If you have ever wondered whether President Obama has an abiding hostility to people of Christian faith, wonder no more. He believes we are a threat to national security. If you are a sincerely devoted follower of Jesus Christ, your president believes you are a potential domestic terrorist.
I do not exaggerate. In a gathering at George Washington University this week, Obama’s assistant attorney general for national security, John Carlin, revealed that the Department of Justice is creating a brand new position just to monitor us. The position, domestic terrorism counsel, will be created to combat the “real and present threat” of domestic terrorism.
And where, pray tell, does this threat come from? From the Muslim Brotherhood, which has a stated goal of exterminating Western civilization and sabotaging our miserable house from within? Nope. From ISIS, which is actively recruiting jihadists in all 50 states? Nope. Jihadists who are sneaking into the United States disguised as Syrian refugees? Nope.
No, the real threat to our national security, according to our president and his minions, is coming from the Family Research Council and the American Family Association.
Carlin lauded the work of the thoroughly discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, which is so blatantly and maliciously biased against Christians that other parts of Obama’s administration – the FBI, the Pentagon, and the U.S. Army – are getting as far away from the SPLC as they can. (Read more from “Obama: Christians Threaten Nation” HERE)
For the conservatives who helped push out Speaker John Boehner, finding a replacement isn’t about picking someone who is as conservative as them.
The Freedom Caucus, a group of about 40 conservative lawmakers whose votes are key to leadership races, wants the next speaker to commit to numerous process and rules changes to the way the House currently operates.
These lawmakers believe that the changes would allow them to advance conservative policies by empowering rank-and-file members to have more influence in the legislative process.
“The new speaker could be Paul Ryan, Justin Amash, or Charlie Dent—I don’t care who it is,” said Rep. Mick Mulvaney of the Freedom Caucus, which has endorsed little-known Rep. Daniel Webster for speaker because of his vow to reform the way the House does business.
“People think we are supporting Webster because he’s the most conservative,” Mulvaney told The Daily Signal. “But the man has a centrist voting record. We are looking for creative destruction in how the House operates. And we don’t care who takes the lead on doing that.”
This idea of creative destruction was echoed by Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, who chairs the conservative Senate Steering Committee. He argued in a Federalist op-ed that what matters is “not who the next speaker is but what the next speaker does.” He called for “open source policy innovation” that decentralizes power in Congress and opens the legislative process to new ideas.
According to a document leaked to Politico, and confirmed by The Daily Signal, the proposed reforms include opening up the process of committee selection, allowing committee chairmen more control, and creating more transparency in the way bills are brought to the floor. They also want a return of the “Hastert rule,” which requires a majority of Republicans to support any bill brought to a floor vote.
“We want to change it from being the speaker’s House back to the people’s House,” said Matt Salmon, a Freedom Caucus founder from Arizona. “In the last 20 years, it became the speaker’s House, because the speaker has incredible power, where they and their staff determine the legislation, what’s in it, and what amendments are involved.”
Allowing bills to go through committee first, voting separately on the 12 appropriations bills instead of using stopgap measures, and allowing an open amendment process is known as “regular order.” Freedom Caucus members want must-pass bills to come up for a vote well in advance of deadlines and allow lawmakers, both Republicans and Democrats, the chance to debate and amend legislation.
Promises like this were made by current Republican leaders, including Boehner and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., in the months before the 2010 election in the GOP’s “Pledge to America.” The document, which preceded the Republican takeover of the House, promised to “end the practice of packaging unpopular bills with ‘must-pass’ legislation … advance major legislation one issue at a time” and to “let any lawmaker—Democrat or Republican—offer amendments to reduce spending.”
In recent years, spending bills required to keep the government funded rarely go through committee and are rushed to the floor. Despite promises from Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the House passed only six of 12 appropriations bills for fiscal year 2016, and the Senate passed none. Facing last-minute deadlines and unable to win a majority of Republican votes, leadership has passed funding measures with the aid of Democrats.
