Nixon announces resignation

On August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the Presidency.

Nixon announces resignation

Richard Nixon reads his resignation speech August 8, 1974.

Here’s the second article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee that led to Nixon’s resignation. See if any of this sounds familiar.

Article 2: Abuse of Power.

Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies. This conduct has included one or more of the following:

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.

(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.

(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.

(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.

In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.

(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)

source: The History Place

For the record, I am not asking the House of Representatives to draft articles of impeachment on Barack Obama. But I have ask: is there more than a dime’s difference between Obama and Nixon? Or is it just a matter of the press failing to do its job in the 21st century?


Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel is often described as the architect of “Obamacare.” Obamacare being the shorthand slang term to represent the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”  (H.R. 3590, passed the U.S. House of ‘Representatives on Saturday, November 7, 2009, by a vote of 220-215.  Thirty-nine Democrats voted against the bill.  One Republican voted for the bill.  All House members voted, and none voted “present.”)

Dr. Emanuel appeared on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Sunday morning, December 8, 2013.  About twenty-six minutes into the hour, there was this exchange between Mr. Wallace and Dr. Emanuel.

Wallace – President Obama famously promised “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.”  Doesn’t that turn out to be just as false, just as misleading as his promise about if you like your plan, you can keep your plan?   Isn’t it a fact, sir, that a number, most, in fact, of the Obamacare health plans that are being offered at the exchanges excluded a number of doctors and hospitals to lower costs?

Emanuel – The President never said you were going to have unlimited choice of any doctor in the country you want to go to.

Wallace – Wait, no, he asked the question, “if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, did he not say that sir.

Emanuel – He didn’t say you can have unlimited choice.

Wallace – It’s a simple yes or no question.  Did he say, if you like your doctor you can eep your doctor?

Emanuel – Yes, but look, if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor, you can do that.  This is a matter of choice.  We know in all sorts of places you pay more for certain, for a wider range of choices or a wider range of benefits.  The issue isn’t the selective network.  People keep saying oh the problem is your going to have . . .

Wallace – Well if you’re going to lose your doctor, if you’re going to lose your hospital . . .

Emanuel – Let me just say something.  People are going to have a choice if to whether they want to pay a certain amount for a selective network or pay more for a broader network.

Wallace – Which will mean your premium will probably go up.

Emanuel – They get that choice.  That’s a choice we always make.

Wallace – Which means your premium goes up over what you were paying, so in other words . . .

Emanuel – No one guaranteed you that your premium wouldn’t increase.  Premiums have been going up . . .

Wallace – The President guaranteed me that I could keep my doctor.

Emanuel – Under President, and if you want you can pay for it.  Under President Bush premiums went up 80% after inflation.  We have actually seen a leveling off of health care costs and premiums in the last few years because of changes that have been made.

Wallace – Finally . . .

Emanuel – As a matter of fact, choice is something we all understand and we all understand that for more choice, more benefits, you have to pay more.


 Dr. Emanuel, if the president had said in 2009 what you have said here in the last few minutes, would Red State Democrats have been swamped with calls from constituents who had concerns about future premium costs and about losing the healthcare they already had?  Would that have caused second thoughts about the proposed plan?  Would the Affordable Care Act have passed?  Let me remind you it passed by only three votes?  Do you think 42 Democrats might have voted “No” instead of the 39 that actually voted “No?”

If the President had told the public the truth (as we know it today), would that have changed the level of public support for the bill at the time of the vote in 2009?   By the way, that’s why what the President said about being able to keep your healthcare plan and doctor (40 different times) matters in today’s public discussion about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

See the interview here:


The Columbia Missourian reports on a grant awarded to research drones as reporting tools:
Journalists may soon be able to report from new heights, thanks to drones. 
The small, flying robots are being explored as tools for reporting from the air. Scott Pham, content director for KBIA/91.3 FM, has received a $25,000 grant from the MU Interdisciplinary Innovations Fund to develop drones for journalism use.
The research will look at using drones to report on wild fires and natural disasters, but the single most lucrative application of drones in journalism would be to replace rush-hour traffic reporters flying around in helicopters with an unmanned aerial vehicle like the Global Hawk pictured above. That's never mentioned in the article, which focus on incorporating much smaller and commercially available drones like the Parrot Quadricopter available from Amazon; however, the post does imply that there are some regulatory hurdles that must be overcome before traffic reporters find themselves behind a desk remotely controlling traffic drones:
The flying robots won't be hovering over residential areas anytime soon, though. Restrictions include flying under 400 feet and away from airports and other populated areas.
Local ordinances will have to be adjusted to facilitate this innovation.

Today, Chris Matthews said that Romney's decision to run against Obama "showed a certain kind of disdain,”. While it is no secret that the entirety of media is so far up Obama's butt they will never again see the light of day, this is an incredible statement. The most disturbing part of the whole exchange is that I doubt it would matter who had run, this would still be Matthews position: that no matter who you are, you have no business running against such a great and wonderful leader. As far as Matthews is concerned Obama should be king.

“I thought the decision by Romney to run for president, even as this president had not yet even been inaugurated, Mayor, showed a certain kind of disdain,” said Matthews. “I don’t want to get into his head on this – I don’t like the look of it – but he seemed to think, ‘Well, this guy could be beat by me.’”
Matthews said that Romney’s suspicion that he could defeat President Obama in 2012, even though he knew that he was not “a first-rate politician,” was an “arrogant point of view.”
“I’ve got a message for Mitt Romney – I wouldn’t do any head games with Barack Obama,” said former San Francisco Mayor Willy Brown. “He’s not smart enough, I don’t think he’s clever enough and he clearly has no street about him at all.”
Yeah, 'cause Obama is sooo street. Give me a break.......

Ed Martin for Congress
We've covered this ground before, but the St. Louis Post Disgrace has decided to throw their support behind Chris Koster with smears of Ed Martin that have already been debunked. Here's a convenient round up of our previous coverage: Part 1: Memogate: A political stunt by Koster and Nixon Part 2: Why is there no evidence showing Eckersley to be a whistleblower? Part 3: Eckersley: condemn's himself as tardy, exhausted, and working for others Part 4: Eckersley was also insubordinate Apparently, the Post Disgrace is hoping to burnish Koster's image with North St. Louis by smearing Ed Martin as a...


The Girl Scouts of America recently published a book pointing out that you girls should be skeptical of the information given to you by the various media outlets. If you hear something, you should check it out.....verify it is truthful and real. Go to Snopes, do your research......use sites like Media Matters for America to clear up any misinformation.

The Internet is a breeding ground for “urban legends,” which are false stories told as if true. Next time you receive a txt or e-mail about something that seems unbelievable, confirm it before you spread it.
The fact-checking site investigates everything from urban legends to “news” articles and posts its findings. Media Matters for America ( gets the word out about media misinformation.
Yes parents, you read that right, the Girl Scouts is telling your daughters, age 8 to 18 that before they believe what they see or read or hear they should do their "fact checking" with the left leaning, Soros funded, Media Matters for America.

The Girl Scouts claim they are reprinting the book and taking out the MMfA reference, however recent shopping trips to purchase this book in Western Ohio, Cincinnati, Ohio, Jacksonville, Florida, Houston, Texas, and St. Louis, Missouri have netted no such change.

I plan to demand they change that passage to direct readers to that will go over pretty well?