About the Common Constitutionalist

Brent, aka The Common Constitutionalist, is a Constitutional Conservative, and advocates for first principles, founders original intent and enemy of progressives. He is former Navy, Martial Arts expert. As well as publisher of the Common Constitutionalist blog, he also is a contributing writer for Political Outcast, Godfather Politics, Minute Men News (Liberty Alliance), Freedom Outpost, the Daily Caller, Vision To America and Free Republic. He also writes an exclusive weekly column for World Net Daily (WND).

Joke du Jour

A couple drove several miles down a country road, not saying a word.

An earlier discussion had led to an argument, and neither wanted to concede their position.

As they passed a barnyard of mules and pigs, the wife sarcastically asked, “relatives of yours?”

“Yep,” the husband replied, “In-laws.”

I Can See You

Google wowed the world this week with its Project Glass computer glasses – but the U.S. Army is investing in a technology one step ahead.

The Pentagon has placed an order with Innovega for lenses which focus 3D battlefield information from drones and satellites directly into people’s eyeballs.

The tiny ‘screens’ sit directly on users’ eyeballs and work with a pair of lightweight glasses with a built-in translucent screen.

The experience is equivalent to a 240-inch television viewed at a distance of 10 feet, says Innovega’s CEO Steve Willey.

‘Warfighters need to maintain their full vision while on the battlefield,’ says the company. ‘At the same time a tremendous amount of data, graphics and video are collected and are required by specific warfighters in the field.

‘Some is generated from remote cameras, drones, or satellites. Fully transparent video eyewear that is configured into standard issue field glasses would constitute an important step forward. Innovega is actively in partnership to develop this application.’

Crucially, the devices can be worn while moving about – previous bulky ‘VR headsets’ have blindfolded their users and can only be used sitting down.

The effect could be similar to the lenses worn by Tom Cruise in Minority Report.

DARPA – the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, thought of as the American military’s ‘mad scientist’ wing – has been funding research on ‘soldier mounted displays’ for some time, but previous versions have been bulky.

The lenses, made with nano-scale engineering processes,work as a hi-tech focusing device, which allows Innovega’s glasses to be considerably less bulky than previous devices.

The lenses themselves require no power, and thus can sit safely on the eyeball.

DARPA projects are often oddball technology, but it also has a history of far-sighted technological leaps.

DARPA invented the first virtual reality devices, and one of the precursors of the modern internet.

DARPA Says, ‘Innovega’s iOptiks are contact lenses that enhance normal vision by allowing a wearer to view virtual and augmented reality images without the need for bulky apparatus. ‘

 ‘Instead of oversized virtual reality helmets, digital images are projected onto tiny full-color displays that are very near the eye.’

These novel contact lenses allow users to focus simultaneously on objects that are close up and far away.’

Attribution: Daily Mail

Obama hearts the Second Amendment

The Obama camp, including the media, wasted no time trying to burnish President Obama’s Second Amendment credentials after Mitt Romney told a crowd at the National Rifle Association that the president was not protecting gun owners’ rights.

“We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners,” Romney said at the St. Louis convention. “President Obama has not. I will.”

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the president’s record “makes clear the he supports and respects the Second Amendment, and we’ll fight back against any attempts to mislead voters.”

The Associated Press jumped to Obama’s defense with a story that countered Romney’s words with statements such as “the topic has rarely arisen during (Obama’s) time in office.”

It’s the sort of reportorial assertion that masquerades as balance but is more likely to appear in a story about a GOP member slamming the president than vice versa.

Romney does have a changeable record on gun rights, having said in 1994, “I don’t line up with the NRA,” then becoming an NRA member a decade later. But at least his history moves in the right direction.

Obama’s camp seems to be promoting the thesis that because the president hasn’t pushed for outrageous limits on guns that he therefore is some sort of Second Amendment champion. The more likely truth is that he knows congressional resistance from Republicans is strong.

As is often the case with Obama, to discern his real position on gun issues, it’s useful to look at the people around him. Since taking office, the president has appointed a number of anti-gun zealots to high office, such as Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Then there’s the Big Daddy of the anti-gun crowd, Eric Holder, who once talked about having to “brainwash” the public into being against guns, yet administered the Fast and Furious operation that put powerful U.S.-made weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.Romney also brought up a good point at the NRA conference, raising the question of President Obama’s recent open-mic comments to the Russian President Medvedev.

