Monday, April 29, 2013

Here’s how a Typhoon multirole aircraft can hit two targets at the same time!

The Aviationist ^ | April 29, 2013 | David Cenciotti

Here’s how a Typhoon multirole aircraft can hit two targets at the same time with a single targeting pod
The recent article about the Typhoon fighter jet performing first laser guided, self designating, simultaneous guided bomb drops sparked some debate.
Although other aircraft are known to have similar capabilities, some readers asked how a combat plane could hit two targets at same time with only a single laser designator of the Litening pod.
I asked Andrea Kay, Senior Communications Advisor at BAE Systems, one of the companies of the Eurofighter consortium, to shed some light on the matter.
Andrea inquired his colleague Bob Smith, Engineering Director for Combat Air and here is Smith’s response:
“The Litening Pod is capable of illuminating/tracking multiple targets at any point in time, however, the implementation on the RAF Tranche 1 Aircraft was an austere implementation, limiting the system to a single target attack at any one time . So the answer to the specific question below is yes it does switch between targets at a high rate. The Laser does not need to change frequency for each target because the bomb is assigned to a target and just follows the Laser beam.”

Can One Iraq Vet Stop Obamacare?

American Spectator ^ | April 29 2013 | David Catron

In the lore of the ancient Romans, Horatius was a soldier who single-handedly fought off an invading army. The Etruscans had attacked in order to impose a despot on Rome and, by holding them back while his comrades destroyed the bridge that was the only practical route to the city, this single warrior saved the free republic. Obamacare is certainly the bridge via which the forces of despotism plan to “fundamentally transform” the United States, and a decorated Iraq veteran named Matt Sissel may be the Horatius who prevents them from crossing.
This 32-year-old artist, businessman, and holder of the Bronze Star is the plaintiff in Sissel v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, which Sissel sees as “a battle for my liberty — my freedom to live out my life to the fullest.” This is the only remaining lawsuit that has any chance of bringing down the entire health care law. His lawsuit, which was filed in July of 2010, was put on hold during the run-up to last June’s Supreme Court decision to uphold most of Obamacare. Ironically, that controversial ruling gave his case a new lease on life.
In that ruling, the Majority held that the individual mandate was essentially a tax. This finding prompted the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), which represents Sissel, to file a new constitutional cause of action based on the way the law was rammed through Congress. What we now know as Obamacare was initially cobbled together in the Senate, and that body of Congress is not permitted by the Constitution to write tax bills. Sissel and his PLF lawyers have therefore amended their complaint to say that the “reform” law violates the Origination Clause.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...

It's The Islam, Stupid

grasstopsusa.com ^ | 04/29/2013 | Don Feder

Two weeks ago today, two brothers are alleged to have set off a bomb at the finish line of the Boston Marathon that left three dead – including an eight-year-old boy – and injured 282. At least 14 lost limbs. Our president implored us not to "jump to conclusions" and thus end up stereotyping his favorite faith.
"The Boston Bombers Were Muslim: So?" ran a headline in The Atlantic. Over at MSNBC, Chris (if I only had a brain) Matthews told us motivation was irrelevant: "Where was their inspiration? Where did they get the guidance? Why is that important? … I mean, what difference does it make why they did it, if they did it?"
In 1945, six million Jews were dead – murdered in death camps and by mobile killing squads. Why did Hitler, Himmler, Eichmann and the S.S. do it? What was their motivation? Why is that important? I mean, what difference does it make why they did it, if they did it? "The Architects of the Holocaust Were Nazis: So?"
Now, let’s see: Who blows people up to advance their "geopolitical leanings"? Who regularly kills in the name of their deity? Franciscan friars? Hasidic rabbis? The Munchkins?
A friend sent me a link to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists website. (In case you’re curious, here it is http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/@@wanted-group-listing.) With one exception (a convert named Adam), all had names like Ibrahim, Abdul, Omar, Jamal, Abdullah, Ramadan, Hasan, Mohammed and Muhammad. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
The proverbial elephant in the room is kneeling on a prayer rug.
(Excerpt) Read more at grasstopsusa.com ...

