Thursday, December 31, 2015

If you're under 50 you really need to read this

If you're under 50 you really need to read this

If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!
When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:
She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.
After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.
What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?
Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.
But to her loyal fans (supporters) - I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?”

Costly beliefs: State squeezes last penny from bakers who defied lesbian-wedding cake order | Fox News

Costly beliefs: State squeezes last penny from bakers who defied lesbian-wedding cake order 

Costly beliefs: State squeezes last penny from bakers who defied lesbian-wedding cake order

Sweet Cakes by Melissa couple
Melissa Klein was checking her bank accounts just a few weeks before Christmas when her face turned ashen. The money was gone – every single penny.
Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries had confiscated all the cash in Mrs. Klein’s checking account and savings account as well as a special account set aside for their church tithe.
Click here to receive Todd’s American Dispatch – a must-read for Conservatives!
Yes, friends – the state of Oregon stole money meant for our Lord.
Mrs. Klein and her husband, Aaron, are devout evangelical Christians who own a mom-and-pop bakery – Sweet Cakes By Melissa.
In July, they were ordered to pay more than $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake their wedding cake. The Kleins objected because of their religious beliefs.
The judgment was awarded to the lesbians for “emotional suffering.”
Just a few weeks before Christmas, Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian wiped out the Klein family’s bank accounts – taking nearly $7,000.
Faced with a state-mandated 9 percent interest penalty, the Kleins opted to pay the disputed amount in full – turning over a $136,927.07 check to the government. That money, which was not in their bank account, was acquired through donations the family.
It was the price the Kleins had to pay for following the teachings of Jesus Christ.
“It was like my breath was taken away,” Mrs. Klein told me in a telephone conversation. “I panicked. Everything was gone.”
And, as I said before, Commissioner Avakian even seized money set aside for You Know Who.
“We had three accounts,” she told me. “I have one account that’s labeled, ‘God’s money’ – our tithing. They just took it.”
Attorney Tyler Smith, who represents the Kleins, tells me his clients still plan on fighting the state’s decision – even if it means going to the Supreme Court.
“The least expensive option to stay in compliance with the law was to pay the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries funds that will be kept in a separate account until they prevail in their court appeal,” Smith told me in a prepared statement.
He said the couple had asked the state to hold off on collection attempts – but that request was denied.
“Aaron and Melissa will continue to work to ensure that every American has the First Amendment right to express their faith-based beliefs, and to conduct their daily affairs according to their conscience,” Smith said.
 Their trouble started in 2013 when Laurel and Rachel Bowman-Cryer asked the Christian bakers to prepare their wedding cake.
When Mr. Klein explained that they would not be able to prepare the cake, the women filed an anti-discrimination complaint with the state of Oregon.
 The state later determined that gay rights trump religious liberty – ruling that the Kleins had violated the lesbians’ civil rights by discriminating based on sexual orientation.
Oregon has a law on the books that protects the rights of gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people in employment, housing and public accommodations. It also prohibits private businesses from discriminating against potential customers, the newspaper noted.
The Kleins were also slapped with a gag order – banning them from speaking publicly about their refusal to participate in or bake wedding cakes for same-sex marriages, The Oregonian reported.
They were ordered to “cease and desist from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement or sign of any kind to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, services or privileges of a place of public accommodation will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination will be made against, any person on account of sexual orientation.”
“Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society,” the ruling states. “The ability to enter public places, to shop and dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”
On a side note here – I predicted that once gay marriage was legalized, LGBTQIA supporters would attempt to silence all dissent.
After the controversy, the Kleins had no choice but to shut down their retail store and move their business to their home.
Avakian has publicly stated his intentions to target Christian business owners who do not comply with the state’s way of thinking. Here’s what he told The Oregonian about Sweet Cakes By Melissa in 2013:
“The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.”
I’ve never met Brad Avakian but he sounds like a pretty ruthless individual – a person who is using his office to bully and intimidate Christians.
Be warned, friends. In Oregon, gay rights trump religious liberty.

LEAKED: The Story of Ted Cruz

A Shocking Inside Look At The History Of Ted Cruz’s Past


I don’t know about you, but there are times during the election season where I really fight feeling discouraged. Not only is the state of our nation in trouble, but it’s frustrating to feel like things are promised by politicians and then change never comes. If I’m honest, I sometimes fight feeling like a cynic when I hear the rhetoric of candidates.



