Double Standard?

by: Dana Loesch

At a recent Obama rally in Ohio, prospective attendees were told to brandish their photo IDs if they expected admittance to the rally. No word yet on whether Attorney General Eric Holder plans to file suit against the Obama campaign for infringing upon Ohioans’ right of peaceful assembly by way of a racist photo ID rule.

Jessica Kershaw, the Obama campaign’s Ohio Press Secretary, confirmed in a statement to BuzzFeed that the campaign checked every supporter’s identification at the door.

“We checked every ID at the door to make sure it matched with the name on the ticket that supporters filled out,” she said. “We did this for every person who came in.”

Since President Obama sides with Holder in thinking it’s Racist™ for states to require photo identification to vote, he must be apoplectic at himself for discriminating against those who don’t get state-issued photo IDs. By asking for rally-goers to provide photo ID before entry, the Obama campaign is silently sanctioning the effectiveness of photo identification.

What makes a rally different from voter integrity? What makes buying cigarettes, alcohol, renting a car, a hotel room, cashing a check, opening a bank account, membership at the Y, buying cold medicine, or entering a club any different? You check photo identification to protect the thing which such an exchange accesses and to confirm that you are the age you claim. Is a person’s vote less unworthy of protection than buying Sudafed — or attending an Obama rally?

Evidently, for some, it is.

Fast Frozen

It is a question which has perplexed the world’s greatest scientific minds and even eluded great thinkers like Aristotle.

But now scientists have become so infuriated about the mystery of why hot water freezes faster than cold, that they have put up a cash reward to find the answer.

The Royal Society of Chemistry has offered $1500.00 for a member of the public to come up with a convincing explanation for the phenomenon, which has mystified humankind.

The scientific problem, which has become known as the Mpemba effect, has also defeated Francis Bacon and René Descartes.

 The problem got its modern name in 1968, when Tanzanian student Erasto Mpemba posed the question to professors visiting his school.

Mr Mpemba, who had been studying the problem for five years, had asked Professor Denis Osborne, of Dar es Salaam University: ‘If you take two similar containers with equal volumes of water, one at 35C and the other at 100C, and put them in a refrigerator, the one that started at 100C freezes first. Why?’

The professor was unable to answer and published a paper on the problem the following year, calling it the ‘Mpemba Effect’.

Brian Emsley, media relations manager at the Royal Society of Chemistry, wrote in the Guardian that the winner of the $1500.00 prize will need to ‘make a convincing case and employ some creative thinking’.

Many standard physical effects are said to contribute to the phenomenon, although no single one has been conclusively proved as the cause.

Theories put forward based on evaporation, convection and supercooling have all been put forward, but as yet the question still remains unanswered.

Members of the public have until July 30 to submit their entries.

They will be pitted against worldwide postgraduate scientists, who, sponsored by the Royal Society of Chemistry, will be tackling the same problem.
 

Attribution: Daily Mail

David Souter Rides Again

Really Quick-

THANK YOU CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN (DAVID SOUTER) ROBERTS for selling this country out.

If Mitt Romney doesn’t come out swinging for the fences today, he is done!

He had better start screaming a real conservative message or he will lose us all!

NO MORE COMPROMISE! No more bull crap wishy washy moderate tone.

If we go down, we go down fighting to the death.

 

Stupid & Cowardly

Quick Hit regarding the Stupid Party

from: Erick Erickson

House and Senate Republican leaders, collectively the Stupid Party, are yet again set to expand government, government spending, and engage in Keynesian economic policies they’ve criticized Barack Obama for.

Somewhat wisely, they are releasing all this as the Supreme Court releases its Obamacare decision so no one will pay attention. Ironically, as we wait to see if the Supreme Court gives Congress plenary power through the Commerce Clause, Congressional Republicans are feeding the Leviathan on their own.

Republicans and Democrats have agreed to a massive increase in federal gluttony with a highway bill. The Republicans decided to drop demands for approving the Keystone XL pipeline and demands that the EPA stop its ridiculous regulations on coal plants that will harm our energy future. In exchange, Democrats will not fund bike paths and highway landscaping.