Obama’s National-Security Fraud

NRO ^ | 4/27/2013 | Andrew C. McCarthy

Strange, isn’t it? We are governed by leftists given to finger-wagging about their commitment to due process and the rule of law — they’re not like those bad old warmongering Bushies. Still, here we are in the post-arrest phase of the civilian prosecution the administration was hell-bent on commencing — the phase when due process obliges government officials to remain mum about non-public investigative information that could taint the jury pool and undermine the defendant’s right to a fair trial — and we’re being inundated with stunning confession evidence.
Remember, this is the same crowd that labels the Fort Hood massacre “workplace violence” and won’t honor its victims with Purple Heart medals. To do so, they sniff, might prejudice the objectivity of the trial of a jihadist mass murderer who has publicly announced he’d like to plead guilty. Now, though, in Tsarnaev’s case, government agencies are leaking like sieves.
Why?
Because you are being softened up. Steered by its Gitmo Bar veterans and Lawyer Left compass, the Obama administration is executing a massive national-security fraud: the farce that the jihad against America can be judicialized, that civilian-court processes are a better answer to enemy warfare than are combat protocols.
That is why Eric Holder’s Justice Department, together with the FBI, darted into federal court in Boston last Sunday evening to file the complaint against Tsarnaev. Obama was determined to end the public debate over whether the jihadist is a wartime enemy combatant or a mere criminal defendant.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...

Twinkie The Kid Fires A Shot Across Obama’s Bow

Shout Bits Blog ^ | 04/29/13 | Shout Btis

Today's fun story is the return of Twinkies, due in stores this summer. Less fun for Obama's labor agenda is that Hostess's new owner is not hiring union labor to bake and deliver its products. Because the former Hostess liquidated in bankruptcy several months ago, no labor contracts exist between Hostess and powerful unions such as the Teamsters. The steady decline of private sector unions is nothing new, but the Hostess restructuring is a test case for unions and Obama's ability to repay them for their support.

Obama's latest nemesis –Twinkie The Kid

Obama is a union man, and there is hardly a sliver of daylight between his agenda and the unions' (a notable exception is the Keystone XL pipeline). During his reign, SEIU's Andy Stern was the most frequent White House visitor – during a time Obama was reported to be restoring the US economy, closing Gitmo, and ending two wars. AFL-CIO's Richard Trumka brags about having Obama on speed-dial. Obama knows that while Black and environmentalist voters are his base of enthusiasm and good PR, unions are his base of money. The decline of private sector union power is a serious threat to Obama and Democrats power. Obama has made union organizing easier by redefining entire industries regulatory structure (e.g. FedEx) and by illegally appointing union activists to the NLRB. Obama has made union organizing faster by eliminating most of the time companies would have to state their case for open shops. Obama is paying back decades of unrewarded union support to Democrats.
The unions' and Obama's problem is that most workers do not want union jobs. Union jobs are in decline, so anyone who wants job stability steers clear. Further, union hostility toward free markets and the GOP must irritate at least some working class families. In any event, manufacturing is growing in the US, but not in union shops. Obama and V.P. Biden may claim to have saved the auto industry, but the non-union auto factories in the South never needed saving.
The unanswered question of unionism is whether current union members would like to continue to pay dues earmarked for Democrat politicians. Once union, a shop rarely goes back. The union system ostracizes anyone who does not toe the line, which means union halls shutter only when companies shut down too.
Hostess offers an unusual test case as to whether union members really appreciate their unions. The new Hostess will reopen previously union factories, including one in Illinois. Almost certainly some workers will be rehired, albeit without union representation, and they will be free to organize. No doubt, the unions that represented the old Hostess's various trades will seek to organize the new Hostess. Look for complaints before the NLRB, picket lines, and a little help from Obama and the Old Media. Expect the New York Times to report that Hostess has cut worker pay, benefits, and rights, ignoring that the old system drove Hostess to liquidation.
Given the high visibility of the Twinkie The Kid returning to gas stations around the US, the failure to unionize Hostess would be a major blow to unions and Obama's credibility with them. The new Hostess is a clear-cut experiment as to whether workers and communities really want unions. Do workers see unions as allies or the fools who cost them their jobs in the first place? The labor flacks at Obama's White House are surely working overtime to prevent a disaster in their money base.
Shout Bits can be found on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ShoutBits

Why is Texas Governor Rick Perry in Illinois? (Another "I'm coming for your jobs" tour)

TIME ^ | 04/28/2013 | By Josh Sanburn

Like an aging rocker, Texas Governor Rick Perry is currently on the 2013 I’m Coming For Your Jobs tour across America. His first stop: California a couple months ago. This week he’s in Illinois, where he got a nasty reception from public officials. The trips are part of an effort to get businesses from highly taxed and heavily regulated states to relocate down South — but his efforts may fall flat, if recent history is any indication.
Texas has arguably become one of the few true economic success stories since the recession. The state has an unemployment rate of around 6% and a $9 billion budget surplus, even as many states struggle with 8% and 9% unemployment and severe budget deficits.
The state is run by pro-business Republicans in the state legislature, along with Gov. Perry, who supports low regulation and low taxes. Texas doesn’t have an individual income tax, either. Its minimum wage is lower than other left-leaning states, which keeps labor costs down. Prices for land and housing are low. And the oil and natural gas boom in recent years has kept jobs from leaving the state. The tradeoff for all this, of course: Texas’s relatively flimsy social safety net.
But Perry still isn’t satisfied with business in Texas. The governor sees even more potential if he can just lure corporations away from states that aren’t as friendly to business. The two states he’s visited so far, California and Illinois, rank 50th and 48th, respectively, in a survey of best states for business, according to a recent poll in the Wall Street Journal.
(Excerpt) Read more at business.time.com ...

