I was checking my Facebook feed and came across a Facebook post sharing the above picture. After reading it I promptly shared the above photo.

Two days Later:

A friend of mine commented on it, a friend whom for the purposes of this blog will remain anonymous. The comment read as follows:
“I don’t get involved in poltical BS, but thats wrong. Repubs in Ohio removed the 3 day early voting for everyone but military, obama is sueing to give it back to everyone, not just the military.”

After Reading this I became curious and frustrated. Curious that I may have unknowingly disbursed false information and I was frustrated with the fact my friend was accusing me publicly instead of a private message.


Supreme Court sides with Arizona, not with the Presidents DOJ

The Ruling: Three days before the controversial ACA(Obamacare) ruling, another SCOTUS ruling managed to slip under the radar. The ruling was issued in regards to a new Arizona immigration law. Some portions were ruled unconstitutional while the main controversial potion was ruled constitutional. The portion of the law still standing, required “that police, while enforcing other laws, question people’s immigration status if officers have reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.” The constitutional ruling was unanimous meaning  liberal and conservative justices BOTH agreed Arizona was well within the constitution when crafting thispart of the law, No liberal-conservative divide here.


Stolen Valor Act of 2005… Repealed by SCOTUS!

The Stolen Valor Act of 2005 was ruled out by the Supreme Court, by a vote of 6-3 (as of 06/28/2012).  Enacted by the 109th  Congress, January of 2006;  its main purpose was to “enhance protections relating to the reputation and meaning of the Medal of Honor and other military decorations and awards, and for other purposes.”

As absurd as it may sound, the First Amendment of our Constitution seems to have been used as a basis for the argument. Where to draw the line on Free Speech has long been a valid question; but to what end? It doesn’t seem quite right for someone to impersonate a person in the military, former or current. Even more so, if there was something to gain by doing so.


Attorney General Holder held in contempt…………..OK? what now? and what about his defense of executive privilege?

Today: The House of Representatives voted to hold AG Holder in contempt of court for failing to respond to their subpoena, the vote was 255 yes and 67 no. [contempt]

So What now? : Now it will go before a federal court and a DOj attorney will prosecute their boss “Holder” who will claim executive privilege. Then most likely the court will dismiss the charges and the House would file suit in civil court ordering the Administration to release the documents, after that its anyone’s game. Problem is it may take anywhere from 2-5 years for this to all come out in the wash. Making this whole thing pointless after the president asserted executive privilege. Which is why many today have called the contempt hearing a witch hunt/political theater, leading to democrats walking out during the vote.  [Future of charge]

Is Executive Privilege constitutional?:

According to previous Chief Justice Burger, “The concept of executive privilege is not mentioned explicitly in the United States Constitution, but it is considered to be an element of the separation of powers doctrine, and/or derived from the supremacy of executive branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.” [U.S. v. Nixon] Basically according to SCOTUS “executive privilege” is never mentioned in the constitution; however it is implied as part of the daily constitutional activity of the executive branch. To brake it down a little further even though the founders didn’t establish an executive privilege. SCOTUS viewed it as common sense that the President would tell his cabinet information in conducting conferences and that the information relayed would not be intended for others/the public. In fact if some of this information should reach the public……like I don’t know…..in the form of a leak…it could be devastating to the nations security. [Leaks]

My Opinion:

-Yes this is obviously political why else would the contempt take place so close to the election and on the same day the Obamacare ruling was to be announced.

-Yes Rep. Issa is doing the right thing by continuing to push for these documents, yes hes doing it for political show but we should be glad that for once political show coincidentally involves doing the right thing.  Many people argue that Issa should have taken Holders deal, gave Holder more time, or continued investigating before holding Holder in contempt. To those people I say, If  Holder was going to give the documents he would have, in fact he repeatedly stated he wasn’t going to release the documents. Lets remember there are statues of limitations with issues like this so Issa was already operating on borrowed time.

-Executive privilege shouldn’t be constitutional, meaning conversations between the president and his staff shouldn’t be protected for the sole purpose that the conversations took place and existed. Executive privilege should only exist as a defense against freedom of press when the information sought could harm cause the country harm. However, I’m not a justice and therefore as a citizen I must yield to the SCOTUS opinion.

-If the president did know about fast and furious, then of course he needs to assert executive privilege for his own defense if nothing else.

-If the president didn’t know anything about fast and furious and only saw emails or memos at a glance then one might make a weak argument for him to exercise executive privilege.

-If the president knew nothing of fast and furous prior to the closing of the program, then he should not assert executive privilege and to do so would only rob a grieving family of the truth, closure, and ultimately the justice (no not this DOJ’s definition of justice) they deserve.

By: Milton L. Jefferson

The Affordable Care Act [Obamacare] upheld constitutional but the deciding vote was unexpected

NEWS FLASH: Today the supreme court ruled the ACA “obamacare” was constitutional because Pres. Obama and his attorneys argued that it was a “Tax” and therefore constitutional under the congressional power to levy taxes. When running for election Sen. Obama promised/lied that those who had an income of $250,000 or less would see no “new” taxes or tax increases; this Obamacare tax only takes into account the possession of insurance and doesn’t even consider income or personal status (one like myself might argue thats an improvement over previous reforms like welfare/food stamps). [no tax increase] Funny that when Obama gave his victory speech on the Supreme Courts ruling, during his 8 minutes of air time he never once mentioned the word “TAX” a word that was the single greatest factor for the courts decision and his win. [Victory speech]

What further adds to the surprise of today’s decision was that the deciding vote came from Justice John Roberts a moderate/conservative justice chosen by President George W. Bush. Prior to today many newscasters and political commentators believed that today’s decision would all ride on what Justice Anthony Kennedy had for breakfast believing it would be he not Roberts that would ride the fence. According to Justice Roberts, the federal government cannot compel citizens to engage in commerce(purchase insurance); furthermore the feral government cannot compel states to expand Medicaid by threatening the states Medicaid  funding (aka coercion).