The solar wind is a fairly fast 398 km/sec and there are 7 sunspots on the sun today. Solar
activity ticked upward on May 24th with the eruption of an M1-class solar flare from sunspot
AR2065. Sunspot AR2073 also poses a threat for M-class flares, so the weekend might not be as
quiet as previously supposed. The May Camelopardalids were a bit of a dud. There were a few
fireballs, but it was not as frequent as expected. Nothing hit the ground.
If you thought they don’t come much bigger than the Tyrannosaurus rex and the
Argentinosaurus then think again – scientists in Argentina have uncovered the bones of a
creature believed to be the world’s biggest dinosaur.
According to the measurements of its gigantic thigh bones, the herbivore would have been 40m
(130ft) long and 20m (65ft) tall, the BBC reported.
Palaeontologists think it is a new species of titanosaur – part of a diverse group of sauropod
dinosaurs that were characterised by their long necks and tails and small heads – dating from the
Cretaceous period.
The mega dino would have weighed in at 77 tonnes (the equivalent of approximately 14
elephants), making it seven tonnes heavier than the previous record holder Argentinosaurus.
A farm worker discovered the fossilised remains in desert land near La Flecha, which is around
250km (135 miles) west of Trelew, Patagonia.
Scientists from the Museum of Palaeontology Egidio Ferugliom excavated the fossils and found
seven partial skeletons, amounting to around 150 bones.
The researchers, led by Dr Jose Luis Carballido and Dr Diego Pol, told the BBC: “Given the size
of these bones, which surpass any of the previously known giant animals, the new dinosaur is the
largest animal known that walked on Earth.
"Its length, from its head to the tip of its tail, was 40m.
“Standing with its neck up, it was about 20m high - equal to a seven-storey building.”
They added that the creature, which lived in the forests of Patagonia between 95 and 100 million
years ago, was yet to be named.
“It will be named describing its magnificence and in honour to both the region and the farm
owners who alerted us about the discovery,” the researchers said.
Drone Wars Update
In 13 short years, killer drones have gone from being exotic military technology featured
primarily in the pages of specialized aviation magazines to a phenomenon of popular culture,
splashed across daily newspapers and fictionalized in film and television, including the new
season of “24.”
What has not changed all that much — at least superficially — is the basic aircraft that most
people associate with drone warfare: the armed Predator.
The Predator, with its distinctive bubble near the nose and sensor ball underneath, is the iconic
image of drone warfare, an aircraft that grew out of 1980s work supported by the Pentagon’s
future-thinking Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.
Originally developed to perform surveillance, the CIA added Hellfire missiles and began using
the Predator to hunt down members of the Taliban and al Qaeda after the US invasion of
Afghanistan in 2001. Though the CIA and Air Force now fly an updated version of the Predator
— named Reaper — the drone is still relatively easy to detect, and easy to shoot down, at least
for a country with a modern military.
Modal Trigger
A MQ-9 Reaper during a 2009 combat mission over southern Afghanistan.Photo: AP
In fact, as terrifying as drones sound, they actually aren’t all that sophisticated compared to other
weapons in the US arsenal. The original Predator plodded along at a pokey 84 miles an hour.
Modal Trigger
A ShadowHawk drone with the Montgomery County, Texas, SWAT team. Civilian cousins of
the drone are being sought by police departments, border patrols, power companies, and news
organizations who want a bird’s-eye view.Photo: AP
Its missiles, though lethal, are decades-old technology developed to destroy tanks, not terrorists.
And despite concerns about autonomous killing machines, the Predator must be operated by a
pilot (albeit remotely). The Predator has proved effective, but it is not exactly the sci-fi miracle
that many might imagine.
Under development, however, is a new generation of drones that will be able to penetrate the air
defenses of even sophisticated nations, spotting nuclear facilities, and tracking down — and
possibly killing — terrorist leaders, silently from high altitudes. These drones will be fast,
stealthy and survivable, designed to sneak in and out of a country without ever being spotted.
In fact, the Predator may someday be to drone warfare what the V-2 was to long-range ballistic
missiles: a crude, but important, first step in a new era of warfare.
The Past
1980 — The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) launches “Teal Rain,” a
top-secret study on high altitude, long endurance unmanned aircraft.
Modal Trigger
An SR-71A Blackbird in flightPhoto: Getty Images
1984 — DARPA contracts with Abe Karem to design a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) called
“Amber.”
1990 — General Atomics buys Abe Karem’s company, Leading Systems. It sells Karem’s UAV,
now called “Gnat,” to the CIA. In 1994, General Atomics is given contract to develop the
Predator, a successor to the Gnat.
1990s — Pentagon secretly funds development of an unmanned successor to the SR-71
Blackbird (a stealth plane introduced in 1964 and famous in popular culture; it’s even used by
the “X-Men”). Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed compete.
Modal Trigger
The Dark Star at the National Museum of the United States Air Force.Photo: US Air Force
1998 — Retirement of SR-71 Blackbird. The Pentagon pursues two new spy drones: the Global
Hawk, a high-altitude surveillance drone, and the RQ-3 DarkStar, a stealthy spy drone, which
crashes and is cancelled.
Modal Trigger
A Global Hawk at Edwards Air Force Base in California in 2001.Photo: AP
2001 — October 7: First armed Predator strike in Afghanistan. The CIA attempted to kill Taliban
leader Mullah Omar.
2007 — General Atomics delivers the Reaper, an upgraded version of the Predator, to the Air
Force. The Reaper can fly higher and faster than the Predator, and carries a variety of weapons.