Liver hormone offers hope for diabetes treatmentCompound boosts insulin production in mice.

Nature News ^ | 25 April 2013 | Chris Palmer

Biologists have found a hormone in the liver that spurs the growth of insulin-secreting cells in the pancreas, a discovery they hope will lead to new treatments for diabetes.
A team led by Douglas Melton, co-director of the Harvard Stem Cell Institute in Cambridge, Massachusetts, identified the hormone, betatrophin, by inducing insulin resistance in mice using a peptide that binds to insulin receptors. That caused the animals' insulin-secreting pancreatic β cells to proliferate. The researchers then searched for genes that showed increased activity, zeroing in on one that they were able to link to betatrophin production.
Further experiments showed that 8-week-old mice injected with betatrophin showed showed an average 17-fold rise in the replication of their insulin-secreting pancreatic β cells, the researchers report in Cell1. Betatrophin is also found in the human liver, the team says.
“It’s rare that one discovers a new hormone, and this one is interesting because it’s so specific,” says Melton. “It works only on β cells and it’s so robust and so potent.”
Pancreatic β cells replicate rapidly during embryonic and neonatal stages in both mice and humans, but their growth falls off dramatically in adults. A decrease in the function of the cells late in life is the main cause of type 2 diabetes, a metabolic disorder that affects more than 300 million people worldwide. In the United States alone, the two forms of diabetes — type 2 and and type 1, which is caused by an autoimmune attack on pancreatic β cells — account for US$176 billion in direct medical costs each year...
(Excerpt) Read more at nature.com ...

Eating mangoes may help lower blood sugar and cancer risk

Daily News & Analysis ^ | Wednesday, April 24, 2013 | ANI

Washington, DC - These findings are the result of a single study and more research is needed on the effects of mango consumption on human health.
Consumption of mangoes may potentially have a positive effect on blood sugar in obese individuals and help to limit inflammation, according to a new research.
The study led by Edralin Lucas, Ph.D., associate professor of nutritional sciences at Oklahoma State University, examined the effects of daily mango consumption on clinical parameters and body composition in obese subjects (body mass index, BMI = 30kg/m2).
Twenty adults (11 males and 9 females) participated in the study, which included daily dietary supplementation with 10 grams of freeze dried mango (equivalent to approximately 100 grams of fresh mango, according to Dr. Lucas) for 12 weeks.
Blood sugar levels at the conclusion of the study were significantly lower than the baseline in both male and female subjects. There were no significant changes in body composition for either gender, and BMI increased significantly in female subjects but not male subjects compared to baseline.
These findings are the result of a single study and more research is needed on the effects of mango consumption on human health.
"The results of this study support what we learned in our recent animal model, which found that mango improved blood glucose in mice fed a high fat diet," said Dr. Lucas.
"Although the mechanism by which mango exerts its effects warrants further investigation, we do know that mangeos contain a complex mixture of polyphenolic compounds. Research has shown that several other plants and their polyphenolic compounds, such as isoflavone from soy , epigallocatechin gallate from green tea , and proanthocyanidin from grape seed , have a positive effect on adipose tissue," the researcher stated.
Another research led by Susanne Mertens-Talcott, Ph.D., Assistant Professor and Director for Research, Institute for Obesity Research and Program Evaluation of Texas A ‘n’ M University, examined the effects of polyphenols found in fresh mangos on cancerous and non-cancerous breast cells.
This study suggested that mango polyphenols might limit inflammatory response in both cancerous and non-cancerous breast cells.
Because this was an in vitro study, more research is needed to determine whether mango polyphenols can have the same effect in humans.
The research was presented this week at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) in Boston.

