Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Monday, March 10, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 896)

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claimed Thursday that she doesn’t know who Jonathan Gruber is, but the tale of the tape proves she lied, again.

Pelosi and other Democrats who have supported ObamaCare are now attempting to distance themselves from Gruber after the ObamaCare architect and MIT professor was caught on video claiming Democrats used a “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter” to pass the bill.

“I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill,” Pelosi said during a Thursday press conference.

“You have a person who wasn’t writing our bill commenting on what was going on when we were writing the bill who has withdrawn some of the statements that he made,” she continued. “So, let’s put him aside.”

Except, she wasn’t trying to “put him aside” during a 2009 press conference. Quite the contrary, in fact. The then-speaker highlighted his “estimates” as a counter-argument to Republicans. Apparently, Nancy Pelosi, as do most Democrats and proponents of big government, believe American voters are too stupid to pick up on their flat-out lies and deceptions.

The cost of the bill and plans were in dispute, and Pelosi used Gruber’s now debunked — or, at the very least bias — estimates, in order to validate figures that turned out to not be remotely close to reality.

Not only is the cost of health coverage skyrocketing under and because of ObamaCare, but the cost to the federal budget will be significant. In June, the Congressional Budget Office, which was also frequently cited by Pelosi and other Democrats, said they could no longer stand by their original projections because the proposal sent to CBO was written exactly how Mr. Gruber said it was — to trick us.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) claimed

Weekly jobless claims rose unexpectedly by 12,000 to 290,000 for the week ended Nov. 8, according to a Labor Department report released Thursday. Though the number remained near a 14-year low, the number of eligible citizens is so low the fact it rose at all is concerning to many economists.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims increasing to 280,000 last week, but claims have now been below the 300,000 threshold for nine straight weeks. In the month of October, claims hit their lowest level since 2000 at 266,000.

Still, even as claims have fallen, the pace of hiring has been consistent in recent years and has averaged about 200,000 a month, although job creation is dominated by part-time and low-wage positions.

Further, despite workers hearing mildly positive economic new in media reports, they clearly still lack confidence in the labor market, creating a desire to stay in low-paying jobs rather than look for more gainful employment opportunity. The share of workers with jobs who quit has held steady most of this year, and remains well below where it was at the start of the recession.

Some analysts have suggested this may be at least one reason the U.S. has seen stagnant, zero, or reducing wage growth, which is by far the most important measurement of economic health to Americans. The Labor Department is due to release September data on the rate of job turnovers – which will include the quits rate – on Thursday.

In the claims data, the four-week moving average of claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose 6,000 to 285,000. It was the first time the rolling average increased this year, suggesting a slowdown in job creation.

The Labor Department said there were no special factors influencing last week’s claims data.

The claims report showed the number of people still receiving benefits after an initial week of aid also increased by 36,000 to 2.39 million in the week ended Nov. 1. The unemployment rate for people receiving jobless benefits was at 1.8 percent for a ninth straight week.

Weekly jobless claims rose unexpectedly by 12,000

Obama amnesty executive order

In large part due to the media blackout, President Obama plans to ram an unpopular policy down the throats of the American people.

President Obama will take executive action that ignores current U.S. immigration law and the U.S. Constitution, unveiling a controversial 10-part amnesty plan. The executive order, which a source tells FOX News will be announced as early as Friday Nov. 21, will suspend deportations for millions of illegal immigrants.

While the date may be pushed back a few days, the inevitable order seems to be on par with recently uncovered documents published by PPD in October, which were government print orders requesting vendors supply upwards of 34 million blank work permits and green cards.

The print orders front-loaded approximately 4.5 million in the first year, the same number now being cited by the White House source to implement the president’s “deferred action” plan. Deferred action is currently in place, but the president apparently plans to expand it dramatically for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children — which was expected — but also for the parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents.

The total number is frankly unknown, but estimates suggest the plan would allow upwards of 4.5 million illegal immigrant adults with U.S.-born children to stay in the first year.