“In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of re-election,” Romney said. “As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a re-election he’ll have a lot more, quote, ‘flexibility’ to do what he wants. I’m not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea.”

It’s not a minor point, especially with Obama’s recent executive order allowing him to declare martial law in peacetime without approval of Congress.

Attribution: Tad Cronn

Tanks Alot

From The Stuff that Intrerests Me Blog:

A while back I posted a pic of an American Sherman tank that had been upended by an explosion. A point of interest was that the tank was in the service of the Russians and part of the massive lend-lease program where the US and Britain supplied massive quantities of arms and armaments to Soviet Russia. Approximately 2000 M4 Shermans (75 mm gun) were supplied to the Russians. Frankly, that’s a lot of tanks. If memory serves me right an American Armored Division had roughly 200 medium and light tanks. This means, just counting the Shermans alone the US gave the Soviets enough tanks to initially equip the equivalent of ten divisions!

Why so generous you may ask? Why be so generous to Soviet, Communist Russia under Stalin, a man whose crimes were rivalled only by Hitler.

Most folks do not know or remember that Soviet Russia fought a war of aggression against tiny Finland in 1940 and make a pact with Hitler to divide Poland in 1939. Britain and France declared war on Germany for the Polish invasion but not Soviet Russia who invaded that poor country almost at the same time the Germans did.

So, why help Soviet Russia in 1941 when it’s clear that Stalin was as bad as Hitler if not worse, if you can imagine what worse would look like.

On June 22nd the Germans did invade Russian occupied Poland and then Russia itself. It’s possible they simply beat the Russians to the first punch. Soviet Russia had concentrated massive armies in the Ukraine. They had many more men and tanks in that area than they had along the Minsk-Smolensk highway that led to Moscow. You’d think if they were thinking defensively that most of their armies would be along the more direct route to their capital. They were not.

Some historians believe the Soviet Armies were in the Ukraine because they had ambitions on Romania, a German ally, but also a nation that disputed Russia’s claim to Moldova and Bessarabia, areas that contained many ethnic Romanians.

In any event, the Germans struck first and within two months of fighting, much of it along the Minsk-Smolensk highway , the Germans had inflicted millions of casualties on the Russians and destroyed a significant part of the Soviet tank force. By the end of November 1941 the Germans were in sight of Moscow and the Soviet government was near collapse.

The US did not enter the war until December, 1941 but had been giving Great Britain lend-lease aid almost from the beginning of the war in 1939. When Germany invaded Russia in June, 1941 the US also began lend-lease to Russia although still not formally in the war. In another way this was odd. Roosevelt was committed to Britain and it was only a matter of time before the US formally joined the war. The attack on Pearl Harbor just hastened the decision. Therefore, prior to the formal declaration of war the US was in the process of equipping its own divisions. So, when it came to lend-lease the US was sending Russia equipment at the expense of our own forming divisions.

Which brings me back to the initial question. Why help Stalin?

It was a pragmatic decision along the lines of the “enemy of my enemy is my friend.” War produces strange bed fellows that often get along well enough to defeat a common foe even though the reality is they hate their allies almost as much as their enemies.

Having said that there really was a better pragmatic reason to help Soviet Russia. The vast bulk of the German Army was in Russia. Should Russia surrender the bulk of the German Army could be transferred to the West. One American General remarked that if Russia failed it would debatable if the USA and GB could win. He didn’t think we’d lose. He just thought it would be difficult to win in a decisive way should Russia be taken out and the western allies had to face the bulk of the German Army. Fortress Europe just might have proven impossible to breach.

By December, 1941 it did look as if Russia just might collapse. It was around this time that Russia started to receive substantial numbers of American and British tanks.
Pictured left is an American light tank-the M3 Stuart and a medium tank-the M2 Lee in Russian service. The Stuart by all accounts was a great light tank. It was fast and it had a 37mm main gun which was not terrible in those early years of the war. The British loved their Stuarts and used them in North Africa against Rommel where they were called “Honeys.”

The M2 Lee was a different animal. It had the same 37mm gun the Stuart had but it was mounted on top of the turret. The Lee’s main weapon was a 75mm gun mounted in the hull which meant it had a limited traverse. At the time, it was the best the US had to offer since the Sherman had not yet produced in large numbers. The British used the Lee/Grant (M3) in North Africa too (as we did in late 1942 when we invaded N. Africa).

The LeeGrant was not popular and inferior to the German Pz IVf2 and upgraded PZ IIIm’s the Germans fielded in N. Africa. One officer complaining about the Lee’s very high-profile remarked that it looked like a cathedral coming down the road.