2009 — A photographer in Kandahar, Afghanistan, captured an image of the stealth RQ-170
drone, which aviation watchers called the “Beast of Kandahar.” Its mission: slip past air defense
radar into countries like Pakistan and Iran. US officials soon leaked that RQ-170 had been used
to keep tabs on Osama bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad in 2011. One RQ-170’s life was cut
short, however, when it was captured by Iran later that year, possibly after Iran intercepted the
signal used to control it. Last week, Iran claimed it had cloned the drone. It’s unclear how many
RQ-170s exist.
Modal Trigger
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seated left, listens during an aerospace
exhibition in Tehran Sunday. The exhibition revealed an advanced CIA spy drone, captured in
2011, and its Iranian-made copy, pictured in back.Photo: AP
The Future
After the retirement of the SR-71 Blackbird spy plane, the military had an obvious gap in its
arsenal.
In 2007, satellite pictures emerged showing new construction at Area 51, the Pentagon’s topsecret testing area in the Nevada desert. Veteran watchers of “black,” or secret, aircraft,
immediately suspected that the Pentagon was preparing to test a new secret aircraft, and the most
likely candidate was a stealth drone.
Modal Trigger
Aviation Week produced this artist’s concept of the RQ-180, a stealth drone that spies from high
altitudes.Photo: Aviation Week
Now, two unmanned spy drones are under development. One that appears almost ready for
combat is the RQ-180, a stealthy spy drone built by Northrop Grumman. Though the Pentagon
refuses to confirm its existence, Aviation Week & Space Technology ran this artist’s concept
earlier this year and revealed a little about its rumored design.
The RQ-180 is designed to fly very high, for a very long time (perhaps as long as 24 hours).
According to Aviation Week, it has a 130-foot wing span and a “cranked kite” stealthy design
that would allow it to slip past enemy radar. Chances are it will only be used for surveillance, not
attack, though it could carry out an electronic attack.
Another, recently revealed project is a high-altitude drone being developed by Lockheed Martin
that can travel up to six times of the speed of sound. The drone would be both a spy and strike
aircraft, according to Lockheed. But the SR-72, as Lockheed is calling the twin-engine aircraft,
wouldn’t be ready to fly until 2030.
Modal Trigger
Lockheed’s SR-72 will fly at six times the speed of sound, and could strike targets.
What about a replacement for a Predator? The original Predator was essentially a surveillance
aircraft that was turned into an armed drone, so any future replacement aircraft would likely look
very different. The Pentagon has openly funded work on unmanned combat aircraft, including
Northrop Grumman’s X-47, a diamond-shaped drone that can take off and land from aircraft
carriers. But aerospace watchers have long presumed that these programs are hiding even more
secretive work.
Modal Trigger
The X-47, a combat drone from Northrop Grumman.Photo: Zumapress.com
Part of the difficulty of deciphering the world of drones is that the Pentagon for over three
decades has run a series of overlapping projects, often using unclassified programs as “covers”
for more secret unmanned aircraft work.
Aviation Week, for example, says the RQ-180 was part of a secret, three-way contest that
involved competing drones from Lockheed and Boeing. What happened to those other unmanned
aircraft is unclear. Figuring out which are “real” drone project meant for deployment, and which
are covers for secret drones, is a shell game.
Small & ubiquitous
Even the stealthy killer drones known or suspected to be under development fall short of some of
the unmanned aircraft depicted in science fiction or thriller novels, which often feature swarms
of autonomous killing machines. It is true that the Pentagon has been funding work to make
drones operate with greater autonomy — for example, one of DARPA’s latest proposals calls on
researchers to design ways to have drones collaborate with each other, such as having drones
share information about a target.
But drones that can operate completely without the need for a pilot sitting in an air-conditioned
trailer on a base in Nevada are still several years away, at least, and the Pentagon has long
insisted that drones won’t be allowed to use weapons without a “man in the loop.”
Yet another longtime goal of military work is to create tiny drones, possibly disguised as birds or
even insects (the CIA did develop a robotic dragonfly, though it never proved useful).
In terror expert Richard Clarke’s new novel, “Sting of the Drone,” the CIA operates stealthy
mini-drones that are capable of assassinating someone inside a bar, and there is certainly
evidence such drones are of interest. A four-minute animated video created by the Air Force
Research Laboratory showed up on the Web in 2009, illustrating the lab’s work on micro aerial
vehicles. The video featured a kamikaze insect-sized drone loaded with high explosives.
But drones of that level of sophistication — able to perch on telephone wires or hunt down
terrorists inside a building — still belong to the future.
The real drone revolution may come not through sophistication of drones, but the proliferation of
drones. So far, unmanned aircraft have largely been the weapons of technologically advanced
nations, but that is changing as drone technology becomes cheaper and more accessible.
Modal Trigger
A model of an insect size US Air Force drone.Photo: Reuters
Just as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, fast became the No. 1 killer of US troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan, experts are now warning that crude drones — in some cases essentially
sophisticated model airplanes — could be the real threat in the years to come.
Modal Trigger
Dr. Gregory Parker, Micro Air Vehicle team leader, holds another small winged drone.Photo:
Reuters
Indeed, Hezbollah has already bragged of sending spy drones into Israeli territory, and Israeli
leaders have warned of the possible drone threat that Hamas could pose from Gaza.
And a recent report by the Rand Corporation warned that, in the future, terrorist groups might be
able to buy small, armed drones: “Smaller systems could become the next IEDs: low-cost, low-
tech weapons that are only of limited lethality individually but attrite significant numbers of US
or allied personnel when used in large numbers over time.”