Obama’s plans were contained in a draft proposal from a U.S. government agency, and the president was briefed at the White House by Homeland Security officials before he even left on his Asia-Pacific trip last week.

In an attempt to fool the American voters, the president delayed taking executive action that would essentially grant amnesty to millions of illegals prior to the elections. However, Democrats suffered devastating defeats, regardless, with illegal immigration and amnesty either defining or becoming a central component of campaigns once thought to be safe for Democratic incumbents.

“The president’s job is to ‘faithfully’ execute the laws of the United States,” said Judge Andrew Napolitano. “If the practical effect of his executive order is the opposite of what the law requires he will be violating the law, he will be breaking his oath, and he will be putting a tremendous pressure on the social system.”

Despite the clarity of the constitutional language — in Article 2 Section 1 — Democrats and liberal activists are cheering on the banana republic-like order.

Angela Maria Kelley, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, touted deferred action as a “tried and true component of immigration policy used by 11 presidents, 39 times in the last 60 years.” Except, deferred action was cited as the reason for the border crisis over the summer by the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers in June.

Chairman Zack Taylor said “any elected member of the executive or legislative branch of the U.S. government that has not stood up and demanded that current immigration law be enforced vigorously since 1986 is fully and exclusively responsible for this latest invasion.”

“This is not a humanitarian crisis. It is a predictable, orchestrated and contrived assault on the compassionate side of Americans by her political leaders that knowingly puts minor illegal alien children at risk for purely political purposes.”

Kelley also said that for many illegal immigrants who are already here and have been for years, “there is no line for people to get into.”

Critics, which include liberal law professor Jonathan Turley, who warned the lawlessness during the Obama presidency was bringing the nation to a “constitutional tipping point,” say there are other options outside of impeachment available to the newly elected Republican majority in the Senate.

“Congress has the power of the purse. The President cannot spend a dime unless Congress appropriates it,” Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions wrote in a recent op-ed in Politico. He said Congress would stop Obama by barring money from being used for that purpose.

“This is an action by the president of the United States to give amnesty to millions of individuals, which Congress has explicitly refused to do,” Session said in a statement Thursday. “Under the current law, they are illegally here and unable to work.”

He argued that similar tactics have been used by both Democrats and Republicans in the past to prevent the president from closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, another move that is widely unpopular among the American people.

That, too, had so-called “unintended” consequences. According to a recent report, U.S. intel officials believe upwards of 20 to 30 Guantanamo Bay detainees released by the Obama administration have joined the Islamic State. As previously stated, the “deferred action” plan was first put in place in June 2012, which was estimated to impact just 300,000 illegals, yet it led to a border crisis over the summer.

A leaked intelligence report obtained over the summer concluded that the border crisis is being caused by illegals seeking amnesty and misunderstanding U.S. immigration policy, not violence in Central America.

“Of the 230 migrants interviewed, 219 cited the primary reason for migrating to the United States was the perception of U.S. immigration laws granting free passes or permisos to UAC (unaccompanied children) and adult females OTMs (other than Mexicans) traveling with minors,” the 10-page report conducted on July 7 by the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) said.

Obama created such a program for illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children prior to June 2007, and were under 31 as of June 2012. However, the government often ignored cutoff dates and now the executive order would expand that to cover anyone who entered before they were 16, and change the cut-off from June 2007 to Jan. 1, 2010. This is estimated to make nearly 300,000 illegal immigrants eligible.

The draft plan also contains initiatives to make mild increases to border security and increase pay for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers in order to “increase morale.” But the other initiatives listed in the order, which was crafted in large part by Esther Olavarria, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy’s former top immigration lawyer, pale in comparison to deferred action in terms of impact.

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, those covered under deferred action receive work authorization in the United States, Social Security numbers and government-issued IDs. When those government IDs are issued, millions of illegals are potentially registered to vote and those who end up breaking the law and voting, overwhelming vote Democratic.