The Russians did not think much of them either but they were comparing them to their own excellent T-34. However, in the fall/winter of 1941-42 the Russians were desperate and they gladly received the Lee’s, the Stuarts and the British Matilda’s that were sent to them.

The Russians launched a winter offensive in December 1941 than continued through February, 1942. For much of the time the weather was blizzard or the temperature dropped to below 25 degrees Fahrenheit (or worse). The Germans planned to knock Russia out by the winter and were woefully unprepared for the Russian offensive and the weather and were pushed back a significant distance from Moscow. Stalin got the reprieve he needed to survive.

The lend-lease American and British tanks did not win the war for Soviet Russia but they did contribute in keeping Russia in the war and that’s what lend-lease was ultimately all about.

Joke of the Day

Actual Newspaper Headlines:

Red Tape Holds Up New Bridge

Police Begin Campaign to Run Down Jaywalkers

Squad Helps Dog Bite Victim

Enraged Cow Injures Farmer with Ax

Checkout Counter Killer Sentenced to Die for Second Time in 10 Years

If Strike isn’t Settled Quickly, It May Last a While

Cold Wave Linked to Temperatures

Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

Typhoon Rips Through Cemetery; Hundreds Dead

New Study of Obesity Looks for Larger Test Group

British Union Finds Dwarfs in Short Supply

Local High School Dropouts Cut in Half

Hospitals are Sued by 7 Foot Doctors

Some Pieces of Rock Hudson Sold at Auction

Sex Education Delayed, Teachers Request Training

Man Minus Ear Waives Hearing

Deaf College Opens Doors to Hearing

Random Act of Journalism

If you’ve never encountered such a thing, behold an actual journalist. I don’t know where Larry is now? Maybe he’s unemployed, shamed and outcast by his peers. His peers. You know, the real journalists that might ask the president what type of tree he would be, or “Mr. President, could you explain what makes you so wonderful?” Maybe Larry is still employed…for now, but he should soon be looking out for the black helicopters to swoop down & carry him away to be reeducated.

It’s sad that this, not much more than a minute clip, is so unique. I guess we’ll take it where we can get it.

Above Average

A four-year-old girl has been accepted into Mensa with an IQ almost as high as Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstein.

Brainy Heidi Hankins – who hasn’t even started school yet – sat an IQ test after staff at her nursery said she was so intelligent they were struggling to find activities to challenge her.

The exceptional youngster wowed examiners with an impressive score of 159. The average score for an adult is 100 and for ‘gifted’ individuals is 130.

She beats TV mathematician Carol Vorderman (score 154), also a member of Mensa and is only slightly behind Big Bang scientist Stephen Hawking and legendary physicist Albert Einstein both with IQs of160.

At two-years-old Heidi could already count to 40, add and subtract, Read after teaching herself using the family computer recite the poem The Owl and The Pussycat by Edward Lear.

Heidi draw figures and write in sentences – was reading books for seven year olds when she was just two.

The test she took, is specifically designed fro children her age and contains a mixture of problem-solving puzzles and word games.

Heidi’s father, Matthew, from Winchester, Hants, England hopes she can now skip a school year to ensure she is adequately challenged.

The University of Southampton public health lecturer, 46, added: ‘We always thought Heidi was bright because she was reading early.

‘I was curious about her IQ and the results were off the scale. I got her the complete set of the Oxford Reading Tree books when she was two and she read through the whole set of 30 in about an hour.

‘It’s what you would expect a seven-year-old to do.

Attribution: Mail Online


Dear Tide:

I am writing to say what an excellent product you have! I’ve used it all of  my married life, as my Mom always told me it was the best.  Now that
I am in my fifties I find it even better!  

In fact, about a month ago, I spilled some red wine on my new white blouse. My inconsiderate and uncaring husband started to belittle me about how clumsy I was, and generally started becoming a pain in the neck.  One thing led to another and somehow I ended up with his blood on my new white blouse!  I grabbed my bottle of Tide with bleach alternative, to my surprise and satisfaction, all of the stains came out!

In fact, the stains came out so well the detectives who came by yesterday told me that the DNA tests on my blouse were negative and then my attorney called and said that I was no longer considered a suspect in the disappearance of my husband.

What a relief!  Going through menopause is bad enough without being a murder suspect!  I thank you, once again, for having a great product.

Well, gotta go, have to write to the Hefty bag people.