The Snake in the Bloody Garden [Daniel Greenfield]

Sultan Knish ^ | April 28, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

The left has a clearly defined set of responses to a terrorist attack. After all the hopes for a properly right wing terrorist have come to naught, it begins the long slow process of rolling back the laws and emotional attitudes stemming from the attack.
For it, terrorism, like anything else, either fits into its narrative or conflict with it. The narrative defines the world, past, present and future, in terms of the political agenda of the left. An event that clashes with the agenda must have its meaning changed so that the power of the narrative is restored.
Most violent attacks, from a street mugging to September 11, cause people to seek out security by combating the attackers. The left's task is to shift the narrative so that people see it in an entirely different way. The perpetrators become the victims by the trick of transforming the real victims into the real perpetrators. The lesson shifts from going on the offense to learning not to give offense.
The process is gradual and the playbook is infinite. Weapons of mass distraction are brought out. New villains are introduced and the emotional resonance of the events is drowned in ridicule. The tones are also many, from urging everyone to let love defeat hate to displays of virulent hate against the people "truly" stirring up trouble, but they all share a common agenda. Only the tactics vary.
Unlike the right, the left is systematic. It studies structures and people and plots its lines of attack accordingly. It pits emotion against emotion and law against law. It waits for the initial shock to fade before launching its first wave of attacks over process.
The left's honest response, the one that shows up on its Twitter feeds and in posts on its own sites, is that the country is overreacting. Some leftists will even be bold enough to say that we had it coming. But its public response is more discreet. It exploits the grief for its own ends, diverting shocked city residents into interfaith memorials, some of which are progressive enough to include denunciations of American foreign policy and vigils for the dead on both sides.
But even here, the left generally restrains itself. It waits until the weeks or months have passed to begin deadening the emotion surrounding the event with sarcastic remarks and jokes until the sacred becomes fully profane. It waits somewhat less time to begin lecturing the country on how our foreign policy made them hate us, knowing that in a contest between the establishment's narrative of inexplicable Islamic radicalization for unknown reasons and their narrative of American evil, they have the upper hand because they provide a realistic motive and the establishment does not.
Still this too comes later. The left knows that there is a window on human emotion. There is a time when people need to mourn and a time when they will feel a diminishing outrage and even begin to agree with observations whose thrust is that the United States of America is the real terrorist. And so there are things that the left will say on DailyKos and then on Salon that it will not say on CNN or the editorial page of the New York Times.
The editorials explaining how a lack of American support for Chechen independence led to the marathon massacre are coming. They just haven't splashed ashore in mainstream liberal newspapers yet. Timing is everything and the difference between the left of the counterculture and the left of the culture is that it knows what people will be willing to listen to and when. And it knows where to begin.
Against the horror of the bombing, the left juxtaposes the horror of police state. It pits the fear of terrorists depriving us of our lives and freedoms against the fear of the government doing the same. And considering the history of government abuses, it does not take long for this line of argument to make a compelling emotional dent in the responses of even many ordinary people to the attacks.
The left begins by raising all sorts of procedural questions about how law enforcement and the military are treating the enemy. It develops a burning conviction that our civil rights are the only thing about the country worth keeping. It hammers away at any law enforcement or military mistake, no matter how minor, and collects these together to amass a narrative of the police state.
At this stage the left puts on a show of maintaining its objectivity. It pretends that it is the principle that matters, not the perpetrator and most of those gullible people nodding along never notice that there is only one issue and two groups of perpetrators that this principle allies to; terrorists and leftist activists working in support of terrorists.
For months or even years, the left wraps itself in a Constitution that it does not believe in on behalf of those who want to abolish and destroy it.
The attacks on law enforcement and the military prove the left's core thesis that America is the oppressor and therefore deserving of terrorism. Whatever action, no matter how little, we take to defend ourselves proves that the terrorists were justified in attacking us. Even if all we do is lock up terrorists or shoot back at them when they shoot at us, the left will find enough grounds for indicting us as irredeemable monsters who deserve all that we have coming to us.
The left doesn't put it that way of course. It begins by asking us to believe that the terrorists are not attacking us, they are attacking our government, even if they keep murdering people who are by no means in the government. But once we have accepted the notion that the terrorists are justified in attacking our government, the left is then able to argue that we deserve to be attacked because living in a democracy, we elect our governments.
It's a neat trap that the left uses to questioning government policy into supporting terrorism.
That line of argument is cushioned at first. The left understands that arguments are won on emotion, not reason. It seeks out any family members of the victims who agree with its views and surrounds its spokesmen with them to give them moral sanction for their vileness. It emphasizes that understanding its theories is the only way to prevent another attack thereby making its negative tack seem positive.
And so the left moves from issues of process to polarity using our defense against terrorism to argue that the terrorists are only defending themselves against us. The arguments that seem initially untenable when the blood is still on the streets slowly sink in as baffled people try to come to terms with what happened.
All this is old hat for the left which has been excusing violence and revising history long before Islamic terrorism was an issue for anyone on this side of the Atlantic. Its tactics are polished and effective; though they would be far less so without the high ground of the media, the arts and the educational system, but the same could be said of any group. If David Icke had the unquestioning allegiance of 95 percent of media outlets and universities, most people would consider the existence of reptilians nothing more than common sense.
It is that very power which makes the narrative so insidious. The views of the streetcorner lunatic handing out pamphlets can be transformed in context without being transformed in content by the simple expedient of being read on the air in a sonorous voice by a news network anchor. But the greater insidiousness of the snake in the bloody garden comes from its ability to break up the narrative into stages to make it more palatable.
The left understands that it is working against natural emotions of loyalty and loss, and so it uses deception. It pretends to grieve, when it is sneering on the inside, and it pretends to want to help, when it is really seeking to destroy. It waits long enough to be able to pit the imaginary suffering of terrorists against the real suffering of their victims. It encourages its own brand of cynicism for the suffering of the victims and the heroism of their rescuers, while defending the sacred nature of the misfortune of its terrorists. It insists that its defense of terrorists in a time of terror invests it with a superior moral power and it uses that power to support terrorism.

