So what are you saying? You want me to go 30?

And the sign said anybody caught trespassin' would be shot on sight,
so I jumped on the fence and-a yelled at the house, "Hey! What gives you
the right
to put up a fence to keep me out or to keep mother nature in."
If God was here he'd tell you to your face, "Man, you're some kinda sinner"

My, how you've grown!

The only problem is that no one on their side believes in good faith, fair process or common sense. Here’s the reality: We don’t trust the other side, nor should we.

In 1994, nearly 60% of Californians voted to deny government services to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 was approved 59% to 41%, with the votes of 56% of African Americans, 57% of Asians—and even a third of Hispanics. It won in every county of California except San Francisco. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed by a 12-point margin.

Liberals said: No problem, we’ll take the case to a left-wing, Carter-appointed federal judge who will overturn the will of the voters! District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer held that the perfectly constitutional law was “unconstitutional” and, today, California taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars on food, housing, education, health care and prison cells for illegal immigrants.

In 2008, Californians voted against gay marriage. Again, this was California—not South Carolina—and voters decided, 52% to 48%, that “marriage” is not between a mailbox and a chimpanzee, a rhododendron and refrigerator, but only between a man and woman.

Liberals said to themselves: No problem. We’ll just find a gay district court judge to overturn the vote. This will be a piece of cake.

They also said, Not only are we going to reverse the vote, but we will name and shame the people on the other side (except African Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, much to the embarrassment of progressives). People found to have donated to the marriage initiative would be driven out of their jobs, fired from high-tech firms they founded, and chased from Mexican restaurants. [sorry, missing a bunch of Coulter's italics and links.]

It’s not the underlying issue in any of these examples that’s the problem—it’s the flouting of the democratic process. I’m not saying: We trusted you and got a bad result. I am saying: We trusted you, but you abandoned the Constitution and the law to get the result that you could not win honestly.

My colleague makes a good case that Stockman was stitched up for taking on the Deep State while being too much of a National Conservative—translation: not enough of a cuck to the cheap-labor donor lobbies—to get any support from the Republican Party.

James then contrasts Stockman’s fate with the numerous non-prosecutions or gentle wrist-slaps delivered to Establishment darlings like Hillary Clinton, Al Sharpton, and Ilhan Omar, who have displayed an approach to the people’s laws about campaign-finance, taxes, and immigration far more careless—to use the mildest possible adjective—than Steve Stockman’s.

James notes that this pattern doesn’t just apply to the politically powerful. When there’s a street rumble involving Antifa, arrests are made, charges are brought, and convictions are handed down … but hardly ever against the Antifa goons.

And all that time, since he was found guilty the first time four years ago, Sheldon Silver hasn’t done an hour of jail time. Not only is he a free man; he’s been drawing a state pension from his assembly years of nearly $7,000 a month.

This guy is 75 years old. If this current appeals panel re-affirms his conviction and he appeals to the Supreme Court, he might easily string this out for a couple more years. If they overturn his conviction and the feds go for a third trial, Silver could be in his eighties before anything happens to him, if anything ever does.

Combustion - how's THAT work?



Anyone? Anyone? Gore?

Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier forever changed the practice and concepts of chemistry by forging a new series of laboratory analyses that would bring order to the chaotic centuries of Greek philosophy and medieval alchemy. Lavoisier’s work in framing the principles of modern chemistry led future generations to regard him as a founder of the science.

C'mon guys, it's ALL beakers nowadays!

In experiments with phosphorus and sulfur, both of which burned readily, Lavoisier showed that they gained weight by combining with air. With lead calx, he was able to capture a large amount of air that was liberated when the calx was heated. To a suspicious Lavoisier, these results were not explained by phlogiston.

Although Lavoisier now realized that combustion actually involved air, the exact composition of air at that time was not clearly understood. In August 1774, the eminent English natural philosopher Joseph Priestley met with Lavoisier in Paris. He described how he had recently heated mercury calx (a red powder) and collected a gas in which a candle burned vigorously. Priestley believed his "pure air" enhanced respiration and caused candles to burn longer because it was free of phlogiston. For this reason, he called the gas that he obtained from decomposing mercury calx “dephlogisticated air.”

In Paris, the intrigued Lavoisier repeated Priestley's experiment with mercury and other metal calces. He eventually concluded that common air was not a simple substance. Instead, he argued, there were two components: one that combined with the metal and supported respiration and the other an asphyxiant that did not support either combustion or respiration. By 1777, Lavoisier was ready to propose a new theory of combustion that excluded phlogiston. Combustion, he said, was the reaction of a metal or an organic substance with that part of common air he termed "eminently respirable." Two years later, he announced to the Royal Academy of Sciences in Paris that he found that most acids contained this breathable air. Lavoisier called it oxygène, from the two Greek words for acid generator.