Bombshell data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) was recently used by The Washington Post to demonstrate that non-U.S. citizens easily explain President Obama’s tiny 2008 margin in North Carolina and Missouri, now-Sen. Al Franken’s (ObamaCare’s final vote) that same year, and many others. In North Carolina, alone, officials found at least 145 illegal aliens registered to vote (in 2014), and who were only in the country due to President Obama’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals executive order. The state’s secretary of state office told PPD two days before Election Day that at least hundreds of other non-U.S. citizens were on the rolls, but likely upwards of 10,500.

“This is the final piece in Obama’s fundamental transformation of the United States,” said FOX News contributor Monica Crowley. “This is about adding voters to the Democratic base.”

Crowley and other Republicans aren’t alone in this assessment, despite the fact the overwhelming majority of Democrats support the president’s plan. But many, even among those who support a bill granting amnesty, are staunchly opposed to this action.

“Let me be clear, I am for comprehensive immigration reform,” said Demcoratic strategist Doug Schoen. “But I am deeply concerned that Monica isn’t overstating this by much.”

Schoen said the results of the election were clear, and that using illegal immigration as a political tool to win future elections, despite the danger of causing great social unrest, is appalling to him and other Democrats.

“He [Obama] is a raging narcissist who doesn’t care if he destroys this country,” said Democratic pollster and strategist Pat Cadell. “This move will tear this country apart.”

DHS also is planning to “promote” the new naturalization process by giving a 50 percent discount on the first 10,000 applicants who come forward, a contemptible move for those who have waited for years to come to the United States legally. There is an exception for those who have income levels above 200 percent of the poverty level.

Tech jobs though a State Department immigrant visa program would offer another half-million immigrants a so-called path to citizenship, and would include their spouses as well.

The other measures include calls to revise removal priorities to target serious criminals for deportation and end the program known as “Secure Communities,” as well as start a new program. However, a report released in May found the Obama administration willingly released thousands of illegal immigrants that were convicted criminals, including murderers and convicted sexual offenders.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest, who also faced tough questioning over ObamaCare’s architect recently saying Democrats relied upon “the stupidity of the American voters” to pass the bill, told reporters traveling with Obama in Burma Thursday that the president had not made a final decision, and would not announce one until he returned to Washington.

President Obama will take executive action that

In an exclusive interview with Peter Doocy of Fox News, Robert O’Neill detailed “Operation Neptune Spear,” the raid that killed Usama bin Laden. O’Neill said it was “just luck” he ended up being the man to pull the trigger and he met the terrorist “for a second, that’s it.”

“Standing on two feet in front of me, with his hands on his wife’s shoulders behind her was the face that I’d seen thousands of times, UBL,” he said. “Very quickly I recognized him and then it was just pop, pop pop.”

After shooting bin Laden, O’Neill and the rest of SEAL Team 6 still had the mission to complete. O’Neill described the team’s harrowing 90-minute flight back to Afghanistan after completing the raid, saying the team knew at any moment they could be shot down from the sky.

“Eighty-something minutes into it, somebody came over the radio to everybody and said, ‘All right gentleman for the first time in your lives you’re going to be happy to hear this…welcome to Afghanistan,’” he says. “And everyone was like; oh my God…we just did it. We just pulled it off and we got him. And we all lived. We’re all fine. It was insane. So then, there was high-fiving and stuff. Guys were, cause I mean, we got Usama bin Laden and we’re going to live…amazing.”

In part 1, which aired Tuesday night, O’Neill said that none of the members of the team thought they would make it out of Pakistan alive, but that is was worth dying to killed bin Laden.

“We are going to die eventually, this is a good way to go and it’s worth it to kill him,” he said they thought. “He’s going to die with us.”

In an exclusive interview with Peter Doocy

California gun laws

July 30, 2013: Guns to be melted lie in a pile near a news conference at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s 20th annual Gun Melt at the Gerdau Steel Mill in Rancho Cucamonga, California. (Photo: Reuters)

A simple procedural decision in a landmark Second Amendment case could mean the end for California gun laws that ban the issuance of concealed carry permits.

The decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals would bar other law enforcement officials, including state Attorney General Kamala Harris, from defending challenges to a previous lawsuit. The court said Harris and other law enforcement officials are prohibited from obtaining “intervener status” to in a case originally brought by an independent journalist who sued the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department over its policy of requiring a specific reason for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public.

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore has said he will not fight the ruling, leaving no one with sufficient legal standing to challenge the decision made in February.

“Since becoming Sheriff, I have always maintained that it is the legislature’s responsibility to make the laws, and the judiciary’s responsibility to interpret them and their constitutionality,” Gore wrote in a letter to the county board of supervisors earlier this year. “Law enforcement’s role is to uphold and enforce the law.”

Sheriff Gore said the court had given him sufficient clarity on his role.

Edward Peruta sued Gore’s department over its policy of requiring a specific reason for being allowed to carry a concealed weapon in public, a law other counties throughout the state of California also had in place. The liberal anti-Second Amendment activists in the state have suffered a series of defeats this year.

In August, the 9th Circuit handed down a bombshell ruling that held those policies to be unconstitutional and also that law-abiding citizens have a right to bear arms under the Constitution’s Second Amendment. The court ruled that citizens could not be required to justify their reasons for carrying concealed weapons, it’s a right under the Second Amendment — plain and simple.

Still, the fight for gun rights activists isn’t over.

Despite the panel also ruling on a similar case brought in Yolo County, the county’s sheriff, Edward Prieto, has not confirmed he will drop further appeals. In the event he decides to move forward, the appeal would likely be heard en banc by all of the 9th Circuit judges or by the U.S. Supreme Court. Harris could still try to join Prieto’s case, but Wednesday’s ruling makes pretty clear she would not be allowed.

Meanwhile, other California counties have approached policy in the wake of the February decision to varying degrees, with Orange County issuing the permits on request and other counties still holding off until they’ve exhausted all legal options and a final resolution is reached.

The law would still not allow felons or the mentally ill to possess firearms, and would still prohibit the carrying of them in places such as schools and government buildings. Brandon Combs, executive director of the pro-Second Amendment Calguns Foundation, which represented the plaintiff in the Yolo County case, said he believes more counties will inevitably drop their policies of restrictions concealed-carry permits.

“Some sheriffs are probably going to see this news as evidence their policies are wrong,” he said. “But sheriffs and police chiefs in anti-gun jurisdictions may need more help seeing the light. We’ll be happy to help them, even if it means going to the Supreme Court.”

A simple procedural decision in a landmark

2014 midterm elections

(Photo: Shutterstock)

It’s a Democratic strategist’s a talking head’s worst nightmare. For the first time since September 2011, the Republican Party has a higher favorability rating than the Democratic Party. Democrats have long-touted that they are better liked than Republicans, despite suffering not one but two historic midterm defeats, but it is now yet another talking point they will have to learn to manage without.

According to a Nov. 6-9 Gallup poll, which was conducted after the Republicans wave swept away Democrats up and down the ballot across the country, a record-low 36 percent of Americans now say they have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party, down 6 percentage points from before the elections, while the GOP actually inched up 2 points to 42 percent.

“After the 2012 election, many political analysts focused on the GOP’s ‘image problem.’ Now, it is the Democrats who appear to have the more battered image” said Gallup’s Andrew Dugan. “After President Barack Obama’s re-election in 2012, the Democratic Party’s favorable rating spiked to 51 percent, the first time either party had enjoyed majority support since 2009,” Dugan added. “However, after the post-election glow wore off, the party’s image settled back down near the 45 percent average for the Obama presidency.”

A new survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports found that 30 percent — a significant number, yet still a minority — believe last week’s election results were more about supporting the Republican Party and its candidates than a vote against the Democrats, while 49 percent disagreed, instead saying the election results were a vote against the Democrats. PPD’s senior political analyst, Richard Baris, took a look at the conflicting surveys earlier today.