“The basic underlying point is if you go back to the way the House has been run under Boehner—similar to the way it was run before—if you are going to get into leadership, or work your way up to committee leadership, you have to be very obedient to the speaker,” Rep. John Fleming of Louisiana, a Freedom Caucus founder, told The Daily Signal. “What that really means is our leadership is marginalizing the people we represent. Their voice is being diminished.”
Rep. Charlie Dent, a Republican from Pennsylvania allied with leadership, says he would be open to the GOP conference creating a task force to discuss rule changes, but he believes it’s unfair to expect commitments from speaker candidates upfront, saying that’s not the “fair or right way to go.”
Dent believes that a “completely open process” can have caveats. “An open process works great as long as members in the majority are prepared to support the bill,” Dent said. “When you have a completely open process, which works reasonably well with appropriations bills, it does empower the minority party in a certain way.”
Salmon told The Daily Signal that he is “totally confident” conservative ideas could succeed under a more open format.
“Sir Edmund Burke once said, ‘There is no idea so dangerous it can’t be debated.’ I am not afraid of robust debate, because I think we will win out,” Salmon said.
Beyond these changes, the Freedom Caucus is asking would-be speakers to make numerous policy commitments, including opposing the Export-Import Bank, fully repealing Obamacare, and impeaching the IRS commissioner.
“The appetite for reform in this conference is pervasive, not just among conservatives,” Mulvaney insisted. “We all want it.” (For more from the author of “Why Conservatives Might Not Demand a Conservative Speaker” please click HERE)
By Joseph R. John. The below article, “Disaster: The Warrior Purge In The U.S. Military,” deserves very wide distribution. It discusses how the US Armed Forces’ warriors -men of rare talent, intellect, and courage, qualities essential for victory in any armed conflict by the US Military – have been systematically purged from the US Armed Forces by the occupant of the Oval Office. The subtle purge has been underway for nearly 7 years. Over the same time frame, China, Russia, Iran, and the ISIS Radical Islamic Terrorists have grown in strength, modernized their military weapon systems, and have been honing their combat skills in Crimea, Ukraine, Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Lebanon, the Philippines, the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands, and the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
Obama’s priority has been to replace warriors in front line combat units with Illegal Aliens who are not proficient in English, women, transgender individuals, felons with police records, and gay members who are being recruited into Obama’s new “Politically Correct” US military. Obama has turned the US Armed Forces into the first major openly gay military force in the world, and last year 11,000 straight male members in the US Armed Forces were sexually assaulted by gays—driving the retention rate for straight males to new lows.
The commanding officers of combat forces that once were warriors are slowly being replaced by briefcase-carrying “yes” men and “yes” women, more interested in driving the Social Experiment On Diversity into the military, driving the “Political Correct” agenda requirement for promotion, hollowing out the strength of the US Armed Forces, and purging thousands of senior enlisted Non-Commissioned Officers who oppose massive social change in the US Armed Forces. The leaders of Obama’s US Military seem to care more about their careers than about the Obama administration’s downsizing of the US military and the steady degrading of the National Security of the Republic.
The last two Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullins and General Martin Dempsey are culpable. They
(1) covered up why armed and ready armed aircraft sitting on the tarmac in Italy and a rapid deployment US Marine Force sitting on the tarmac in Europe were not dispatched to save the lives of the four Americans who were murdered in Benghazi by Radical Islamic Terrorists;
(2) forced the new and dangerous Rules of Engagement (ROE) on US Combat Forces in harm’s way. Those ROE were responsible for increasing combat deaths by 458% per year and they increased the wounding and maiming of thousands of military personnel by 378% per year;
(3) supervised the downsizing of the US Navy to the number of ships the Navy had in its fleet before WWI, reduced the strength of the US Army to the manning level it had before WWII, and allowed the US Air Force to become a smaller and older air force than at any time since 1947;
(4) presided over the purge of hundreds of Senior Officers, General Officers, and Flag Officers, and the removal of thousands of senior enlisted Non-Commissioned Officers who opposed Obama’s systematic hollowing out of the US Armed Forces;
(5) allowed Obama to drive the destructive “Social Experiment On Diversity” into the US Armed Forces resulting in the degrading of unit cohesiveness, unit moral, and the “Combat Effectiveness” of the US Armed Forces;
(6) systematically drove women into tip of the spear combat hardened units such as US Marine Corps Infantry Units, US Navy Seal Teams, and US Army Ranger Battalions; and
(7) for nearly 7 years, along with the new slate of Politically Correct Flag and General Officers promoted by Obama, failed to oppose the hollowing out of the US Armed Forces, nor did any of them threaten to resign unless the degrading of the US Armed Forces ceased.