But then something like this comes along and reminds me that we have some amazing leaders in our country. And even more promising is that a few of these leaders are running for the highest office in the land.
Senator Ted Cruz is one such man. From humble, beginnings as the son of an immigrant to arguing more cases on the floor of the Supreme Court than almost any other attorney in the United States. From raising his family to wanting to raise the standards for the children in America, Cruz has what it takes. Take a look at the inside story of Ted Cruz’s past that has just been leaked… This is incredible and so inspiring.
It’s good to remember that the only Savior that America needs is Jesus. BUT, that doesn’t mean that having leaders who are righteous and fight for freedom and justice doesn’t make a difference. If our nation is going to turn around, we need to invite God back into the fabric of our nation and we need to elect leaders who represent the values that we hold to be true.

Wednesday, December 30, 2015

Freak storm pushes North Pole 50 degrees above normal to melting point - The Washington Post

Freak storm pushes North Pole 50 degrees above normal to melting point 

Freak storm pushes North Pole 50 degrees above normal to melting point

This story has been updated to include buoy measurements that confirm the North Pole temperature climbed above 32 degrees on Wednesday.
A powerful winter cyclone — the same storm that led to two tornado outbreaks in the United States and disastrous river flooding — has driven the North Pole to the freezing point this week, 50 degrees above average for this time of year.
From Tuesday evening to Wednesday morning, a mind-boggling pressure drop was recorded in Iceland: 54 millibars in just 18 hours. This triples the criteria for “bomb” cyclogenesis, which meteorologists use to describe a rapidly intensifying mid-latitude storm. A “bomb” cyclone is defined as dropping one millibar per hour for 24 hours.
NOAA’s Ocean Prediction Center said the storm’s minimum pressure dropped to 928 millibars around 1 a.m. Eastern time, which likely places it in the top five strongest storms on record in this region.
[Rivers are rising to record levels in the Midwest, flooding is ‘major to historic’]
“According to the center’s records, the all-time strongest storm in this area occurred on Dec. 15, 1986, and that had a minimum central pressure of 900 millibars,” Mashable’s Andrew Freedman reported on Tuesday. “The second-strongest storm occurred in January 1993, with a pressure of 916 millibars.”
As this storm churns north, it’s forcing warm air into the Arctic Circle. Over the North Sea, sustained winds from the south are blasting at 70 mph, and gusting to well above 100 mph, drawing heat from south to north.
[The best — worst? — TV weather bloopers of 2015]
Although there are no permanent weather stations at the North Pole (or really anywhere in the Arctic Ocean), we can use weather forecast models, which ingest data from satellites and surrounding surface observations, to estimate conditions at Earth’s most northern location.
On Wednesday morning, temperatures over a vast area around North Pole were somewhere between 30 and 35 degrees Fahrenheit, and for at least a brief moment, surpassed the 32-degree threshold at exactly 90 degrees North, according to data from the GFS forecast model.
Data from the International Arctic Buoy Programme confirms that temperatures very close to the North Pole surpassed the melting point on Wednesday. A buoy (WMO ID Buoy 6400476) at a latitude of 87.45 degrees North hit a high temperature of 0.7 degrees Celsius — or 33 degrees Fahrenheit.
“Consider the average winter temperature there is around 20 degrees below zero,” wrote the Capital Weather Gang’s Jason Samenow on Monday. A temperature around the freezing mark signifies a departure from normal of over 50 degrees, and close to typical mid-summer temperatures in this region.
In other words, the area around the North Pole was about as warm as Chicago on Wednesday, and quite a few degrees warmer than much of the Midwest.
[Fallstreak holes punch through clouds like swiss cheese over the Southeast]
Meanwhile in habitable areas around the North Atlantic, winds are howling and waves are rocking the coastline. In Britain, a week of excessive rainfall has pushed rivers and streams well beyond their banks, stranding vehicles and buckling bridges.
In a blog post on Monday, the U.K. Met office said that December has been a record-breaking month for rainfall in parts of the United Kingdom. A Christmas weekend storm brought up to 8 inches of addition rainfall on saturated soil. The Met Office listed just a small portion of the December records that were set this weekend, in some cases blowing away the previous December records by 10 inches.

Massive waves and floods hit the U.K.