“Gallup and Rasmussen may be revealing something that appears to be conflicting, but actually isn’t,” Baris said. “Exit polling showed both parties had an equal net 12-point negative among voters, but clearly neither are particularly popular.”

Still, Baris says the polling results are significant and that the Democrats lost a powerful argument, even if it was simply one that the talk show circuit was giving a platform to project.

“Look, this, much like the election, is disabling to the Democratic Party,” he added. “They suffered such serious defeats for a reason, and I’d expect the GOP to get a bump.”

Rasmussen Reports badly called the actual election. As Baris outlined in a recent article, Rasmussen’s polling results were bias in favor of Democrats between 8 and 9 points, on average. In presidential approval rating, the pollster has repeatedly shown a bias in favor of President Obama by roughly the same spread in post-2012 polling, though that has widened in the days following the election.

“Again, if these results have to be reconciled in any way, it is actually minor based on differences in polling methods and question formatting,” he pointed out. “But if there are conflicting results, political junkies should go with Gallup because — unlike Rasmussen — their results are trustworthy.”

For the first time since September 2011,

college_tuition_cost_student_loan_dent

Obtaining a student loan hasn’t been a real problem for students pursuing higher education, according to a new report from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In fact, the most recent data suggest the U.S. economy is suffering from a saturation of the labor market by PhD-holders that are not — well — very productive, or cannot repay their debts.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act required the CFPB to submit an annual report that analyzes complaints submitted by consumers, most recently from October 1, 2013, through September 30, 2014. In that timeframe, the Bureau handled approximately 5,300 private student loan complaints, which represented an increase of approximately 38 percent compared to that of the previous year. Just 2 percent of those complainants cited “getting a loan” as their problem.

However, 57 percent cited “repaying my loan/dealing with my lender” and 41 percent said “problems when you are unable to pay/can’t repay my loan” in the report. That’s a frightening finding, considering the class of 2014 graduated with an average student loan debt of $33,000. Even if we adjusted for inflation using the government’s bogus numbers and methods, that’s still nearly double the amount borrowers had to pay back 20 years ago.

According to the CFPB, student loan debt has ballooned to nearly $1.5 trillion. With the U.S. national debt rapidly approaching $18 trillion, student loan debt now represents 6 percent of the wet debt-blanket over the economy. The amount of consumer debt from student loans is second only to mortgages, and the vast majority of student loans are backed by the U.S. government through banks like Sallie Mae, or since 2010, by the Department of Education.

Unfortunately, they are also representative of the majority of loans that debts holders say they cannot pay back, by far.

student_loan_debt_complaints

Source: CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU

Defaults on such an enormous amount of student loan debt along with current levels of national debt would no doubt have grave consequences on the U.S. economy, including slower if any economic growth — hence fewer jobs — and rising interest rates that will ultimately make repayment on those debts very difficult and very expensive. As interest rates increase, as they are inevitably destined to do, particularly now that the Federal Reserve has decided to end its bond-buying, money-printing scheme known as QE3, the cost of that debt will increase to unknown levels.

Due to a bipartisan bill signed by President Obama last year, increases in interest rates will have a limited impact on student loans, though the overall impact is unclear and the bill obviously does nothing about the total debt. As the market climbs, most student loan rates will climb until they reach a cap of 8.25 percent. Still, under such pressure in a bad case scenario, liquidity will not be readily available and financial markets will once again freeze up.

What, exactly, is the return for the American taxpayer in terms of economic productivity and growth?

It has long been a cultural belief that advanced degrees lead to more opportunity. But, recently, it isn’t holding up to scrutiny. While it certainly doesn’t represent all college graduates, a recent paper published in the Journal of Economic Perspectives found PhD research conducted by some of those with the most expensive degrees is grossly lagging in productivity.