The US military holds an annual exercise called Black Dart, which looks at ways to counter
hostile drones, particularly small drones. Among the possible defenses are lasers to shoot down
drones or systems that can jam the radio signals used to control drones. But this sort of counterdrone technology is scarce today.
Environmental Protectionist Agency
he EPA will launch the most dramatic anti-pollution regulation in a generation early next month,
a sweeping crackdown on carbon that offers President Barack Obama his last real shot at a
legacy on climate change — while causing significant political peril for red-state Democrats.
The move could produce a dramatic makeover of the power industry, shifting it away from coalburning plants toward natural gas, solar and wind. While this is the big move environmentalists
have been yearning for, it also has major political implications in November for a president
already under fire for what the GOP is branding a job-killing “War on Coal,” and promises to be
an election issue in energy-producing states such as West Virginia, Kentucky and Louisiana.
The EPA’s proposed rule is aimed at scaling back carbon emissions from existing power plants,
the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases. It’s scheduled for a public rollout June 2, after
months of efforts by the administration to publicize the mounting scientific evidence that rising
seas, melting glaciers and worsening storms pose a danger to human society.
“This rule is the most significant climate action this administration will take,” said Kyle Aarons
at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, one of a host of groups awaiting the rule’s
release. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) has urged the EPA to “go ahead boldly” with the rule,
saying the agency must step in where Congress has refused to act.
But for coal country, the rule is yet another indignity for an industry already facing a wave of
power plant shutdowns amid hostile market forces and a series of separate EPA air regulations.
Coal-state Democrats like West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin have joined the criticism, echoing
industry warnings that the fossil fuel was crucial to keeping the lights on in much of the U.S.
during this past brutal winter.
“You have another polar vortex next year, how many people will lose their lives?” Manchin
asked at a POLITICO energy policy forum Tuesday.
Other red-state Democrats like Alison Lundergan Grimes, who is challenging Senate Minority
Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky’s Senate race, have disavowed Obama’s EPA proposals
— she denounced an earlier agency power plant rule as an “out-of-touch Washington
regulation.” West Virginia Rep. Nick Rahall, one of the most vulnerable Democrats in
November, complained last year that “this callous, ideologically driven agency continues to be
numb to the economic pain that their reckless regulations cause.” And Sen. Mary Landrieu (DLa.), a top Republican target this year, has voted with Republicans to hobble the agency’s rules.
But supporters say that whatever the political dynamics, the need for acting on climate change is
dire.
Next month’s debut comes after a series of scientific reports warning about the rising seas,
worsening storms and other havoc that global warming will bring to people around the world,
including effects that have already started to appear in the U.S. The White House has spent
months in a steady effort to call attention to those findings, as part of an outreach that included
having Obama give one-on-one interviews with television meteorologists this month.
“This is a problem that is affecting Americans right now, whether it means increased flooding,
greater vulnerability to drought, more severe wildfires,” Obama told one of the forecasters. “And
people’s lives are at risk.”
‘We can’t sit by silently’
It’s not just the coal industry that’s losing sleep over the rule. Manufacturers and industries like
oil refining have been eyeing the power plant regulations as the starting gun for a process that
will eventually lead to greenhouse gas limits for a wide variety of businesses.
“These regulations could reduce the diversity of our energy supply, increase electricity and
compliance costs for American businesses and shrink our competitiveness,” said Ross Eisenberg,
vice president for energy and resources policy at the National Association of Manufacturers.
“We can’t sit by silently while that happens.”
Despite opponents’ warnings that the rule will be a death sentence for coal-fired power, EPA
leaders have been adamant that they’ll offer states ample “flexibility” to devise their own ways
to cut carbon. Some states may join regional cap-and-trade networks, similar to an existing
Northeastern compact that has co-existed with coal plants for years. Others could push for
investments in wind and solar power, or in energy efficiency programs that help homeowners
and businesses reduce their demand for electricity.
The rule, set to become final in mid-2015, would apply to the nation’s thousands of coal and
natural gas-fired power plants. But coal — the cheapest, dirtiest and most abundant fossil fuel —
would bear the heaviest burden.
That means its impact could be greatest in states like Kentucky, a major coal producer that gets
as much as 90 percent of its power from the fuel — and which as recently as 2010 had the
country’s lowest electricity prices. It’s also a crucial state in the 2014 Senate electoral calendar.
Republicans have said they also intend to use Obama’s climate policies as a wedge in states such
as Alaska, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina and Iowa — all places where the GOP has a
chance to pick up a Senate seat now held by Democrats.
Outside the fence
Obama commanded the EPA to write the rule last summer, when he announced his climate
strategy at Georgetown University. Its fate will be crucial to Obama’s legacy, and it may give the
U.S. added leverage at major climate negotiations next year in Paris.
The rule’s legal fine print will be crucial, since the EPA is relying on a section of the Clean Air
Act that has never been used for such a sweeping program. But a string of recent court victories
has left the agency confident that the rule will withstand the inevitable legal challenges.
People who follow the agency have long expected the EPA to take on existing power plants, and
the broad contours of its likely approach have been a topic of conversation among observers for
years.
The Free World Awakens
Nigel Farage said: "UKIP will never allow the false accusation of racism levelled by a politically
correct elite to prevent the raising of issues that are of concern to the great majority of the British
public.
"The unfortunate reality is that we are in political union with a post-Communist country that has
become highly susceptible to organised crime.
"Where there are differential crime rates between nationalities, it is perfectly legitimate to point
this out and to discuss it in the public sphere and I shall continue to do so.