Ireland, Scotland and England are getting slammed by Storm Frank as it barrels into Europe. Social media users captured what the heavy rain and floods look like from windows, cars and backyards. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
This post has been updated to include the WMO ID number of the buoy that recorded temperatures above 32 degrees on Wednesday.

Obama Insiders Try to Explain Trump Phenomenon, Fail Spectacularly

Obama Insiders Try to Explain Trump Phenomenon, Fail Spectacularly 

Obama Insiders Try to Explain Trump Phenomenon, Fail Spectacularly

According to past and present aides to President Barack Obama, the Republicans are "getting devoured by a candidate" (Donald Trump) who personifies "the anger agenda" because they stood "in the White House’s way at every turn." The Obama insiders are right about one thing -- Republican voters are angry. But perhaps these White House aides are too close to the problem to put their finger on the real reason why.
“It’s not so much a reaction to Obama,” one person familiar with the president’s thinking told Politico. “It’s more of a reaction to their strategy that, ‘We’re just going to be antithetical to everything [Obama] stands for.’”
Yeah, that sounds exactly like Obama's thinking: Gee, if only the intransigent "party of no" had gone along with my agenda without a fight, there would be no Trump.
But on everything from guns to reproductive health to opening up Cuba, Obama’s team says it has been battling for years the very politics that paved the way for Trump’s ascendance this election cycle.
Translation: this wouldn't be happening had the GOP given Obama his way on gun control etc.
Of course Obama's flacks are 180 degrees wrong, as they usually are. The reason for the Trump temper tantrum is not because Republicans opposed Obama's agenda too much -- it is because they didn't oppose him enough. The GOP was given the House in 2010 and the Senate in 2014 and its conservative base feels like they've gotten bupkis out of the deal. Republicans have caved to Obama almost as many times as Obama has caved to the mullahs in Iran.
People in the White House tell Politico that "Obama doesn’t talk about Trump much," which is nice, but --
When he does, it’s with a combination of amusement and disgust at the rhetoric, occasionally mentioning his amazement at GOP leaders’ inability to understand Trump’s supporters and the long-term damage the president thinks Trump is doing to the party with the groups of voters who will decide future elections.
It should come as no surprise that Obama thinks he understands Trump supporters better than anyone else. He's simply better at politics than anyone else -- and he'll be the first one to tell you that.
“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Obama told Patrick Gaspard, his political director, at the start of the 2008 campaign. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m going to think I’m a better political director than my political director.” So of course he's got the Trump phenomenon all figured out.
In addition to the GOP's not rolling over enough to suit Obama's needs, there's another factor at work here that explains voter anger, according to the White House. And that factor begins with the letter "R."
Aides say Trump played into fears and racism and encouraged voter distrust of the president, as he’s doing now on the campaign trail.Obama administration alumni remember hearing what they call the “those people” strain of politics when they were knocking on doors in 2008. It was evident at rallies for Sarah Palin and at tea party events in the first term of his presidency. Americans weren’t wrong to think Obama’s election in 2008 meant the country had changed — the president himself bought into it and was frustrated in the early years to see how slowly it translated into policy accomplishments.
See? Some people think that the Tea Party movement was born out of principled opposition to the increase in spending and expansion of government that was in the bloated 2009 stimulus bill. They now stand corrected. It was because he looks different than they do and has "a funny name."

Three Global Warming Stories The Media Don't Want You To See

Three Global Warming Stories The Media Don't Want You To See 

Czech President's Charge Of Orchestrated Migrant Invasion Holds Water


Czech President Milos Zeman speaks in Prague on May 5, 2015.
Czech President Milos Zeman speaks in Prague on May 5, 2015