“If the objective of graduate training in top-ranked departments is to produce successful research economists, then these graduate programmes are largely failing,” says John P. Conley and Ali Sina Önder, the authors of the new report. “Our evidence shows that only the top 10–20 percent of a typical graduating class of economics PhD students are likely to accumulate a research record that might lead to tenure at a medium-level research university.”

“Perhaps the most striking finding from our data is that graduating from a top department is neither necessary nor sufficient for becoming a successful research economist.”

In other words, more money doesn’t necessarily translate into more opportunity, and there is little wonder why even those who possess advanced degrees are having a hard time paying back loans. Though the study focused solely on economists, the saturation of the U.S. labor market with expensive, advanced degrees is certainly not confined to PhD economists.

In America, as a result of a private-public partnership between unionized universities and the government, there are way too many PhDs produced each year juxtaposed to the lack of job openings. More than 100,000 doctoral degrees were shelled out in the United States between 2005 and 2009, but in the same period there were just 16,000 new professorships.

“What’s the point in killing yourself to be a productive researcher when finding an academic job is so hard?” the Economist asked.

That’s a good question, one which policy-makers should be asking. It’s also a question that I nor anyone else, including proponents of government-sponsored higher education-for-all, can answer in a positive manner that actually benefits the economy.

Student loan debt in the U.S. is

senate leaders

On left, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) sits to the right of the man who has taken his job, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

Nearly half of likely voters say the Republican wave that swept through national races and down-ballot contests was more a repudiation of President Obama and the Democratic Party, than a vote for Republicans.

A new survey conducted by Rasmussen Reports found that 30 percent — a significant number, yet still a minority — believe last week’s election results were more about supporting the Republican Party and its candidates than a vote against the Democrats, while 49 percent disagreed, instead saying the election results were a vote against the Democrats.

However, over a fifth of voters asked — 21 percent — said they still aren’t sure.

Of course, despite their recent attempt to spin the numbers, Rasmussen Reports badly called the actual election. As we previously examined, Rasmussen’s polling results were bias in favor of Democrats between 8 and 9 points, on average. In presidential approval rating, the pollster has repeatedly shown a bias in favor of President Obama by roughly the same spread in post-2012 polling, though that has widened in the days following the election.

As of now, Obama’s job approval rating stands at negative 36/57 percent in the Reuters/Ipsos tracking poll, while Gallup has president Obama at a negative 39/56 percent. The PPD average of polls currently has Obama barely hovering over 40 percent, precisely because of Rasmussen’s survey results artificially propping the president up.

Rasmussen currently shows 47 percent of voters approve of the job President Obama is doing, while 52 percent disapprove.

To be fair, Rasmussen wasn’t the only pollster to swing and miss on Election Day. In fact, some pollster even underestimated the Republican wave more so than the former Republican-bias pollster. Larry Sabato, editor-in-chief of Sabato’s Crystal Ball, called for an investigation into the polling industry following the election.

“I want an investigation of the polls in Virginia. They were completely wrong just as they were in Georgia,” Sabato said on Fox & Friends. “They were also way off in Illinois. And I could go on and on. Boy is that an industry that needs some house cleaning.”

Still, it is certainly true that voters aren’t keen on either party, even if the pre-election narrative widely painted the Republicans in a less favorable light than the Democrats. In Fox News’s final pre-election survey, the Democratic Party had a net negative of 10 points in voter favorability — 42 percent favorable, 52 percent unfavorable — while the Republican Party was upside-down by 16 points — 38 percent favorable, 54 percent unfavorable.

However, the national exit poll showed a net negative of 12 points in favorability for each party. But, according to analyst Charlie Cook, despite the victories across the board, election night brought both good and bad news for the GOP.

“The bad news being that even with this big win, Americans still do not like the GOP,” Cook said. “The good news for Republicans, this time around, is that this election was not about you.”

I couldn’t agree with that assessment more.

