First Artificial Eye

The complex nanostructures give the eye an iridescent sheen
The complex nanostructures give the eye an iridescent sheen(Credit: Alan She/Harvard SEAS)

Harvard has reported a breakthrough flat artificial eye just 30 microns in depth which can exceed the capabilities of the human eye. The technology, which builds on so-called metalens technology by adding electrically-controlled flexible muscles, could make a real impact in all manner of optical fields, including those in cameras, telescopes, microscopes, glasses and even virtual reality. read more

Nothing Bring Races Closer Together than Segregation

by: the Common Constitutionalist

No Audio Version

In October 2016, a poll was conducted to gauge whether life today is better than it was in the 1950’s.

“Seventy-two percent of likely Trump voters think things have changed for the worse, while about 70 person of Clinton voters think things have changed for the better,” writes the HuffPo. Of Course, this is to be expected and anyone who follows this stuff would surely have predicted such a result.

Regarding the poll, liberal hack and columnist E.J. Dionne claims that, “We argue over whether we’re divided by race, class, gender or religion. What’s really scary about this poll is that we are divided by all of the following: class, race, gender and religion. We are deeply divided by these things.”

The HuffPo added that black Americans “are among the most likely to think that things have improved.” At the top of the list one would expect desegregation to be a major improvement and in fact, Democrats today complain that Republicans want to re-segregate blacks.

Reading, listening or watching virtually any mainstream media outlet, you would conclude that it is only the right who has interest in segregation.

However, facts can be truly inconvenient. And the facts dispel the myth that segregationists are whites of the right. Quite the opposite is true. read more

Podcast – Harvard University may be the Most Leftist College in America

Upon returning from a college event with my son and seeing some of the leftist clubs represented there, I decided to dedicate a podcast to some of these radical ideals.

It took me no more than 10 minutes on a single website, The College Fix, to find four separate articles, involving only Harvard – demonstrating what a leftist swamp it has come to be.

What I discovered is what I had already assumed – that if one is a conservative, you best not set foot on the campus of Harvard University. read more

Are Trump and Universities Headed for a Mexican Standoff?

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

Things are going to get very interesting, very quickly. At virtually ever post-election speech, Donald Trump continues to emphasize the point of building the wall along our Southern border. He has also reiterated his hard-line stance of ending sanctuary cities. And he’s not the only one. States are following his lead.

On December 1st, Texas Governor Greg Abbott tweeted  that, “Texas will not tolerate sanctuary campuses or cities. I will cut funding for any state campus if it establishes sanctuary status.”

Two days later, Georgia lawmaker, Earl Ehrhart, said he plans to propose “legislation to defund Universities shielding illegals.”

Meanwhile, major and prestigious universities are girding their loins in preparation for a government crackdown. Harvard University and the University of California have formally announced that they will not comply should Trump follow through with this threat – which, by the way, is not a threat. What it is, is a decision by the president-elect to finally enforce Constitutional and legally passed federal immigration laws. read more

America is the Problem – Not ISIS

from: OneNewsNow

An author and terrorism expert says he is not surprised that students at one of America’s most prestigious universities would claim America is a bigger threat to world peace than the radical terrorist organization ISIS.

That was indeed the response from Harvard students interviewed by a blog known as Campus Reform.

“American imperialism and our protection of oil interests in the Middle East are destabilizing the region and allowing groups like ISIS to gain power,” one student was quoted on the blog. read more

Harvard Cheats!

It’s all about the “Fairness”. This time I agree.


Harvard stripped of quiz championships for cheating

Harvard University has been stripped of a string of US quiz championship titles after a cheating scandal was uncovered by organizers.

A competitor from America’s most prestigious university was found to have accessed a website that listed questions that were to be asked in the National Academic Quiz Tournament (NAQT).

For three successive years, Andy Watkins, a member of Harvard’s “A” team, viewed pages that displayed the first 40 characters of forthcoming questions, NAQT officials said.

Mr Watkins, who graduated in 2011, had basic access to the tournament database because he wrote questions for a schools quiz competition as well as competing in the national university-age contest.

Championships awarded to the Ivy League college, based in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 2009 and 2010, and two separate titles from 2011, were revoked and handed to the original runners-up.

Organisers said in a statement that while they had “neither direct nor statistical evidence” that Harvard had directly benefited from the security breach, “it goes against competitors’ expectations of fair play.”