For almost 7 years, Obama has not only down-sized the US Army to a lower manning level than the Army had before WWII, but he has changed the warrior leadership philosophy of the US Army, an Army that was once led by warriors like Generals Pershing, General MacArthur, General Patton, General Bradley, Army Air Force General Curtis LeMay, General Ridgeway, and Genera Schwarzkopf. Obama’s generals are entirely different, having passed his litmus test for “Political Correctness”.
For over a year, Obama’s generals have presided over the Uniform Code of Military Justice case for Bowe Bergdahl, for “Desertion and Misbehavior In The Face Of The Enemy” for leaving his post during combat operations in Afghanistan in June 2009. The case should have been adjudicated in 90 days after Bergdahl returned to the US in May 2014. It now appears that the Article 32 Fact Finding Hearing Officer, LTC Mark Visger, USA (JAG) is recommending that Bergdahl be released with no jail time and that he not receive a punitive Dishonorable Discharge for the charge of “Desertion and Misbehavior In The Face Of The Enemy.”
The Convening Authority, General Creighton W. Abrams, Jr, USA, Commander, US Forces Command, refused to allow the members in Bergdahl’s platoon to testify, even though they witnessed Bergdahl’s desertion, and excluded recorded transmissions from the Taliban saying Bergdahl was joining their combat units as evidence in Bergdahl’s Article 32 Hearing. Bergdahl would have been executed in WWII for “Desertion and Misbehavior In The Face of The Enemy.”
We encourage you to read the below listed article and forward it to those in your address book who would support halting the continued hollowing out of the US Armed Forces.
________________________________________
Needed Warriors Are Now Being Purged From the U.S. Military
By Robert K. Wilcox. “Where do we find such men?”
That memorable line comes from James Mitchner’s Korean War novel, The Bridges of Toko-Ri. It refers to intrepid aviators lifting from a carrier, flying into untold danger. They know they may not return. They launch anyway. In boldness unfathomable to many, they willingly, artfully fly into peril. They are warriors, men of rare talent, intellect, and courage – a combination essential for victory.
Needed warriors are now being purged from the U.S. military. If America went to war right now with China or Russia, we could lose because of these purges. We’re losing top-level warrior-leaders to make the crucial differences in battle. They’re being systematically drummed out as politically incorrect. When the going gets tough, political correctness (PC) is useless. Then the brilliant, wily fighters, the coolest heads, the most courageous warriors, are needed to lead regardless of social views or record.
Today, in large measure, our fighting forces are led by briefcase-carrying busybodies, yes-men more interested in enforcing political beliefs and social change than leading in battle. They care more about their careers than what’s happening to the military and thus the country. Just last week, a new downsizing of the army was announced – without a protest.
Warriors are not prized. They are criticized and ridiculed. Up-and-coming warriors who admire the purged want to emulate them, see what’s happening, and are exiting as a result. (Read more from this story HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-21 00:02:352016-04-11 10:57:07Disaster: The Warrior Purge In The U.S. Military
Mass immigration from the Third World would destroy the NRA and ultimately the Second Amendment, a Washington Post op-ed declares, as foreigners with no cultural connection to America continue to pour into the nation at an unprecedented rate.
“Support for, and opposition to, gun control is closely associated with several demographic characteristics, including race, level of education and whether one lives in a city. Nearly all are trending forcefully against the NRA,” author and UCLA professor Adam Winkler writes. “The core of the NRA’s support comes from white, rural and relatively less educated voters. This demographic is currently influential in politics but clearly on the wane. While the decline of white, rural, less educated Americans is generally well known, less often recognized is what this means for gun legislation” . . .