In other words, Democrats should not be at all worried about Republican plans for Obamacare should any portion of it be declared unconstitutional later today. The GOP will just get scared and cave.

We’re at $16 trillion in debt and as the sun rises this morning we are can be reminded of two things: the Republicans are not serious about paying down the debt and many outside conservative groups will politely avert their eyes arguing that we must fight Barack Obama, not stop the Republican’s complicity in bankrupting our nation.

So much for credibility in the argument on spending.

Cease Fire – Terrorist Style

The Iron Dome rocket defense system intercepted five Grad rockets fired from the Gaza Strip toward Ashkelon Saturday night. The renewed rocket fire came on the heels of a declared cease fire by Hamas and an IDF (Israeli Defense Force) response asserting that “fire will be met by fire and quiet by quiet”.

No damage or injuries were reported from the intercepted Grad rockets.

On Saturday, over 20 rockets were fired into Israel, amounting to nearly 150 since the beginning of hostilities on Monday. A number of rockets targeted Sderot, injuring a factory worker. One projectile also smashed into an empty school, causing extensive damage.

The Israel Air Force retaliated with a number of airstrikes late Friday night after terrorist groups in Gaza, although not Hamas,  fired rockets into Israel despite reports that an Egyptian-brokered ceasefire had gone into effect in the morning. IDF sources said that most of the rocket fire over the weekend was carried out by the Popular Resistance Committees and other small terror factions.

In response to the rocket attacks on Friday, early Saturday morning the IAF (Israeli Air Force) bombed three Hamas bases in the Gaza Strip, wounding around 20 people. In response, Hamas fired rockets and mortar shells mostly into Sderot. The factory worker was injured in one of the attacks while seeking cover. He sustained moderate shrapnel wounds to his neck and stomach and was rushed to the Barzilai Medical Center in Ashkelon.

A factory manager said that the site had been hit twice before, but that on this occasion, expensive equipment worth millions sustained a direct hit. Two other civilians were treated for shock in the attack.

Also Saturday, the IAF carried out an airstrike against Palestinians spotted preparing to launch rockets into Israel. Two Palestinians were killed, raising the death tally to 14.

“We will continue operating to prevent the rocket fire but in general, quiet will be met by quiet and fire by fire,” a senior IDF officer said Saturday night.

The officer said that Israel had received signals from the Egyptians that Hamas was interested in ending the current round of violence. He attributed Hamas’s interest in stopping the fighting to the IDF’s aggressive response Friday night and Saturday to the rocket fire which included bombings of several of the group’s military bases.

“Hamas was surprised by the bombing of one of its bases since until now the IDF has limited its attacks to smaller outposts,” the officer said. “This made Hamas understand that it is in its interest to obtain quiet.”

The officer said that while Hamas was not behind most of the rocket fire over the weekend, Israel expected it to rein in the other terror factions in Gaza and to stop their rocket attacks.

“If the attacks continue though the IDF will not hesitate to act against the terrorist launching the rockets,” the officer said.

Attribution: Jerusalem Post

Are We Running Out?

China’s rare earth reserves account for approximately 23 percent of the world’s total – but are being excessively exploited, the Chinese government claims.

Although 23 per cent doesn’t appear to be a high percentage for one nation to possess, China supplies over 90 percent of rare earth products on the global market.

We need the raw materials – chemicals such as yttrium, which is used in TVs, or lanthanum, used for camera lenses – for the modern tools we use everyday.

There is a risk that if China starts reducing its output, we may see spiralling prices for our modern accessories – or even simply be able to produce them in the first place.

According to the white paper titled ‘Situation and Policies of China’s Rare Earth Industry’, the country has ‘paid a big price’ for problems in its rare earth industry like excessive exploitation, environmental damages, unhealthy industrial structure, under-rated prices and rampant smuggling.

The white paper said China has seen declining rare earth reserves in major mining areas, with the reserve-extraction ratio of ion-absorption rare earth mines in southern provinces slumping to 15 from 50 two decades ago.

In North China’s Baotou city, only one-third of the original volume of rare earth resources is still available in the main mining areas, it added.