"Police figures are quite clear that there is a high level of criminality within the Romanian
community in Britain. This is not to say for a moment that all or even most Romanian people
living in the UK are criminals.
"But it is to say that any normal and fair-minded person would have a perfect right to be
concerned if a group of Romanian people suddenly moved in next door. So far as I can see most
of those media commentators objecting to this statement are people living in million pound
houses for whom the prospect of such a turn of events is not a real one.
"Of course, if we were able to operate a proper work permit scheme for Romanian nationals,
with suitable checks, as recommended by UKIP, then nobody would need to be concerned if a
group of Romanian nationals moved in next door to them. "
New figures out today from the Office of National Statistics showing a huge rise in the number
of foreign workers by 292,000 in one year demonstrate that Conservative-Lib Dem immigration
policy has been an “abject failure”, according to UKIP Leader Nigel Farage.
An extra 292,000 foreign workers represents a 7% rise in just one year, including 168,000 more
EU workers. Of this number, 115,000 of the increase came from "A8 countries" including
Poland.
Figures out today show that the number of Romanian and Bulgarians working in the UK has
increased by a quarter in just twelve months, now topping 140,000, up 29,000 in the past year.
These figures do not include the dependents of foreign workers or those migrants not in work.
India “Tea Party” Wins Big
NEW DELHI (AP) — India's opposition leader, Narendra Modi, will become the next prime
minister of the world's largest democracy, winning the most decisive election victory the country
has seen in three decades and sweeping the long-dominant Congress party from power.
Modi, a career politician whose campaign promised a revival of economic growth, will have a
strong mandate to govern at a time of profound changes in Indian society. He also has said he
wants to strengthen India's strategic partnership with the United States. But critics worry the
ascendance of his Hindu nationalist party could worsen sectarian tensions with India's minority
138 million Muslims.
INDIA: Why this election matters
The results were a crushing defeat for the Congress party, which is deeply entwined with the
Nehru-Gandhi political dynasty that has been at the center of Indian politics for most of the
country's post-independence history. The party, led by outgoing Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh, has been plagued by repeated corruption scandals and a poor economy.
As his overwhelming win became clear Friday, Modi appeared before a crowd of cheering
supporters and tried to strike a conciliatory note.
"I have always said that to govern the nation it is our responsibility to take everyone with us,"
Modi said after a lengthy and punishing race. "I want your blessings so that we can run a
government that carries everyone with it."
Nevertheless, Modi remains a divisive figure in the country of 1.2 billion people, in large part
because he, as chief minister of Gujarat state, was in command in 2002 when communal rioting
there killed more than 1,000 people — most of them Muslims.
Modi was accused of doing little to stop the rampage, though he denies any wrongdoing and has
never been charged with a crime. He was denied a U.S. visa in 2005 for alleged complicity in the
riots, although as prime minister he would be virtually assured a visa. The question now is
whether he can be a truly secular leader in a country with many faiths.
The Congress party tried to highlight the 2002 riots during the campaign, but Modi's momentum
— and laser focus on the ailing economy — carried him to victory.
By Friday evening, Modi's Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party was winning in enough seats
in the lower house of Parliament to exceed the 272-seat majority needed to create a government
without forming a coalition with smaller parties, the Election Commission said. Of the 357 seats
declared the BJP had won 217 and was leading in another 65. Full results were expected
Saturday, but Modi's win was all but assured.
There was a record turnout in the election, with 66.38 percent of India's 814 million eligible
voters casting ballots during the six-week contest, which began April 7 and was held in stages
across the country. Turnout in the 2009 general election was 58.13 percent.
The last time any single party won a majority in India was in 1984, when an emotional nation
gave the Congress party a staggering victory of more than 400 seats following the assassination
of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
But 30 years later, India is now in the throes of rapid urbanization and globalization just as the
youth population is skyrocketing. Many new voters are far less deferential to traditional voting
patterns focused on family lineage and caste. For the young Indian voters, the priorities are jobs
and development, which Modi put at the forefront of his campaign.
Sreeram Chaulia, a political analyst and dean of the Jindal School of International Affairs, said
the BJP's image as a purely capitalist, pro-business party resonated across India. That image
contrasts with Congress, which is considered more of a welfare party, mixing capitalist reforms
with handouts for the poor.
"A lot of ordinary people believed in (Modi's) message and wanted to give him the strong
mandate he was seeking, to see if he could really change things in India," Chaulia said. "There
has been growth in the middle class, so of course why have they punished the incumbents?
Because they want more, obviously, something more than subsistence. They want upward
mobility."
The BJP has promised to change tough labor laws that make foreign manufacturers reluctant to
set up factories in India. Manufacturing makes up only 15 percent of India's economy, compared
to 31 percent in China. Attracting manufacturing investment is key to creating jobs for the 13
million young Indians entering the workforce each year, and foreign investors have been pouring
billions of dollars into Indian stocks and bonds in anticipation of a Modi victory.
Although he focused strongly on the economy, Modi has given some hints of his foreign policy
leanings, saying the BJP wants to build on the foundations laid by Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the last
BJP prime minister. Vajpayee, who governed from 1998 to 2004, rode a bus across the border to
Pakistan in what was seen as a bold step in trying to mend ties with India's longtime enemy.
Modi said during the campaign that India did not want a war with regional giant China but that
his government would be prepared to deal with what he called Beijing's possible expansionist
designs.
The Obama administration has watched Modi's rise carefully, and in February, for the first time
in Modi's decade-long tenure as the top official in Gujarat state, the U.S. ambassador met with
him.