The millions of foreigners the U.S. government voluntarily imports each year can be counted on to vote en-masse in favor of unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, Winkler explains:
Polls show that whites tend to favor gun rights over gun control by a significant margin (57 percent to 40 percent). Yet whites, who comprise 63 percent of the population today, won’t be in the majority for long. Racial minorities are soon to be a majority, and they are the nation’s strongest supporters of strict gun laws.
The fastest-growing minority group in America is Latinos. Between 2000 and 2010, the nation’s Latino population grew by 43 percent. Hispanics, which make up 17 percent of the population today, are expected to grow to 30 percent of the population in the coming decades.
Gun control is extremely popular among Hispanics, with 75 percent favoring gun safety over gun rights.
(Read more from “Washington Post Op-Ed Cheers: Mass Immigration Will Destroy NRA, Second Amendment” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-21 00:02:102016-04-11 10:57:07Washington Post Op-Ed Cheers: Mass Immigration Will Destroy NRA, Second Amendment
If there was any doubt about President Obama and the Obama administration’s animosity toward the Jewish State of Israel, it was erased during the month of October.
Obama has taken a Palestinian incited wave of terrorism and found different ways to blame it on the Jewish State, justifying the Palestinian actions and encouraging them to incite and carry out more terrorism.
An Israeli named Nehemia Gershuni-Aylho has been keeping a running list of each and every attack in Israel since the first of the year. His list is published on the Internet and includes what happened (knife attack, stone throwing, rocket, etc.), what town/city it happened, how many people were hurt/killed, who attacked (Israeli Arab, or Jew) the target, and of course the source of their information.
According to Gershuni-Aylho’s list through Sunday October 18 there have been 1,414 Israeli Arab or Palestinian attacks on Jews since the first of the year, 1,028 during the first 18 days of October. Sadly there were also 18 attacks by Jews against Arabs since the first of the year, 13 occurred during the first part of October.
How did this latest wave of terrorism begin? Much of it began with incitement from Ramallah where Palestinian Chairman Abbas has been claiming that the Israeli Jews plan to change the status quo on the Temple Mount. (Read more from “Obama Continues to ‘Blame the Victims’ as Terrorists Pummel Israel” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-21 00:00:002016-04-11 10:57:07Obama Continues to ‘Blame the Victims’ as Terrorists Pummel Israel
Russia’s defence ministry said Tuesday it has built a giant military base in the far northern Arctic where 150 soldiers can live autonomously for up to 18 months.
The ministry said the building erected on the large island of Alexandra Land, which is part of the Franz Josef Land archipelago, is 97 percent complete.
Named the “Arctic Trefoil”, or three-lobed leaf, the sprawling three-pointed structure is coloured red white and blue like the Russian flag.
The building can house 150 soldiers and stock enough fuel and food to let them work there autonomously for a year and a half, the ministry said.
The soldiers can move around the base from one building to another without going outside to face winter temperatures which can reach minus 47 degrees Celsius (-57 degrees Fahrenheit). Fuel can be pumped in from tankers. (Read more from “Russia Builds Massive Arctic Military Base” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-20 23:58:302016-04-11 10:57:08Russia Builds Massive Arctic Military Base
Wait. Attitudes toward God and immigrants? Are these a natural pair? The newspaper thought so. They tell of an experiment which “claims to be able to make Christians no longer believe in God and make Britons open their arms to migrants.” How’s it done? “Using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation” researchers can “safely shut down certain groups of neurones” in the brain.
It seems to have worked. Volunteers were coaxed into having their brains zapped by giant magnets. And, lo! “Belief in God was reduced almost by a third, while participants became 28.5 per cent less bothered by immigration numbers.”
The news report was based on the paper “Neuromodulation of group prejudice and religious belief” by Colin Holbrook and four others in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. This paper is one in a long line of studies that purport to explain the workings of the human mind based on responses to simple questionnaires.