Meanwhile, outdated production processes and techniques have severely damaged the environment. The paper noted that excessive mining has resulted in landslides and pollution emergencies and even major disasters in some places.

The industry is also plagued by over-capacity in low-end product manufacturing and the fact that prices of rare earth products fail to reflect their value and scarcity despite a gradual rise since the second half of 2010, according to the white paper.

Rising demand for rare earth products has fueled smuggling, with the volume of rare earth products imported from China calculated by foreign customs reaching 1.2 times the export volume counted by the Chinese customs in 2011, added the white paper.

China is the world’s largest producer of rare earths, a group of 17 metals vital for manufacturing products ranging from smart phones, wind turbines, electric car batteries to missiles.

 SO WHAT ARE RARE EARTH MATERIALS?

Rare Earth materials, as there name implies, are found on Earth. They may not necessarily be rare, but they can be tough to harvest as they can be spread throughout the earth’s crust.

This is a list of rare earth materials, many of which are mined and sold in China.

  • Scandium – used for aerospace components, and an additive in Mercury lamps
  • Yttrium – used in TVs, high-temperature superconductors, and microwave filters
  • Lanthanum used for battery-electrodes, camera lenses, and in the oil industry
  • Cerium – used as polishing powder, yellow colors in glass and ceramics, self-cleaning ovens, and the flints in lighters
  • Praseodymium – used for certain magnets, lasers, carbon arc lighting, and as a colorant in glasses and enamels
  • Neodymium – used in magnets, lasers, violet colors in glass and ceramics, and ceramic capacitors
  • Promethium – used in nuclear batteries
  • Samarium – used in lasers, neutron capture, masers
  • Europium – used in lasers and mercury lamps
  • Gadolinium – used in lasers, X-ray tubes, computer memories, neutron capture, and MRI machines
  • Terbium – used in fluorescent lamps
  • Dysprosium – used in magnets and lasers
  • Holmium – used in lasers
  • Erbium – used in lasers
  • Thulium – used in some X-ray machines
  • Ytterbium – used in infrared lasers and chemical research
  • Lutetium – used in PET Scan detectors and high refractive index glass

Attribution: Mail Online

Joke of the Day

An old Native American wanted a loan for $500. He approached his local banker. The banker pulled out the loan application, asking, “What are you going to do with the money?”

“Take jewelry to city and sell it,” said the old man.

“What have you got for collateral?” queried the banker, going strictly by the book.

“Don’t know collateral.”

“Well that’s something of value that would cover the cost of the loan. Have you got any vehicles?”

“Yes, I have a 1949 Chevy pickup.”

The banker shook his head, “How about livestock?”

“Yes, I have a horse.”

“How old is it?”

“I don’t know; it has no teeth.”

Finally the banker decided to make the $500 loan.

Several weeks later the old man was back in the bank. He pulled out a roll of bills, “Here’s  money to pay loan,” he said, handing the entire amount including interest.

“What are you going to do with the rest of that money?”

“Put it in my pocket.”

“Why don’t you deposit it in my bank?” he asked.

“I don’t know deposit.”

“Well, you put the money in our bank and we take care of it for you. When you want to use it you can withdraw it.”

The old Indian leaned across the desk, looking suspiciously at the banker, and asked, “What you got for collateral?”

Standing “O” for the Chief Justice

by: the Common Constitutionalist

So the Supreme Court, or should I say 5 of them, in conjunction with King Barack, Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano and Eric “The Red” Holder, have granted defacto amnesty to those who invade the state of Arizona and most likely, the rest of the country. What’s to stop them now? Like a Christmas sale at Walmart, they will rush the gate. Once they are here, as long as they don’t commit a felony, they’re home free.

Which way to the voting booth?

The wizards of smart who criticize state and local government action on immigration fail to keep in mind one simple but critical point: The states have these rights.

It is preposterous to take the position that, short of federal action or the commission of a crime, governors and mayors are constitutionally powerless to deal with illegal immigrants within their states and cities. The argument that state and local governments must incur enormous fiscal and societal costs, asserting that all aspects of immigration (legal or illegal) are entirely the purview of the federal government, is constitutionally suspect, if not absurd.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments firmly established the federalist system of government by first stating that the rights contained in the Bill of Rights should “not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” and adding the corollary limiting provision that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The power delegated to Congress, in this matter, seems to me, quite clear. Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 4 states, “Congress shall have the power… to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. Plain English; no more, no less.  Naturalization and Immigration are not synonymous and must not be construed as such.