The tournament sees teams of four students competing to answer questions chosen from across the “entire spectrum of a college curriculum” as well “current events, sports, and popular culture” in a set time limit. Teams that win their regional championship qualify for the national Intercollegiate Championship Tournament.

During the 2011 contest, Mr Watkins impressed observers by buzzing in to correctly answer a question on the history of Thailand, securing the defeat of the University of Minnesota in the final round.

Continue Reading

Another Green President, Perhaps

With the recent shakeup in the republican primary, Mitt Romney can no longer be considered the prohibitve favorite. I still think he is favored, but it’s getting very interesting.

With that said, do we really want or need another global warming advocate in the White House? Is Mitt a greenie or a flip flopper? You decide.

I guess I wouldn’t classify Mitt Romney’s positions on Global Warming, Flip Flops. I would say it’s more of a slow climb over a fence, climbing from the left to the right side of the fence.

First you’re on one side. Then you climb up, you straddle said fence while you inspect the lay of the land on the other side and then climb down. Voilà, you have changed your position.

As recently as his 2010 book, No Apology, Romney wrote, “I believe that climate change is occurring. … I also believe that human activity is a contributing factor. I am uncertain how much of the warming, however, is attributable to man and how much is attributable to factors out of our control.”

In June of 2011 he said, “I think the earth is getting warmer. … I think humans contribute to that. I don’t know by how much. It could be a little. It could be a lot.”

During a campaign stop back in October 2011 Mitt Romney stated, “My view is that we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet. And the idea of spending trillions and trillions of dollars to try to reduce CO2 emissions is not the right course for us,”

Romney spokesman Ryan Williams said recently, “Governor Romney has been consistent in his statements on global warming.”

However, EPA Abuse reports:

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has had numerous positions on climate change, carbon dioxide and global warming over the years.
His most recent views seem conservative, but as governor of Massachusetts, his views were in line with Al Gore’s views.

Human Events columnist Deroy Murdock recently outlined some of these “hot and cold” positions on global warming from the man who wishes to be President of the United States.

Murdock notes:
In 2004, Romney launched the Massachusetts Climate Protection Plan, “a coordinated statewide response to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and protect the climate,” as his office described it.

Romney’s December 7, 2005 press release announced, “Strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.”

“These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress in the battle to improve our environment,” Romney said. This red tape, the communiqué noted, is designed to lower emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury from power plant smokestacks.” Furthermore, the experts whom Romney consulted “include John Holdren [sic]…at Harvard University.”

“Romney (or his staff) was misled by John ‘Holdren’ [sic], a rabid environmentalist and collaborator of the notorious Paul Ehrlich.

John Holdren is now Obama’s science adviser,” says Dr. S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., a University of Virginia professor emeritus of physics and environmental science and the U.S. Weather Satellite Service’s founding director. “They consider CO2 a pollutant and mention it along with sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury — all real pollutants, injurious to human health. Clearly, they had no clue about the science.”

“No one would choose such a green course, enlist such advisors, and then suddenly reverse himself,” the Cato Institute’s Dr. Patrick Michaels, Ph.D., tells me. “As president, Romney will revert to his more familiar green self.”

Now, let’s juxtapose Rick Santorum’s (you know, the real conservative) view on the subject:

“There is no such thing as global warming,” he told a smiling Glenn Beck on Fox News in June 2011. That same month, he told Rush Limbaugh that climate change is a liberal conspiracy: “It’s just an excuse for more government control of your life and I’ve never been for any scheme or even accepted the junk science behind the whole narrative.”
Santorum accused the EPA of acting on a philosophy of “We hate carbon, we hate fossil fuels, we hate blue-collar Americans who work in those areas.”

“Drill everywhere” is his philosophy when it comes to oil, he told Beck.

Santorum doesn’t see what the big fuss is about the proposed Keystone XL pipeline traversing the Ogallala Aquifer. “Has anybody looked at the number of pipelines that go through that aquifer now? I mean, you can’t even see the aquifer if you look at a schematic of how many pipelines are there,” he told Iowans at a Dec. 31 rally. Opposition to the pipeline is just “pandering to radical environmentalists who don’t want energy production, who don’t want us to burn more carbon,” he continued. “… It has to do with an ideology, a religion of its own that’s being pushed on the American public.”

Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Attribution: UK Guardian, CBS News