Broken Promises

Bomb Prevention

Independence vs. Obedience

Stop Gun Trafficking

Border Security

Criminals

Contrversial Doctor

Margaret Sanger

Gun Laws

I Kill You!

Stop the presses

No Longer

The Difference

Kool-Aid

Getting Along

Calm Down, Wolf

Angry white guy

WHY?

Just can't say it

Not Just for Israel

The Rules

Conservative Warriors BRING IT While Collaborationist Vichy Republicans Cower and Make Excuses

Reaganite Republican ^ | 29 April 2013 | Reaganite Republican

Maybe John Boehner's been hanging out with his daughter's loser Rastafarian fiance or something- could explain the dopey demeanor, glassy eyes, and serial conflict avoidance...


But witnessing the lame establishment Gee Oh Pee do next-to-nothing to reign in the damaging, lawless, and power-mad Obama regime while the country goes over a cliff has GOT to be the most frustrating experience of my life- does anybody represent us in Washington anymore?

It seemingly keeps getting worse- can Marco Rubio be trusted? Does he have any clue the way he's being played by the progs? Apparently not, and his attempts to sell us on the 'inevitability' and 'benefits' permanent Democratic Party hegemony have not only insulted conservatives, but border on lying (= me putting it nicely).



Even when GOLDEN opportunities present themselves to put two-bit tyrant Obama back-on-his-heels, phlegmatic Republican 'leadership' let it slide everytime... so why would anybody expect them to something even vaguely principled or brave like -say- defund the Orwellian nightmare they call 'Obamacare'?

Alas, as the once-promising TEA Party class of 2010 -i.e. Rubio, Kristi Noem- are also assimilated into the unprincipled RINO blob, THANK GOD we have some who have stuck to their guns -like Trey Gowdy- along with Michele Bachmann/Darryl Issa and seemingly less-corruptible conservative freshman (senators) of 2012 Ted Cruz and Rand Paul: imho, the future belongs to these patriots as events continue to prove them correct.


May I suggest we consider Benghazigate -which Boehner couldn't run-away from fast enough- the template going-forward: a near-mutiny among GOP ranks actually forced Agent Orange to press-on with a congressional investigation. The Boehners and Roves are losing their grip, and DO NOT control the party -WE The People do- that's the way it's going to be with Obamacare, guns, or anything else RINOs conspire with the left on. For instance, the pending backlash from Obamacare's painful and expensive -perhaps even impossible- implementation will have voters at the Congress' throats, demanding appeal- or else. Even if their only principle is self-preservation, any sane Republican will be listening.



Now that the case has been kept alive, Rep Gowdy's leading the cavalry charge up Capitol Hill: he promised on Fox this weekend that 'explosive' congressional hearings
re. Benghazigate are on the way, and 'coming quickly'.


He also strongly hinted that Benghazi witnesses the Obama Administration has been hiding are going to finally be dragged-out and put on the stand... how 'bout that.

Mr Gowdy is looking for answers on many things, but top of the list would be why there was a failure of security in the first place, 'what happened during the siege itself and why aid was not sent', if Susan E. Rice lied in the cover-up attempt... and WHO put her up to it.

The S. Carolina congressman added that 'in a trial, 'direct evidence, direct testimony by eyewitnesses is always the most compelling'...
'Trust me when I tell you you will want to follow the hearings that are coming up'

Now that's more like it...