The election came at a low ebb for the Congress party, which has been in power for all but 10
years of the country's history since independence in 1947. Friday's partial results showed
Congress winning only about 45 seats, its worst showing ever.
The leader of the Congress campaign, 43-year-old Rahul Gandhi, failed to inspire public
confidence. He was seen as ambivalent at best over winning a job held previously by his father,
grandmother and great-grandfather.
"I wish the new government all the best," Gandhi told reporters Friday afternoon, adding that he
held himself responsible for the party's losses.
Immediately after his appearance, his mother, Sonia Gandhi, the president of the party, took the
microphone and said she assumes responsibility.
The two took no questions after their brief remarks, and Rahul trailed his mother off the stage.
Rahul Gandhi, who first won a seat in Parliament in 2004, has been viewed as prime-minister-inwaiting for his entire political career, though he never appeared comfortable in the role. When he
finally gave the first television interview earlier this year, it made for dull, uninspiring viewing
full of vague promises.
In sharp contrast to the street parties outside the BJP office, a sober scene played out in front of
the Congress headquarters, where few showed up despite barricades erected to protect supporters
from passing road traffic.
Modi, 63, promised a fresh start in India on Friday, noting that he is the first Indian prime
minister born after independence from Britain in 1947.
"I would like to reassure the nation that while we did not get to fight and die for independence,
we have the honor of living for this nation," Modi said. "Now is not the time to die for the nation
but to live for it.
Sheer size: With 1.2 billion people, India is the world's largest democracy and contains around
one-sixth of the global population. More people were eligible to vote in India's election — more
than 800 million — than there are in all of Europe (740 million). This year's record turnout
netted more than 500 ballots cast.
Out with the old: The outgoing Congress party, and its deep links to the Nehru-Gandhi family,
has been at the center of Indian politics for all but 10 years since the country won independence
from British rule in 1947. This is a victory for new blood. Voters rejected Rahul Gandhi — the
son, grandson and great-grandson of Indian prime ministers.
Going it alone: The scale of the win — forecasts suggest the BJP may take more than 272
parliamentary seats out of 545 races — may mean Modi's Hindu nationalist party will be able to
rule India as single party, which hasn't happened since 1984.
Big business: Modi has a pro-business agenda and India is a world leader in producing talented
workers for the technology and modern health care sectors. Thousands of Indian expats have
made huge contributions to economies across Europe and in the USA. India's new prime minister
may find ways of luring some of them home. The Sensex, India's benchmark stock index, has
taken note. At one point Friday it advanced as much as 6% before trimming gains.
Great expectations: "Modi promised the moon and the stars. People bought that," Rajiv Shukla,
a Congress party leader said Friday. There is some truth to that. The BJP has vowed to clamp
down on government corruption. Modi has ambitious plans to compete with its economic
superpower next door, China, by embarking on a plan of aggressive infrastructure-building
Tea Party Roars Forward After Sweeping Election Night
Sacramento, CA – Tea Party Express, the nation’s largest Tea Party political action committee,
congratulates Tea Party-backed candidates Ben Sasse (NE-Senate) , Lee Terry (NE-2) and Alex
Mooney (WV-2) for their primary victories tonight.
Tea Party Express’ Executive Director Taylor Budowich said, “Political pundits love to roleplay as coroners, but they aren’t very good at it. For the past week the mainstream media has
been pushing the recycled ‘Tea Party is Dead’ headlines, but tonight’s results show how again
they’ve got it wrong. What these pundits don’t understand is the power of the grassroots and the
broad appeal of the Tea Party’s message of fiscal responsibility and economic growth.
“The victories of Ben Sasse, Lee Terry and Alex Mooney tonight, coupled with the victory of
Curt Clawson in Florida in late April, prove the Tea Party’s momentum is continuing to roar
forward. Just look at the races where the Tea Party movement is united and we’re winning. Our
goal is to stop the Democrats and their liberal, big government policies that are eroding
America’s fiscal solvency, limiting job growth, and infringing on our liberties, and we’re looking
toward the real test in November, during the General Election, as we fight to take control of the
Senate and expand our influence in the House by defeating Democrats with bold, Tea Party
conservatives,” Budowich concluded
Government Overreach
The Book Alienated Nation: The New Path to Liberty expresses the critical need for the States to
step forward and use their Constitutional duty to wrestle the GMO infected, Steroid crazed
Federal Bureaucracy to the ground. The fear is that the States, not free from corruption
themselves, would ruin the whole country with the city council cronies. That has been a fact
since the 13 colonies, and is common in the 50 States.
The recent Democrat Convention in Charlotte ran up a $37 million bill, which they left unpaid.
So quietly and swiftly was the shortfall swept under the City Council rug that the Mayor of
Charlotte,
FEMA
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) plays a large role in the increased
federalization process. FEMA was originally created as national catastrophe response agency,
not a federal program which subsidizes Americans who live in risky disaster areas. President
Obama has made 343 declarations since taking office in January 2009, the most in FEMA
history. Instead of creating another federal agency to handle natural disasters, Congress could
establish requirements related to which circumstances can be declared natural disasters. A key
way to accomplish this would be to align these declarations with measurement scales used for
natural disasters. The costs associated with natural disasters in terms of lives, homes and
possessions and economic costs are horrible. However, adding more and more responsibilities
and obligations to the FEMA and federal government’s plate will only result in a losing situation
for taxpayers.
Federal Estate
The federal government’s acquisition of and control over land in the United States is getting out
of control. According to the Department of the Interior, payment in lieu of taxes for taking land
off local tax rolls under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was $358.5 million.
In 2004, the Government Services Administration reported that the federal government owned
some 5,104,608 acres of “vacant” land, while in 2003, the Government Accounting Office
(GAO) reported that the National Park Service has deferred maintenance by billions of dollars on
its land. In 2007, the GAO reported that the Interior Department spent $1.6 billion annually on
maintenance and construction, but had a $9.6 billion backlog of deferred maintenance projects.
Nevada itself is already 84.48% owned by the federal government, not including any foreclosed
housing that the government now owns as well.
Not only does federal possession of land add to the federal deficit through maintenance and up
keep costs, but it also prevents job creating activities from occurring on that land. The farming,
mining, and forestry industries could all create jobs on these parcels of land that are being used
for nothing and taxpayers are taking the hit for it.
EPA
Measures designed to protect the health and welfare of the environment and society are very
necessary. These policies, like others that regulate businesses and citizens of the United States,
should be created and enforced through their proper channels, not independently created,
regulated, and enforced by one single entity. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA)
blatant overreach has been denounced by members of both parties. The EPA’s lack of discretion
in promulgating rules has and will continue to effect jobs and energy costs. In addition to this
lack of discretion, the EPA’s overregulation also weighs heavily on businesses across all fifty
states. Billions of dollars yearly for compliance with the EPA’s heavy-handed measures may
force businesses to leave the United States, or not choose to locate here in the first place.
For instance, any change to the original configuration of a certified vehicle or engine, including
alternative fuel conversion, is a potential violation of the Clean Air Act section 203(a)(3)
prohibition against tampering (42 U.S.C. §7522 (a)(3)). In other words, if you remove your
gasoline engine and replace it with an electric motor, this is a violation of the Clean Air Act. You
would be subject to $20,000 fine, if your business is greater than $1,000,000, and can be adjusted
upward depending upon your degree of willfulness. The EPA’s independent authority to create and
then consequently unilaterally enforce these rules must be stopped.
Dodd-Frank Act
The financial regulatory overhaul Dodd-Frank Act (DFA) decreases competition amongst
financial institutions in the United States, while simultaneously treating large firms different than
small ones. In treating these two types of firms different, small firms have less chance of success,
and the large firms that have been deemed “too big to fail” are at a competitive advantage
compared to their smaller counterparts. The DFA’s central notion that the Federal Reserve Bank
will control the activities of these firms also perpetuates this unfair advantage. Decisions of
competitiveness and who prevails in the free market system should be left to the system. The act
allows these mega banks to act like racketeers, draining trillions of dollars of local cash into the
cash trading accounts of the foreign currency brokers. Without cash in the system at the local
levels, the banks are incapable of meeting the credit needs of the communities who earned and
deposited the money in the first place. Just to be clear, the bank does not earn any money at all.
It takes yours, violates your trust in them, and gambles in global markets minute by minute to
make its own shareholders wealthy at your expense.
Common Core of Common Corruption
NEW YORK -A new round of protests are underway Friday one day after elementary school students
completed the latest Common Core testing.
The biggest complaint from teachers is that they were not given sufficient material or guidance
to teach the new standards.
Many parents decided to opt their children out of the testing, with advocacy groups estimating
that more than 28,000 of the state's 1.2 million third- through eighth-graders skipped this week's
three-day English language arts assessments. That's more than double last year's number.
Teachers described the test as horrendous, complaining of inappropriate content and ambiguous
questions they say do a terrible job of measuring reading comprehension.
Teachers and staff are protesting Friday, and they are encouraging parents to join them.
Depending on the district, students refusing the test either quietly read during the daily 60- to 90minute sessions or stayed at their desks doing nothing under much-criticized "sit-and-stare"
policies.
Test results don't count toward student averages, but they do factor into some placement
decisions, as well as teacher evaluations and school standings.
"These tests have changed the entire atmosphere of education for our children," said Danielle
Flora, who wrote letters opting out her three daughters in the Islip School District. Long Island,
where there has been an organized opt-out effort, has seen the highest refusal numbers.
"My children come home saying a large portion of the day is for test prep," said Flora, who has
worked as a high school guidance counselor for 10 years.
Opposition to standardized testing is not new but has intensified in the last two years after the
state made assessments at least 20 percent of a teacher's annual performance score and based
questions on the more challenging Common Core learning standards that have been adopted by
most states.
Although Education Commissioner John King Jr. has repeatedly discouraged "teaching to the
test," parents say classroom lessons and homework have gone from interesting projects and
experiments to dull worksheets simulating test questions.
"I can't blame the teachers. They're doing what they have to to get a good evaluation," said Eric
Mihelbergel, whose third- and sixth-grade daughters opted out in the Kenmore-Tonawanda
district, near Buffalo.
He and others hope participation eventually will drop so low that the tests won't be of any use to
the state. Already the tests are of no use to parents, critics say, because results are not available
until summer and even then they don't specify where points were taken off and why.
"State assessments offer an opportunity for educators and parents to gauge the progress a child is
making toward the standards. Why wouldn't a parent want to know how well his or her child is
doing?" said Tom Dunn, spokesman for the Education Department.
In a letter to superintendents last week, King advised districts not to make student placement
decisions or judge teachers based solely on the results. Only New York City uses the tests in
deciding whether a student passes or fails a grade.
"There's a lot of fear about kids having to go to summer school, about failing," said Nancy
Cauthen, part of New York City parent group, Change the Stakes. "For some parents, pulling
their kids out of the tests is just a very protective action to keep their kids from having to
experience all this destructive anxiety."