Nearly half of likely voters say the

philae_lander_space_probe

European Space Agency’s Philae lander (ESA/Rosetta/Philae/CIVA)

The European Space Agency’s Philae lander space probe has made space history by successfully reaching the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko. The risky first-ever landing of its kind, which happened at 11.03 AM ET, was met with an eruption of applause at the ESA’s control room in Darmstadt, Germany.

Philae, as previously stated, is the first probe ever to land on a comet. The ESA released the first image Wednesday — viewable above — of its Philae lander actually separating from the Rosetta mothership toward the surface of comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko.

The separation, which took place around 4 AM ET, was only the beginning of what was a 7-hour trip to the comet’s surface. It is a mission that started roughly a decade ago by the Rosetta spacecraft and its Philae lander, which have been navigating through the solar system toward the comet.

Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko is approximately 2.5 miles wide and travels at speeds up to 84,000 miles per hour, making the landing a difficult challenge that now serves as a testament to the power of human ingenuity.

The lander, which is reportedly no larger than an average sized washing machine, descended to the comet relying upon built-in harpoons and screws to secure itself to the comet. The descent was an anxious and helpless moment for the scientists, who could do nothing but watch and trust their technology and efforts. They watched on as the probe, which was 311 million miles from Earth, relayed delayed data through the video feed.

The Rosetta and Philae will stay on the Comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko as it speeds toward the sun. The closer the distance becomes to the sun the more active the comet will become, as it heats up and begins to throw off ice particles. With 21 different scientific instruments, the machines will collect data that scientists hope will help explain the origins of comets and other celestial bodies.

The $1.6 billion mission launched in 2004.

The European Space Agency's Philae lander space

dan-sullivan-ak-senate-race

Nov. 4, 2014: Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dan Sullivan greets supporters on election night. (Photo: AP)

The Associated Press officially reported that the Republican candidate Dan Sullivan defeated Democratic incumbent Sen. Mark Begich in the Alaska’s Senate race Wednesday. The win boots the GOP’s gains up to eight Senate pickups in the midterm elections.

A ninth net gain is likely in the Louisiana Senate runoff on December 6. Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu grossly underperformed on Election Day and Republican Bill Cassidy was running far ahead of his support in what were terribly inaccurate polls. Democratic sources say the DNCC is bailing on her campaign, sensing inevitable loss.

Sullivan ran a campaign on his own terms, ignoring the debate schedule Begich laid out. The Democrat was somewhat successful at localizing the race in a national environment favorable to the GOP, but blew it when he ran what was a widely denounced ad blaming the then-state attorney Dan Sullivan for the early release of a rapist-murderer.

The ad highlighted the case involving 25-year-old Jerry Active, who is charged with murdering the victim’s two grandparents and the sexual assault of their two-year-old granddaughter.

Sullivan ran against the expansion of the federal government under Obama’s tenure, and Begich’s support of that agenda, including their opposition to energy independence and expansion.

PPD maintained on Election Day that Begich had no viable path to defeat Sullivan, and as officials began to count absentee ballots it became clear that Sullivan maintained a 8,100 vote advantage — which is large for Alaska — over Begich.

Sullivan won the nomination in a hard-fought, three-way GOP primary against 2010 nominee Joe Miller, who came in second despite the erroneous polling, and Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell.

Sullivan had the backing of both the GOP establishment and conservative outside groups, including The Club For Growth, a pro-fiscal sanity and free market group.

“Senator-elect Dan Sullivan will be an excellent addition to the pro-growth caucus and the Club for Growth PAC was honored to support his campaign,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “Dan Sullivan will get results for America just as he got results for Alaska – by rolling up his sleeves and fighting for pro-growth policies. Dan knows the fight for economic freedom has just begun, and we can’t wait to see what he can do in the United States Senate.”

Club’s Super-PAC, spent nearly $150,000 on independent ads to help elect Dan to the Senate, and the Club’s PAC bundled $559,137 directly to Dan’s campaign from Club members.

The Alaska Senate race was rated Likely Republican on PPD’s 2014 Senate Map Predictions model the entire cycle.

The Associated Press officially reported that the

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial