A Celebration of Soldiers

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Memorial Day, originally known as Decoration Day began after the Civil War. It is a time to reflect and remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. Frankly they should be honored more than once a year. Decoration day was established on May 5, 1868. It was so named as a time to “decorate” soldiers graves with flowers.

“The Grand Army of the Republic”, an organization of Union Army veterans established it.

So this Memorial Day, go to a parade, attended a military Memorial ceremony, lay some flowers at the foot of a soldier’s grave and seek out and thank a veteran or active duty military man or woman for their service (although this should be a regular function of your day).

There have been many Memorial Day events but the most memorable in recent history was an event hosted by none other than President Richard Nixon. read more

The Human Toll of Terror

By: the Common Constitutionalist

Regarding all the terrorism around the world, and particularly in the Middle East, it’s getting increasingly easy to become frustrated to the point of saying, just carpet bomb the whole region and be done with them all. Maybe we haven’t come out and said it, but most of us have at least thought it, Operation_Linebacker_II_bomber_plane_B-52_Stratofortresseven in passing.

It would be an easy thing to do – like in 1972, when President Nixon green lighted Operation Linebacker II. The massive 11 day air attack on the Hanoi area of North Vietnam was prompted by North Vietnamese negotiators walking out of secret talks with National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger. Nixon issued an ultimatum to Hanoi to send its representatives back to the conference table within 72 hours “or else.”

Or else what? Or else he’d do what he said he would. A real “man of his word,” relative to the petulant child currently (sometimes) residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. Just ask the Iranians about Obama’s word, or ultimatums.

Well, the North Vietnamese didn’t return, and bombing began just days later. Over just an 11 day period, B-52s and fighter bombers flew 1700 sorties and dropped over 20,000 tons of bombs. This was carpet bombing, using dumb bombs, purposely utilized to inflict damage, pain and suffering. It had the desired effect.

This is not a critique, for or against the Vietnam War. It is just to demonstrate that with the will, it can be done. read more

DDT Ban Kills

from: Ed Hiserodt and Rebecca Terrell

 

Worldwide, more than 2,700 people will die today because of a bureaucratic regulation instituted during the Nixon administration in 1972. The same number died yesterday and will again tomorrow, in an ever-growing tally of victims of that catastrophic policy. The regulation imposed by Nixon’s newly formed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned DDT, an insecticide that had until then saved the lives of countless U.S. citizens. Leaders in Europe and the United Nations followed suit in a frenzy of misguided environmental zeal and bloodthirsty population control fervor.

“European nations and the United States used insecticides to rid themselves of disease and then pulled up the ladder, denying Africans, Asians and Latin Americans the benefits of those same insecticides,” explain Dr. Donald Roberts and Richard Tren in their 2010 exposé, The Excellent Powder: DDT’s Political and Scientific History. Wealthy nations merit this accusation because before the advent of DDT, parasitic diseases like malaria, typhus, and yellow fever had plagued their own shores for centuries. These infections are known as vector-borne diseases because insects (i.e., vectors) carry disease-causing parasites from person to person.

When DDT first came into use as a pesticide, many called it miraculous, which was hardly an exaggeration considered in perspective. Until then, yellow fever claimed so many lives it was known in the United States as the “Scourge of the South.” The French abandoned efforts in the 1880s to construct the Panama Canal because malaria killed so many workers. Typhus, the disease that took the life of diarist Anne Frank, was once feared as deadlier than any weapon of war in Europe. Yet in a period of three weeks in 1943, DDT wiped out one of history’s deadliest typhus outbreaks in Naples, Italy. In fact DDT’s effectiveness has made all these disease names as antiquated to our ears as scurvy and the plague.

Not so for unfortunates in developing countries. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), globally malaria kills approximately one million people every year, more than any other parasitic infection. Most victims are young children in sub-Saharan Africa. Names like typhus, yellow fever, leishmaniasis, dengue fever, and bancroftian filariasis are likewise too familiar to hundreds of thousands of those affected in Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East.

DDT’s life-saving properties are lost to them because the EPA’s 1972 ban sparked a global censure of the pesticide. The UN Environment Programme (UNEP) now classifies it as one of 12 “Persistent Organic Pollutants” (POPs), otherwise known as “The Dirty Dozen.” UNEP claims DDT is a danger to humans and the environment. Yet a closer look at the case reveals a terrifying reality: saving lives isn’t what policymakers are after.

Benghazigate vs Watergate

The Nixon Tapes (Watergate) v. the Obama Tapes (Benghazi)

by:

Many of you are too young to remember the Watergate Hearings. They were on TV  all day, every day. The Democrats wanted to rub our faces in the scandal. After  President Nixon’s resignation, Vice-President Gerald Ford pardoned the former  president. This didn’t sit well with the American people. In the end, we got  Jimmy Carter.

The June 1972 break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at  the Watergate office complex in Washington, D.C., was covered up by the Nixon  administration. The scandal eventually led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon on August 9, 1974. The scandal also resulted in the indictment, trial, conviction, and imprisonment of 43 people, including dozens of Nixon’s  top administration officials.

In July 1973, as evidence mounted against the president’s staff about the break-in at the Democratic headquarters, it was revealed that President Nixon had recorded many conversations in his office. Recordings from these tapes implicated the president, revealing he had attempted to cover up the break-in.  Before long, and after a lot of legal stonewalling from the Nixon Administration, the Supreme Court ruled that the president had to hand over the tapes to government investigators; he ultimately complied.

Now it seems that there are Obama tapes of the Benghazi attacks. Will they be released, or will Obama and Co. stonewall through the courts to keep them under wraps arguing Executive Privilege, Separation of Powers, and Checks and Balances  like Nixon did?

Here’s the latest from Fox News:

Sean  Hannity was debating liberal Juan Williams Tuesday on the Benghazi massacre.  Hannity revealed this on the audio tapes of Tyrone Woods begging for air support on 9-11, “My sources tell me they’re pretty damning, Juan. They’re begging for help.”

Tyrone Woods was screaming for air support and Barack Obama did nothing. Then he lied about it.

Hannity later said there are three tapes the Obama administration is holding onto including audio of Tyrone Woods begging for air support.

Will the press in 2012 be as relentless as the press was in 1973 and 1974  when it reported on Watergate, the tapes, and Nixon not making the tapes available?

Will we find portions of the Benghazi tapes erased like the infamous 18½  minute erasure in one of the tapes that some people speculate had recorded  incriminating information?

The media have been protecting President Obama for nearly four years. If a Republican President were in office, the media would be in attack mode. So far,  President Obama is not worried because his media friends have lost their  journalistic fire. Truth no longer matters to them.

Update by the Common Constitutionalist:

Glenn Beck reports the he has extremely credible and well-sourced proof that 2 large media outlets, one being a major network, have emails proving the Obama White House gave orders to “stand down” during the terror attack in Benghazi. An order to “Stand Down” to those who were ready and fully prepared to put down the terror attack and possibly rescue those who were eventually murdered.

So ready were they, that the terrorists were targeted and “painted” with lasers to allow for laser guided munitions to take them out. Yet, evidently, they were ordered to “stand down”.

Beck stated emphatically that these emails must be released to the public so we may learn the truth. These media outlets are holding them and so far have not released the emails.

He went on to state that if they don’t release them, he will publicly expose the outlets and do so before the election.

A Privileged Executive

Executive Privilege and how the House should move forward legally

by: Mark Levin

As the Supreme Court recognized in US v. Nixon, the Executive Branch has a legitimate interest in confidentiality of communications among high officials so that the President can have the benefit of candid advice. However, as President Washington himself recognized, that privilege does not protect the President or his underlings from embarrassment or public exposure for questionable actions.

As the Supreme Court has also recognized repeatedly, the Congress, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, has the essential power to investigate the actions of the Executive Branch.

 In this case, the exercise of Executive Privilege seems, in its timing and over-inclusiveness, to be nothing less than a political delaying tactic to prevent exposure of wrongdoing and incompetence that resulted in the murder of a American law enforcement agent and injury and death of many others. Further, a wholesale claim of privilege is facially improper: the President should be held to the standard that anyone claiming privilege is held to: identify each document in a log so that privilege can be disputed. (U.S. v. Nixon, 1974)

 Because among the categories of documents sought are all those relating to the recantation by Holder of testimony before Congress, the demand goes to the core of the Congressional power under Article I. In this respect, this is not a general or oversight inquiry but a determination of why the Attorney General of the United States testified falsely before Congress about his own knowledge of a federal program. Presumptively, none of this category of documents is protected by Executive Privilege for wrongdoing per se is not protected by the privilege.

 The right way to proceed is to hold Holder in contempt by resolution of the House and seek authorization from the House for the Committee, by its Chairman, to proceed by civil action to compel production of the documents. (Holder will not enforce a holding of contempt against himself — and by the way, he should have authorized, say, the assistant attorney general for legal counsel, to handle the contempt matter once the House voted as at that point he is representing his own interests and not those of the nation generally). Chairman Issa should file suit in federal court in DC and seek expedited action. There is no need for Senate action. The use of this procedure has been acknowledged by the Congressional Research Service in a 2007 study. Further, a privilege log should be sought by Issa and ordered produced immediately by the court, in camera inspection done promptly by the judge, and a final order entered compelling production of all documents for which no legitimate reason justifies Executive Privilege.

 Yes, some documents may be covered by EP, but the blanket attachment of that label flouts the law and the Constitution, and harms the legitimate assertion of EP by Presidents of either party in the future. The Constitution is far too important to be subject to the caprice of this President and an AG who, on its face, wants to be free from scrutiny about why he testified falsely before a Committee of Congress.

Executive Privilege is a very important implied executive power, used in various forms since the presidency of George Washington. Therefore, it’s misuse and abuse, to cover-up wrongdoing, conceal embarrassing information, or advance a political agenda, diminishes the ability of future presidents to assert it legitimately.