Less than a third of students in grade 3 through 8 passed - by meeting or exceeding a set standard
- in English last year, when the tests were first based on the Common Core. The result was the
same in math.
King has said no schools or districts were labeled failing because of the first round of tests. Last
year's scores, he said, created a new baseline going forward.
n a textbook approved by Common Core for use by students studying for the Advanced
Placement (AP) history exam, the Second Amendment is defined this way: "The Second
Amendment: The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia."
Another book that received the Common Core stamp of approval informs students that the
Second Amendment “grant[s] citizens the right to bear arms as members of a militia of citizensoldiers.”
Then, there is a worksheet reportedly approved by Common Core for use by history teachers in
preparing lessons on the Bill of Rights that “informs” students, “The Government of the United
States is currently revisiting The Bill of Rights. They have determined that it is outdated and may
not remain in its current form any longer.”
Actually, the statement is not a statement of fact, but an introduction to a proposed lesson asking
the students to “prioritize, revise, prune two and add two amendments to The Bill of Rights.”
Finally, there is the description of the Second Amendment published in a book approved by
Common Core for use in elementary schools.
Regarding the Second Amendment, the authors of the book state:
This amendment states that people have the right to certain weapons, providing that they register
them and they have not been in prison. The founding fathers included this amendment to prevent
the United States from acting like the British who had tried to take weapons away from the
colonists.
During an interview on Fox News, the superintendent of an Illinois middle school that is using
this book, Bob Hill, defended its warped retelling of history: “What happens with the right to
bear arms in the context of 2014, is the right to bear arms in reality, not as written in the
Constitution, but in reality is it in any way abridged and the answer is ‘yes, in some places by the
need to register guns or gun owners’ and so on.”
In other words, it's not the position of Common Core that its approved texts must teach the
Constitution as it is written; rather, the authors can foist as facts any falsehood, no matter how
removed from “reality.”
Regardless of such admissions, constitutionally aware parents will instantly recognize several
serious misstatements of fact in that little blurb intended to “educate” their children.
First, there is nothing in the Second Amendment that excludes ownership of certain weapons
from within its protection. In fact, the text of the Second Amendment is very clear regarding the
government’s ability to qualify this most basic liberty: “the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, shall not be infringed.”
Next, the subtle message in the definition provided by this book indoctrinates unsuspecting
children with the belief that the government has the right to give and take away the right to own
firearms depending on whether the person has complied with federal guidelines. This is
treachery!
Although Americans have allowed this right to be redefined by Congress, the courts, and the
president, the plain language of the Second Amendment explicitly forbids any infringement on
this right that protects all others.
Finally, the reason for inclusion of the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights had little to do
the British and more to do with future attempts by an out-of-control, all-powerful central
authority disarming the American people as a step toward tyranny. Take, for example, theses
statements by our forefathers regarding the purpose of the passage of this amendment:
In commenting on the Constitution in 1833, Joseph Story wrote:
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the
liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary
power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the
people to resist and triumph over them.
In his own commentary on the works of the influential jurist Blackstone, Founding-era legal
scholar St. George Tucker wrote:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defence is the first
law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the
narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to
keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already
annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
Writing in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton explained:
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in
the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of
government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with
infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state.
There is perhaps no usurpation of the national rulers more egregious and more dangerous than
the establishment of the Common Core Standards. As the examples above demonstrate (in
addition to the hundreds more that could have been included), young children, unaware they are
being fed a steady diet of falsehoods, grow up to be adults who accept the government’s gradual
grab of all power, including the power to define civil liberties and give them and take them away
as these despots see fit.
In an article examining the “real agenda” of the coalition forcing the adoption of the Common
Core Standards, The New American’s Alex Newman observed:
Totalitarian leaders from Hitler to Stalin and everywhere in between have always sought to
centralize and control education. The reason is simple: Whoever molds the minds of the youth
can eventually dominate the population, even if it takes a generation or two. That is why tyrants
in recent centuries have demanded compulsory, government-led education. Hitler made clear that
he wanted to use “education” as a tool to mold German children in accordance with the National
Socialist regime’s despotic and murderous ideology. So did Stalin, and numerous other infamous
tyrants and mass-murderers. As Karl Marx noted in his Communist Manifesto, governmentcontrolled schooling is essential to achieving the goals of socialism.
In his masterpiece On Liberty, renowned British philosopher and parliamentarian John Stuart
Mill succinctly explained the inherent problems with government schools. “A general State
education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another; and as the
mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government ... it
establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body,” he
wrote.
Although the uprising against adoption of the Common Core standards has caused many wary
state lawmakers to propose bills repealing its acceptance, at least 46 states remain committed to
implementing the curricula.
The Great Collapse
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the
link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail.
Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/697cb884e3f0-11e3-a73a-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz32ljB2XVY
How do you persuade people to pay for the air they breathe? That is the problem the US Federal
Reserve is wrestling with, as it tries to figure out how it will eventually raise interest rates, after
its quantitative easing programmes left banks saturated with reserves.
In the past, the Fed raised rates by reducing the supply of bank reserves. Banks have to hold a
minimum level of reserves, so when the supply fell, they would pay more to borrow them – and
then pass that rate on to their customers. The supply of reserves was like oxygen underwater: an
essential commodity in limited supply. The market interest rate for borrowing bank reserves
overnight is known as the Fed Funds rate. Such was the Fed’s experience at managing this
market, that the Federal Open Market Committee could decree a rate, and then the New York
Fed’s markets desk would fine tune the supply of reserves to hit it precisely.