The legal definition of Naturalization: “The act by which an alien is made a citizen of the United States of America.”

The legal definition of Immigration: “The removing into one place from another. It differs from emigration, which is the moving from one place into another.

You know James Madison, the father of our Constitution. If he wanted immigration to be the sole purview of the federal government, he would have put it in there.

He did, however state the following in Federalist 45:  “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all (emphasis added) the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the States.”

I’d say immigration is encompassed in Madison’s statement and I’m not a Supreme Court Justice.

As the U.S. Supreme Court found more than 100 years ago in Manigault v. Springs, 199 U.S. 473, 480 (1905), state and local police power is “an exercise of the sovereign right of the Government to protect the lives, health, morals, comfort and general welfare of the people.” This decision followed Sturges v. Crowninshield, 17 U.S. 122, 193 (1819), in which the Supreme Court found that those sovereign powers “proceed, not from the people of America, but from the people of the several states; and remain, after the adoption of the constitution, what they were before.”

In my opinion, the Constitution, which was ratified by a razor thin margin in the first place, would have never been, if the states knew they would had to surrender their sovereignty on this issue.

If immigration is indeed the sole responsibility of the feds, are not sanctuary cities then illegal? After all, these cities took it upon themselves to grant favorable immigration status to some, outside federal jurisdiction.

Arizona was simply trying to affirm already existing federal law.

What about other things, like the fact that some states have emission standards that are higher than the federal. Is that not illegal? How about local or state minimum wage laws that exceed the federal. Why is that legal?

I could continue to demonstrate the absurd by being absurd but I think I’ve made my point.

My frustration stems from incredulity. How is it that a clear majority of Americans agree with Arizona, yet congress does nothing? A nation of well over 300 million people could be ruled by so few. 5 in this case.

Buckle up. It may get worse come Thursday! Our lives literally hang in the balance.

Attribution: Matt Mayer at Heritage

Where’s Pulaski?

DNA tests on bones exhumed from a monument to Brig. Gen. Casimir Pulaski failed to prove the remains are those of the Revolutionary War hero killed in a 1779 battle to retake Savannah from the British.

But a report on the investigation into Pulaski’s disputed burial says historical records and skeletal injuries make a case that the remains are those of the Polish nobleman.

“While the strong circumstantial evidence does suggest that the remains are Casimir Pulaski, the inability to obtain a DNA match leads to no viable conclusion,” says the report.

Dr. James C. Metts Jr., the Chatham County, Georgia coroner, hoped DNA testing of the remains exhumed in 1996 would settle the question of whether Pulaski was buried at sea or placed in an unmarked grave.

The debate has divided historians since the bones were removed from the grave at a ruined plantation and moved in 1854 to Savannah’s Monterey Square, where the 54-foot Pulaski monument was erected a year later.

“To our great frustration, we were unable to solve the mystery,” said Chuck Powell, administrator of the investigative committee led by Metts. “The final report, other than giving more complete information, will probably not change in its conclusions.”

Metts submitted the draft to Savannah officials in November. The city released the findings after the AP requested a copy.

Known as the father of the American cavalry, Pulaski came to America in 1777. He was mortally wounded during the October 1779 siege of Savannah.

Examinations of the skull and bones seemed to match what’s known of Pulaski’s age, height and facial features. A healed fracture to the right hand fits an injury Pulaski once described in a letter. A bone tumor on the forehead fits a wound he suffered fighting the Russians in Poland.

But without more solid proof, it’s difficult to debunk Pulaski’s burial at sea. Two officers who served under Pulaski wrote accounts of his watery grave. One of them, his aide-de-camp, said he witnessed the burial.

Investigators had hoped to match DNA from the bones to two of Pulaski’s deceased relatives in Poland. In one case, the test was inconclusive. In the other, the woman’s remains failed to yield enough DNA to examine.

Attribution: AP