It’s true. Scientists in some fields have convinced themselves they can quantify the unquantifiable. They believe hideously complex human emotions can be adequately represented on scales of 1 to 5 (or some other bounds). For instance, on a scale of -4 to 4, how much do you agree with the statement, “There exists an all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God”?
Before you answer, consider. Is the distance in belief from 3 to 4 the same as it is from 2 to 3, and from 1 to 2, and so on? Are these distances exactly the same in all people? What happens if the scale were to be changed from -4 to 4 to one from 1 to 9, which is the same length? Would the results be the same? Does everybody agree on the precise definitions of “all-powerful,” “all-knowing” and so on?
The answer is obviously no to all these questions, but Holbrook’s results, and the results from thousands of such investigations, assume the answer is yes. It’s worse than this. Consider the same question about God but after you answer these two questions: “Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you” and “Please jot down, as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to your body as you physically die and once you are physically dead.”
Why? Because, the authors say (in the supplementary material to the main article), these “threat-inductions” have an “evident link between the prospect of death and palliative thoughts of God and the afterlife, and also because” thinking about your own death “has been shown to reliably heighten both intergroup prejudice and religiosity in prior studies.” Thinking about life after death increases intergroup prejudices? That must explain the riot in the pews each Sunday after the Nicene creed is read (“I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come”). And are palliative thoughts about death the only reason people believe in God? Of course not. This prejudicial prompting is of dubious value.
In the study, questions about belief in God, the niceness of immigrants, and several other subjects were asked of volunteers, half of whom were zapped with magnets. These magnets were aimed at a region in the brain the researchers thought was related to emotions about God and immigrants. Yet brain “regions” of complex emotions are far from well understood. In Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience Sally Satel (psychiatrist) and Scott Lilienfeld (psychologist) say “the half-life of facts can be especially brief” in this field. New results disprove older ones continuously.
After the zapping, all participants were re-asked the same questions. Turns out participants “reported an average of 32.8% less conviction in positive religious beliefs” than those who weren’t zapped. That’s 32.8% and not 32.7%, mind you. In science we demand precision! A wee p-value confirmed that this change was “statistically significant.” There isn’t space here to explain the horror of this statistical approach, but interested readers can learn more here.
This is where it gets interesting. There was, as we have just seen, a small change in the answers to pseudo-quantified questions about positive religious beliefs, but there weren’t any “significant” changes in the answers to pseudo-quantified questions about negative religious beliefs. The same sort of thing happened in the questions about immigrants: Some had wee p-values and some did not. And there were no changes in any of the other questions asked. Yet which “findings” got the headlines?
We still haven’t answered the big question: why. Why did the authors design a study about belief in God and attitudes about immigrants? From their conclusion, written in the impenetrable prose typical of such “studies”:
History teaches that investment in cherished group and religious values can bring forth acts of both heroic valor and horrific injustice. Understanding the psychological and biological determinants of increases in ideological commitment may ultimately help us to identify the situational triggers of, and individuals most susceptible to, this phenomenon, and thereby gain some leverage over the zealous acts that follow. …The results provide evidence that relatively abstract personal and social attitudes are susceptible to targeted neuromodulation, opening the way for researchers to not only describe the biological mechanisms undergirding high-level attitudes and beliefs, but also to establish causality via experimental intervention.
Did you catch that? These scientists hope that in the future belief in God, or in some other politically incorrect question that might — only might — lead to “zealous acts,” can be treated, maybe even cured, by magnet zappings. And there you have the real danger that follows from believing you can quantify the unquantifiable. (For more from the author of “Scientists Claim Zapping Brains With Magnets Can Treat Belief in God” please click HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-20 23:57:142016-04-11 10:57:09Scientists Claim Zapping Brains With Magnets Can Treat Belief in God
Earth was one of the first habitable planets in the universe, according to a new study.
We were among the first 8 per cent of worlds that could potentially support life when we came into being 4.6 billion years ago, according the astronomers behind the study. Many of the other Earth-supporting planets won’t turn be around for some time — and are likely to come about after our own sun burns out in six billion years.