On this story

Markets Today, the situation is different: after three rounds of quantitative easing, banks
have reserves at the Fed almost $3tn greater than the regulatory requirement. Reserves
are everywhere, like air above water: no bank needs to borrow them. The Fed could suck
out a bit of oxygen and it would not make any difference to the price.
The main tool the Fed will use to raise rates, therefore, is the interest it pays to banks on their
excess reserves. So-called IOER is currently set at 25 basis points. If it puts IOER up to 50 basis
points – in essence paying more for all the oxygen in the banking system – then banks will not
lend to anybody else for less. That means the Fed already has the only tool it needs to control
broad financial conditions.
But there is still a problem because not every market player can or will deal with the Fed. That
means market interest rates, such as Fed Funds, will not necessarily track the IOER rate. For
example, the current Fed Funds rate is 0.09 per cent, and it has fluctuated between 0.07 and 0.20
per cent over the past few years. Given the Fed expresses its policy as a target for the Fed Funds
rate, it is extremely uncomfortable for them to have the rate that borrowers will pay out of its
direct control.
After all, if the Fed tries to collapse the money supply, as it has done for more than 200 years to
control countries, and the banks turn with their own cash to the people for true banking
Bad Statistics Cause Viral Email on Welfare
The "death spiral" phrase and the 11 highlighted states -- Alabama, California, Hawaii, Illinois,
Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Ohio and South Carolina -- appear in a
Nov. 25, 2012, Forbes column, and the map appears onscreen during a Nov. 29 Fox Business
"Varney and Co." report on the commentary piece.
But the criteria used to identify Forbes’ "death spiral" states were not as simple as welfare and
employment.
Forbes investment strategies editor Bill Baldwin wrote that those 11 states were "at high risk of a
fiscal tailspin" because they had many people who received money from the government but
maintained policies that "chase out the private-sector jobs that support all that spending."
Baldwin reached his conclusion by comparing "makers" and "takers." For this purpose, he wrote,
"a taker is someone who draws money from the government, as an employee, pensioner or
welfare recipient. A maker is someone gainfully employed in the private sector." Then he
factored in an index that downgrades states for "large debts, an uncompetitive business climate,
weak home prices and bad trends in employment."
The results, he said, showed states that were "danger spots for investors."
We’re not sold on designating government workers or pensioners as takers. Regardless, we
wondered: Was there any way the email’s claim could be true?
Not so much, we learned.
First, it depends on what you call employment. Baldwin, as we saw, used private-sector jobs in
his measure because he classed government employees as "takers" (a term he acknowledged was
"tendentious" in a Dec. 3, 2012, followup interview on Fox Business).
But since the chain email discards that nuance, we decided to count up as many people as we
could find with a job, government or private. That, we thought, would get to the heart of the viral
message: welfare recipients outnumbering people who have jobs.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates many employment numbers, and Cheryl Abbot of
the bureau’s Dallas office helped us locate its broadest head count of individuals who have a job.
By phone, Abbot guided us to 2011 averages per state in the bureau’s household survey, which
wraps in most private-sector workers, civilian government employees and self-employed people.
Then, it depends on what you call welfare. We spoke by phone with Liz Schott, a senior fellow
at the liberal Washington-based Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, who said that when
welfare comes up in public discourse -- talk of "welfare reform" or "ending welfare as we know
it" -- people are often referring to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, a cash assistance
program created in 1996 to replace an older welfare system.
TANF goes only to families with children or to children directly, and other programs that
provide cash aid to help with basic needs could reasonably be called welfare too, Schott said. An
example she gave was the federal Supplemental Security Income program, which gives money to
elderly and disabled people.
But in terms of trying to answer our question, she said, TANF data from the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services could serve as a "good proxy" for welfare. The department’s
numbers are broken down by state -- and also by age, which Schott pointed out was relevant to
our comparison because most TANF recipients are children.
Children don’t vote, of course, and most of them don’t hold jobs. So if you’re making a point
about welfare recipients outvoting wage-earners — a common conservative theme that we
thought was probably implied in the chain email — kids don’t factor in neatly.
According to April 4, 2012, data from Health and Human Services, children accounted for 74
percent of TANF recipients in 2011. Averages for the calendar year showed 4.6 million
recipients, of whom 3.4 million were children.
With that in mind, we pulled 2011 state-by-state counts of adult TANF recipients and charted
them alongside the employment data. Nowhere in any of the 50 states did the TANF adults equal
more than 3 percent of the employed workers. The highest percentage was in Maine, where
13,821 adults on TANF equaled 2.1 percent of the 643,000 employed workers.
In most states, the group of TANF adults was equal to less than 1 percent of the number of
people with jobs.
A Third of Pregnancies in Detroit end in Pre-Air Termination
A new report reveals Detroit's abortion rate is a shocking three times greater
than the rest of the state's, with one third of Motor City pregnancies ending in
abortion.
"Of an estimated 18,360 pregnancies among Detroit residents in 2012, the most recent year for
which data are available, 5,693 ended in abortion, or 31 percent," the Detroit News reported on
May 22.
"That translates into a Detroit abortion rate... of 37.9 per 1,000 women aged 15-44. That’s up
from 27.5 per 1,000 women in 2001," the report states.
That is three times higher than Michigan's abortion rate statewide, a rate that has declined along
with the rates in the nation generally. Yet Detroit's abortion rate is soaring while rates in the rest
of the country--including its own state--has declined.
The News blames the rise in abortion on a cut in funding for family planning coupled with
growing poverty in the inner city. But the paper also notes that the rate of abortion all across the
nation is at its lowest since Roe v Wade was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973.