Defense of Marriage Act struck down

The Supreme Court this week struck down the Defense of Marriage Act(DOMA), opening the door to Gay Marriage nationwide. 
The 5-4 ruling was not a sweeping ruling that legalized gay marriage across the nation.

The ruling simply gave access to at least 1,000 different federal benefits and the ability to file joint tax returns by gay couples who have been married in states that allow gays to marry, by striking down section 3 of DOMA. It might not have been a sweeping ruling, but it opened the door to lawsuits to fight gay marriage bans in the states at the federal level.

Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority said DOMA violated gay couples right to equal protection guaranteed by the 5th Amendment. 

On the same day the High Court also made a decision on California's Prop. 8, that banned gay marriage in the state. The  Court said the supporters of Prop. 8 had no standing to appeal the earlier ruling and ordered the lower court to reverse the decision that allowed Prop. 8 to remain in effect. So gay couples can resume getting married in California.

These rulings are a large blow the anti-gay groups that are trying to ban gay rights across the nation. Some conservatives have taken to Twitter to vent their anger. Even former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee chimed in.

Others took it a bit further by claiming this ruling will lead us to polygamy and even human-beast marriages. This is via. The Glenn Beck Show.

“If you change one variable — man and a woman to man and man, and woman and woman,” Becks said, “you cannot then tell me that you cannot logically tell me you can’t change the other variable: one man, three women. One woman, four men.”

“Who are you to say, if I’m a devout Muslim and I come over here and I have three wives, who are you to say if I’m an American citizen, that I can’t have multiple marriages,” Beck added.

“And I think this is a conundrum,” Paul said. “If we have no laws on this, people take it to one extension further – does it have to be humans? You know?”

“The question is what social mores – can some social mores be part of legislation?” Paul asked philosophically

Pro-gay marriage groups on the other hand saw these rulings as a win for love and the gay rights movement. Also, many feel it gave the movement a spark that will lead to nationwide gay marriage within the next 5 years.


Hero or Traitor: Edward Snowden

Let me set a scene for you, if you will: 

Imagine the year is 2006 here in the United States. During the "war on terror" and someone was giving our intelligence on the terrorist we had in our sites to these same terrorists. Then imagine that this person was an American aiding the terrorist with information he stole from NSA computer systems. What would you call this person? Traitor, crook or UN-American? Of what crime would you accuse him? Treason, theft or espionage? 

Now say this man was named Edward Snowden. Do the labels from the previous scene still hold? Or does your view change based on your political views of the moment.

Sure Mr. Snowden exposed NSA spying on everyday Americans. This is something that has been widely known for many of the last years since 9/11. Still it is understandable that the masses where oblivious to this spying. So it is good to have this out in the open to the entire nation, not just those buried in the political system. The issue with Mr. Snowden is two-fold. 

1) Snowden knew of this spying program in 2006 and just sat on it because he supported G.W. Bush.

2) It has been reported by Chinese officials he has disclosed to them our own NSA spying in China. 

We will discuss these two points and the issues with them next:

First, Mr. Snowden knew of the NSA spying program way back in 2006, did he come forward then? No! He made a political decision to withhold the data he had collected until after George W. Bush left office. He has stated he hoped things might change at the NSA under the Obama administration. When this didn't happen he exposed it. 

The issue with this is he waited for 6 years because he supported the Bush Administration and he thought he could use this information, collected in 2006, to take down a political figure he never supported. So the US masses had to wait until he felt he could make a political gain with his stolen information.

Second, it has been reported by many news outlets that Mr. Snowden has given China information on NSA spying in that nation according to Chinese officials. It has been reported he has told them about how and where we have hacked their systems and when we did said hacking according to these reports. If this is the case does that change his hero status? If he is giving other nations our national secrets even if it is not treason he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

In the end, sure Mr. Snowden did the nation well by informing the US population they were being spied on by its own government, but to be handing out our national intelligence secrets to nations like China and Russia is simply UN-American and a crime.


Ted Cruz for President! Oh Wait!

Ted Cruz freshman senator has made waves on the right. He appeals to a large number of conservatives and is fully supported by the Tea Party. Recently it was revealed he may run for President of the United States. There is only one problem, he was born In Canada. This, unlike Barack Obama's birth brings up a real question of constitutionality of Cruz's potential candidacy.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." from Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution 

Article II of the U.S. Constitution says one must be a "natural Born" citizen in order to run for the office of President of the United States. It has been mentioned that no court has ever ruled what is meant by "natural born". Without a ruling we are left to use logic to to see it means you must be born within the borders of the United States or it territories. Hence the reason John McCain was able to run for President in 2008 as he was born on a U.S. military base. With that where does that leave Ted Cruz ? It should leave him out of any race for President of the United States.

He claims since his mother was an American he can run, but this appears to violate the constitution. Many "birthers" have been attacking our current President for their unsubstantiated claims that Mr. Obama was born in Kenya even after he released his birth certificate, both short and long form. Do you do hear this same outrage when it comes to Ted Cruz from these same "birther"  groups? The answer is no.

The "birther" groups are staying quiet for the simple fact that Cruz is one of theirs, much for the same reason liberal groups all but ignored the question of Obama meeting the constitutional requirement of being born in the United States in 2008.

Is it hypocritical of "birther" groups to not go after Cruz for the same things they have been using to falsely attack President Obama? 

Liberals are even staying quiet on this issue for their own reasons as well. Liberal groups are ignoring this because they feel it will give the democrat in the 2016 race a leg up on the republican competitor. The thought is Cruz will pull the republican ticket far to the right and out of the mainstream of the voting public. 

Many liberal and conservative sites will continue to ignore the fact Ted Cruz is not a "natural born" citizen, Fresh Political View will not. We will continue to to cover this potential Constitutional violation.  


Jake's Take: Food Stamp Cuts

Jake's Take: Food Stamp Cuts

How many of you rely on SNAP benefits to feed your families? If you are one of the 40 million Americans that need this program to feed your kids and yourself you need to know your very benefits are under attack.

The GOP in the US House are aiming to cut yet another $20 billion from the program. This will lead to a cut of about $90 a month for a family of 4 at last check.

The SNAP program has seen relentless attacks and cuts since the TEA Party takeover in 2010 in the house. These cuts are real cuts that real Americans feel and they are unacceptable. At a time when congress is cutting funds for school lunch programs families can not provide their kids with nutritious foods for all 3 meals of the day without this program.

Sure there are some freeloaders milking the system, but a majority of those on SNAP are hard working Americans who through no fault of their own do not get paid enough to cover rent, bills, kids needs and food. So what effects could this have on the rest of the nation?

First and foremost is families will be forced to buy foods that are not healthy to make up for the lack of benefits. This could lead to an even larger obesity epidemic, which in turn will exacerbate  a growing diabetes epidemic in this nation.

Then there are the economic impacts of cuts to this program. Many poor and middle class Americans rely on this program as their sole way of feeding their families. So by cutting the program even further, it will decrease not only their families nutrition but also their buying power as consumers. So in the long run it will have devastating effects on our overall economy. 
No one would say there are not any cases of fraud in the program. This should be addressed by state and federal officials to find the best way to cut waste from the system without cutting benefits to the individuals on the program.

In the long run it would be more beneficial to health care cost and the overall economy of America to fully fund the program and then focus of the real cause of the need for the program. A minimum wage that has not kept up with inflation. 


"Morally Broken"

Should we let disgraced politicians back into public office, whether it be adultery or some other political scandal? How do family value republicans in South Carolina let a man back into the party after he has made a joke of what they call "the sanctity of marriage" and violated the public trust. Will democrats support Anthony Weiner in his political return.

This seems to be an area that democrats and republicans fail to make any sense. In 1998 the GOP and its supporters went after Bill Clinton for an affair and the democrats took a "who cares who he is sleeping with" take on the subject.

It appears as of late the tables have turned now if a democrat is caught having an affair or even simply tweeting pictures of themselves in their "tighty whiteys" are cast out of the party such as Anthony Weiner and his twitter scandal a few years back. Now Mr. Weiner is running for Mayor of NYC. It is yet to been seen if voters welcome him back with open arms.

Meanwhile, GOP and evangelical voters seem to embrace their "morally broken" politicians. As with the recent resurgence of former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford. Who took a trip to Argentina to carry on an affair with his South American lover on the taxpayers dime. . All the while lying to the folks in his state about why he missed work for so many days.

So I guess the question is where does one draw the line on what we expect our leaders to be as it pertains to their moral character?


Monsanto, GMOs and World War III

Imagine a world where The United States and Russia were both at war with each other, and have sparked World War III. The death and destruction is catastrophic the world over. Then think about how it could have been avoided by our United States Government.

Take a moment and contemplate this very scenario, what comes to mind? The Syrian conflict or a fight over global oil supplies? Anything else come to mind?

The one issue that could easily led a third World War is not listed above. The culprit could and most likely will be an evil our own government supports without most Americans knowing the truth about it. This evil is known as Monsanto. 

Fresh Political View has reported on this evil in the past, but with recent events like the NSA scandal and The now escalating situation in Syria plastered on the mainstream media FPV feels this story is getting lost in the mix.

With the passing of the Monsanto Protection Act by the US Congress and President Obama, it is clear our government supports this evil Multinational Corporation. 

This is easily being done as many Americans do not know or care about the business of Genetically Modified Organisms(GMOs). These GMOs are not being made simply to strengthen these plants to survive in harsh climates. They are also being created so they can withstand Agent Orange or similar chemicals used for pesticides that are known to cause cancer in humans as well. Oh, did you think Monsanto was solely a seed company think again. Monsanto is a chemical company which sells herbicides and pesticides such as
Round-Up weed killer and also sells to farmers. Does that seem like a conflict of interest? Lets take a quick and see.

In one case Monsanto went into India to sell their seeds for this and that and reportedly said their pesticides and herbicides were perfectly safe for the environment and crops. That is where the possible conflict of interest comes into play. After the farmers used their seeds and chemicals from Monsanto they are now trapped using Monsanto seeds and no other seeds will survive the chemicals in the soil. So now you must be thinking "so" just use the seeds from Monsanto. It gets worse.

By doing this Monsanto is forcing farmers to buy their product, thus reducing the Genetic Variety of given plants we need for food to live. The smaller the genetic pool the more likely one bug or condition in the weather could cause worldwide famine. Then there is the quality of the produce after it grown.

Have you ever been in a store and thought "I'd really love some corn on the cob" but you look at the corn and it is all deformed? Much of that is caused by the changes made to the genetic makeup of the seeds. Okay so now you are back to "so" just don't buy it. Okay so for fresh corn that may be easy, then again not all GMO corn is deformed. Then there is canned corn and frozen corn, what about that? 

The cans and bags do not tell you if they are from GMOs. Lets not forget everything made with corn. Corn Syrup, corn meal. Corn starch. GMO corn is in everything folks. Corn chips, corn tortillas the list goes for miles yet folks do not think twice. There are many other GMO foods out there that also have no label as the law does not require one. 

Studies have shown links to increased cancer risk. Caused the Monsanto's herbicides and pesticides as these chemicals seep into our produce as it sucks up nutrients from the soil. Not to mention the run off of these chemicals get into our drinking water and overall environment. Most of Europe has banned Monsanto as recent test show Monsanto chemicals in the urine of many Europeans.These deadly pollutants wreak havoc on our ecosystems as well. This takes us back to the connection of Monsanto and World War III.

Honey bee

At issue is this the chemicals contained in the pesticides and herbicides are causing worldwide bee die offs. Fewer bees is not good for farmers as without them plants do not get pollinated thus lowering yields and this could even in the long run kill so many bees that plants could start to die worldwide.

"Honey bees play a large role in the nation’s agricultural industry. An estimated one-third of all food and beverages are made possible by pollination, mainly be honey bees, according to the USDA. In the U.S., pollination contributes to crop production worth $20 to $30 billion in agricultural production annually." -Minnesota farm Guide

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been very vocal as of late about the US government's involvement with Monsanto. Goes as far as to reportedly say, according to Russia Today, if the US keeps down its current path it will inevitably lead to a Third World War. Now could Russia use the Syrian conflict to its advantage and use it to justify war sure, But their leader has made it clear that our governments support of Monsanto will lead to war. 

When the government is leaking scandal after scandal keep your eyes open as they most likely are playing a ball under the cup game so you do not see what is really going on. Here at FPV we will keeping covering this as the Mainstream Media seems to refuse to cover it. So stay connected with FPV via our Facebook page or our twitter @FPVblog. 



US Supreme Court bans protesting?

"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" - First Amendment

On Thursday the US Supreme Court banned the American people from protesting in or on the grounds of the Court. This flies right in the face of our first Amendment rights of free speech and the right to peacefully assemble. 

The regulation states:

"No person shall engage in a demonstration within the Supreme Court building and grounds. The term “demonstration” includes demonstrations, picketing, speechmaking, marching, holding vigils or religious services and all other like forms of conduct that involve the communication or expression of views or grievances, engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which is reasonably likely to draw a crowd or onlookers. The term does not include casual use by visitors or tourists that is not reasonably likely to attract a crowd or onlookers."

This regulation was suggested by the Marshal of the Court and approved by Chief Justice John Roberts and is in effect as of yesterday June 13, 2013.

The official stance of Fresh Political View on the issue you is simply this:

Here are Fresh Political View we fully support our First Amendment rights and feel this to be an outrageous attack on these rights. This decision goes too far and We the People Should demand a change in this policy.


Obama directing the IRS?

As we continue to wade through some of the most recent "scandals" the most concerning to Americans is the IRS reportedly targeting conservative groups. It has been suggested that this is a sign of a government run amuck and out of control. Sen. Ted Cruz has even called for the abolishment of the IRS. Is this most recent "scandal" really a "scandal" or simply a story thrown out of proportion? Lets take a closer look at the facts before you make a decision on this "scandal."

A History lesson: 
Before the 1950's 501(c)4's were required to be exclusively to better the social welfare of a community or the nation. This was to prevent these organizations from using their tax free funds to influence elections.This was changed under President Ike from exclusively to primarily to promote social welfare. Thus, allowing these groups to use their funds to make political ads and donations to candidates without having to identify who it's donors were. Citizens United made this even worse by allowing these same groups to give unlimited funds to candidates.

The Facts:
Between 2010 and 2012 according to the IG report the IRS used inappropriate methods to scrutinize some filings for 504(c)4 status. These were mostly filings by conservative groups that used the names Tea Party, Tea Party Patriots or Patriots among others. These groups specifically were asked for information no other groups needed to supply. They were asked for things such as what kind of prayers said by the groups and all past and current donors among others. Also, many applications had been needlessly delayed, some up to three years due to a lack of assistance from the Exempt Organizations function Headquarters office. The IG report does say there was wrongdoing on the part of the IRS and suggested a number of things to correct these issues, but does not suggest anyone from outside the organization was involved. This has recently been confirmed by the man who was head of the IRS at the time and until late 2012, Douglas Shulman who happens to be a staunch conservative. He stated that the White House was in no way directing this activity. 

Based on on the facts to this point and the fact the US Representative Darrell Issa(R-Calif.) has been caught lying about the interviews held with Mr. Shulman, it would seem the folks who want to tie Mr. Obama to this are out of luck for the time being. At this point there appears no "scandal" except for the wrongdoing within the IRS. Now things can always change and if they do Fresh Political View will there to cover it. 

Jake's Take: Conservatives the NSA and Hypocrisy

Jake's Take: Conservatives the NSA and Hypocrisy

"Jake's Take" is a Fresh Political View OP-ED if you want to write an OP-ED please contact us at

Foreword: This is in no way a defense of President Obama or an attack on President Bush.

Funny thing about conservatives they seem to feel things that were okay under the Bush administration, should now be considered impeachable offenses for the current administration. The hypocrisy of the Republican Party knows no bounds. In 2001 the Patriot Act was passed under the guise of national security. Anyone who did not support this law was cast out as a communist, a terrorist, un-American and told in no uncertain terms "Love It or Leave It."

Now the very conservatives who supported the patriot act and the warrant-less wiretapping etcetera of the Bush administration are calling for the impeachment of a President who was simply following the same policy as George W. Bush for the exact same reason. Both were following this policy to prevent terror attacks with every legal means at their disposal.  

The fact is after the 9/11 attacks we as Americans were too scared to care what civil liberties were being trampled in an effort to protect us from another terrorist attack. Now conservatives are calling it tyranny, oppression and corruption. 

The fact is Mr. Obama should have put an end this if he really was about change in Washington. In the end he did not and that is on him, but for for conservatives to come out to attack him for a policy they supported no more than 10 years ago and when it was renewed in 2010 is absolutely hypocritical and beyond belief.

I find it good to see Americans waking up and realizing this is no longer a valid solution to dealing with our fears of terrorism, but we need to direct the anger of the "NSA scandal" at the real problem the Patriot Act. If you feel this spying program is a violation of your Civil Rights, please call your congressional  representative and demand the repeal of the Patriot Act.


Thank you readers of Fresh Political View

Fresh Political View would like to thank everyone who reads the blog. We just had our biggest month yet according to google analytics. In the last month we have had over 1,300 pages views by over 130 unique viewers. This is up from 800 page views from 35 unique viewers. Thank you all and keep checking back at 

The Obama Administration goes after AP, Fox News.

In recent weeks the Department of Justice and the Obama Administration have been met with fierce criticism from all sides in their collection of phone records from the Associated Press as well as Fox News. According to the DOJ and the Obama administration these records were subpoenaed in search of finding a government leak in two different stories one by the AP and the other by a Fox News journalist. In total, records for at least 30 different phone numbers were obtained according to reports based on court records.

Both leak investigations were sparked by stories that had national security ramifications. One by Fox News journalist James Rosen over the North Korean nuclear program. The other about an active CIA intelligence operation in Yemen that led to the operation ending weeks before it was planned to end.

Without getting into an in depth analysis of each story lets take a look at the criticisms and their validity, as well as how this was able to happen in the first place.

Many in the world of journalism say the DOJ and the Obama Administration have gone way too far in their attempt to stop leaks coming from within the government. Many see this as a sign that our government has too much power and feel these cases have trampled on the right of a free press enshrined in our Bill of Rights. Also, many journalist say acts such as wiretapping and using subpoenas to collect phone records inhibits their ability to assure that their sources will not be compromised.  These criticisms seem valid and justified in this case. 

How did this happened in the first place?
The Obama administration has gone to far, not in terms of the law but in terms of public opinion. The law at the federal level does not prevent these kinds of actions when they pertain to national security. Also, this is not the first time this has been done by an administration, just the first time on such a large scale. This is in no way a justification, just proof this is an ongoing issue we must address.

What really is scandalous in the fact the President Obama has, in the past, said that journalist deserve and need protection from these kinds of actions by the federal government and its different agencies. Even pressed congress to pass a federal law protecting journalist from this. Yet, still lets his administration do the same thing he says we need to protect journalist from. Just because it is not against the law does not make it right.

In many states there are laws protecting journalist from the state government from obtaining their phone or other records in this manner. Some states may even require a court hearing. At the federal level there is no law extending this protection to journalist and if it is a matter of national security you can bet your dollar the federal government will be looking at your records. So it would appear that "We the People," the folks who should be running America, have decided, with good reason. this administration has gone to far on this issue and demand action to prevent it happening again.

If you feel this needs to be changed and should be prevented in the future, Senator Chuck Schumer plans to introduce just this kind of legislation to the Senate floor soon. So if you support a truly free press please contact your US House Rep. as well as your Senators and demand action now!


Misplaced Outrage: Marines lose a hot meal!

Recently a decision made by the Marine Corps involving hot meals for the Marines stationed at Camp Leatherneck set off a firestorm of controversy from the left and right. Many Marines stationed at Camp Leatherneck and their families back in the U.S. are angry at this change and rightfully so. 

"This boils my skin. One of my entire shifts will go 6.5 hours without a meal. If we need to cut back on money I could come up with 100 other places... Instead, we will target the biggest contributor to morale. I must be losing my mind. What is our senior leadership thinking? I just got back from flying my ass off and in a few days, I will not have a meal to replenish me after being away for over 9 hours.” Said one Camp Leatherneck based Marine in an email shared to NBC News, he chose to stay off the record.

Many conservatives are trying to pin all the blame on President Obama and even liberals appear up in arms over these changes, but before one goes placing blame where it may not belong lets take a look at the facts.

As of June 1, 2013 some Marines at Camp leatherneck will be forced to skip breakfast while others would have to go without a hot meal. This is been done as part of the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan. Later this year around 30,000 U.S. troops in total will leave Afghanistan and returned home as the U.S. hands over security responsibilities to the Afghan government.

Starting June 1, 2013 the Marines will go from four daily meals to just three and later this year to just two meals. Many think that this is some evil plan to present Obama to starve or in adequately feed our Marines. This is not the case this a the decision that was made by the Marine Corps as part of their way of dealing with the shrinking number of troops stationed at Camp leatherneck currently and the ever shrinking number over the next several months.
According to the Marine Corps each meal that Marines lose as a result of the drawdown will be replaced by a prepackaged meal ready-to-eat also known as an MRE.

“Any time a dining hall meal is eliminated it will be replaced from a plentiful stock of MREs (Meals Ready to Eat — or any one of several creative acronyms our Marines have come up with.)” Marine Corps Lt. Col. Cliff Gilmore said.
So for those who want to make a political issue where there is none this may be the story for you.

The Marine Corps Lt. Col. Cliff Gilmore also said in an e-mail to NBC News that this is about the drawdown of troops in Afghanistan and he does not mention that this had anything to do with the sequestration law that went into effect earlier this year.

“The fact is our force in Afghanistan is shrinking fast and all the creature comforts and services deployed military-members have grown accustomed to over the past decade are going to be reduced" Gilmore wrote in his email to NBC News.

So really the only way that this could in anyway be the fault of the President of the United States would be to blame him for the drawdown in the first place. Thus, leaving our troops in harm's way well after their mission has been accomplished. It is not likely that the American people will support much longer of our young men and women of our military being killed in almost monthly attacks by the same group of people they are training to defend themselves.

Now the question should be not how can we blame the president but why did the Marine Corps make the choice to drawdown the way they did. According to Gilmore the Marine Corps needed to start phasing out the people responsible for what they call the midnight rations service.

The "midrats," as they are also known, provide breakfast to Marines who work the midnight to noon shift and a meal to those returning from the noon to midnight shift. These same people are also responsible for the 24-hour sandwich bar that will apparently go away on June 1 as well. This is due to the fact that these people need to be out before the mass exodus of our troops from the base.

The outrage at this is completely understandable and justified. Unfortunately, this is how the Marine Corps chose to deal with this, not necessarily the president of the United States, who I am sure is aware of the decision the Marine Corps have made and should suggest they find another solution. The truth is the Marine Corps could have chose another path for the drawdown that possibly would not of been as much of a drag on morale as taking away a hot meal, a hot meal that in fact for many Marines is the only hot meal they get in a day.

A group of concerned military wives and family members have started a drive to send non-perishable food items to the Marines and other Armed forces on bases including Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan. If you're concerned about the health and nutrition of the food that will be left for our troops during the drawdown these wives and family members have also set up a Facebook page to send these food items to the troops. If you can, please help these people get food better than MRE's to our troops. Also, call your congressman and even write the President to push for a better solution. Our Marines are known for their toughness and their unwavering support in protecting our freedoms, they deserve better.

Blog Archive

Total Pageviews