Astronomers looked at data from the Hubble and Kepler space telescopes to come to the conclusion. The latter was built in part to look for the kind of earth-supporting planets that could be sustaining life elsewhere in the universe.
Lead researcher Dr Peter Behroozi, from the Space Telescope Science Institute (STScI) in Baltimore, US, said: “Our main motivation was understanding the Earth’s place in the context of the rest of the universe. Compared to all the planets that will ever form in the universe, the Earth is actually quite early” . . .
But that same understanding might be off-limits to future civilisations. Because the universe is expanding so fast, any observable evidence of its beginnings is likely to be erased — leaving people in the future with no clue about how the universe got to where they are. (Read more from “Earth Was One of the Universe’s First Habitable Planets, and We’re Likely to Miss Chance to Meet Future Alien Civilizations, Study Claims” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-20 23:56:502016-04-11 10:57:09Earth Was One of the Universe’s First Habitable Planets, and We’re Likely to Miss Chance to Meet Future Alien Civilizations, Study Claims
Several sheriffs have spoken out over the past couple of years against more gun control laws. Now, Elkhart County Sheriff Brad Rogers has taken his stance and made it clear to the Obama administration that he will not submit to unconstitutional executive orders to confiscate guns from Americans in his county.
Rogers appeared on a local PBS broadcast to support the rights to keep and bear arms that are to be protected under the Second Amendment.
“We’ve always had this conversation that we need more reasonable gun control put in place,” Rogers said. “Well we have what is reasonable, in my opinion, and in fact it’s probably overdone.”
“I’m from the government, and I don’t think the government has any place in gun registration,” Rogers added. “The government shouldn’t know who’s got weapons … we’ve seen in other countries what could happen when the government knows who has what guns.”
“And so I always discourage people from ever registering any guns – it’s not a law in Indiana, so it’s not like I’m asking anyone to break the law,” said Rogers. “I’m just saying if someone wants to come into the sheriff’s office and register their gun I will let them do it – but quite frankly it’s not something we push or promote.”
(Read more from “Indiana Sheriff Tells Obama – I Won’t Obey Executive Order on Gun Confiscation” HERE)
The behavior and interplay of two types of neurons in the brain helps give humans and other animals an uncanny ability to navigate by building a mental map of their surroundings. Now one robot has been given a similar cluster of virtual cells to help it find its own way around.
Researchers in Singapore simulated two types of cells known to be used for navigation in the brain — so-called “place” and “grid” cells — and showed they could enable a small-wheeled robot to find its way around. Rather than simulate the cells physically, they created a simple two-dimensional model of the cells in software. The work was led by Haizhou Li, a professor at the Agency for Science, Technology and Research (A*STAR).
“Artificial grid cells could provide an adaptive and robust mapping and navigation system,” Li wrote in an e-mail coauthored with Huajin Tang, a research scientist at A*STAR, and Yuan Miaolong, a graduate student and first author on a paper about the work. “Humans and animals have an instinctual ability to navigate freely and deliberately in an environment rather effortlessly.”
The work is significant because it shows the potential for having machines mimic more complex activity in the brain. Roboticists increasingly use artificial neural networks to train robots to perform tasks such as object recognition and grasping, but these networks do not faithfully reflect the complexity and subtlety of a real biological brain.
“Neural networks are actually very loosely inspired by the brain,” says Oren Etzioni, CEO of the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence in Seattle. “They are distributed computing elements, but they’re very simple as compared with neurons; the connections are extremely simple as compared with a synapse.” He says this new development that takes inspiration from the brain “seems like good work.” (Read more from “This Robot Uses Artificial Brain Cells to Navigate Like a Human” HERE)
https://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.png00Joe Millerhttps://joemiller.us/wp-content/uploads/logotext.pngJoe Miller2015-10-20 23:54:502016-04-11 10:57:10This Robot Uses Artificial Brain Cells to Navigate Like a Human