Invasion: Czech President Milos Zeman is taking flak for stating that the migration wave inundating Europe seems to be an orchestrated invasion, not a spontaneous movement of refugees. There's more to it than first appears.
Zeman is no right-winger affiliated with the political wave of nationalism rising in new European parties, from Croatia to Britain. He describes himself as a Scandinavian welfare-state proponent and openly favors bigger government and higher taxes.
He's wrong about that (as Scandinavians can tell him). But he does understand that open immigration is incompatible with the welfare state, an indisputable dictum first stated by one of the free market's giants, economist Milton Friedman.
"Sometimes I feel like Cassandra, who warns against pulling a Trojan horse into the city, and I am deeply convinced that what we face is an organized invasion and not a spontaneous movement of refugees," Zeman warned in a Dec. 26 address to his nation.
It's not just the fact that Islamic State terrorists have ties to increasingly tech-savvy organized crime networks focused on people-smuggling, or that the success of their operations yields billions with each boatload of refugees going up the Greek or Italian coasts.
It's that they aren't normal refugees, subject to human compassion — the old, the sick and the kids. That's the image, Zeman said, but the reality is that the million migrants who have filed into Europe this year are overwhelmingly young unmarried men, the exact people who form invading armies and can change continents.
Zeman notes that they came in search of Europe's vast welfare benefits, not arms and aid to fight terrorists in their homeland — as Czechs who fled Hitler once did.
The problem goes well beyond the unmarried men. It's in the elites who encourage them, says former Czech President Vaclav Klaus, whose free-market credentials are impeccable.
"The European multicultural elites are always dissatisfied that they are unable to sufficiently break up the European nations. They believe that if they mixed ... (in) migrants who have no roots in European countries, this will be a chance for an artificial unification of the continent," Klaus said, according to the Czech News Agency.
Klaus, along with Jiri Weigl, has written a new book on the invasion, called "Movement of Nations." Weigl warned that millions of people from a culturally alien environment may come to Europe within a couple of years.
"Europe will change in a way that we do not dare to predict now at all," Weigl warned.
That signals invasion, and it's cause for alarm.
The Czechs, along with the Hungarians and other self-respecting nations of Europe, need to treat it as such. They either have to pull up the drawbridge against the EU-sponsored hordes or perish as free nations.

Czech President's Charge Of Orchestrated Migrant Invasion Holds Water

Czech President's Charge Of Orchestrated Migrant Invasion Holds Water

Czech President's Charge Of Orchestrated Migrant Invasion Holds Water


Czech President Milos Zeman speaks in Prague on May 5, 2015.
Czech President Milos Zeman speaks in Prague on May 5, 2015.  












Invasion: Czech President Milos Zeman is taking flak for stating that the migration wave inundating Europe seems to be an orchestrated invasion, not a spontaneous movement of refugees. There's more to it than first appears.
Zeman is no right-winger affiliated with the political wave of nationalism rising in new European parties, from Croatia to Britain. He describes himself as a Scandinavian welfare-state proponent and openly favors bigger government and higher taxes.
He's wrong about that (as Scandinavians can tell him). But he does understand that open immigration is incompatible with the welfare state, an indisputable dictum first stated by one of the free market's giants, economist Milton Friedman.
"Sometimes I feel like Cassandra, who warns against pulling a Trojan horse into the city, and I am deeply convinced that what we face is an organized invasion and not a spontaneous movement of refugees," Zeman warned in a Dec. 26 address to his nation.
It's not just the fact that Islamic State terrorists have ties to increasingly tech-savvy organized crime networks focused on people-smuggling, or that the success of their operations yields billions with each boatload of refugees going up the Greek or Italian coasts.
It's that they aren't normal refugees, subject to human compassion — the old, the sick and the kids. That's the image, Zeman said, but the reality is that the million migrants who have filed into Europe this year are overwhelmingly young unmarried men, the exact people who form invading armies and can change continents.
Zeman notes that they came in search of Europe's vast welfare benefits, not arms and aid to fight terrorists in their homeland — as Czechs who fled Hitler once did.
The problem goes well beyond the unmarried men. It's in the elites who encourage them, says former Czech President Vaclav Klaus, whose free-market credentials are impeccable.
"The European multicultural elites are always dissatisfied that they are unable to sufficiently break up the European nations. They believe that if they mixed ... (in) migrants who have no roots in European countries, this will be a chance for an artificial unification of the continent," Klaus said, according to the Czech News Agency.
Klaus, along with Jiri Weigl, has written a new book on the invasion, called "Movement of Nations." Weigl warned that millions of people from a culturally alien environment may come to Europe within a couple of years.
"Europe will change in a way that we do not dare to predict now at all," Weigl warned.
That signals invasion, and it's cause for alarm.
The Czechs, along with the Hungarians and other self-respecting nations of Europe, need to treat it as such. They either have to pull up the drawbridge against the EU-sponsored hordes or perish as free nations.

Here's The (Long) List Of Women Who Have Accused Bill Clinton Of Sexual Misconduct

Here's The (Long) List Of Women Who Have Accused Bill Clinton Of Sexual Misconduct 

Here's The (Long) List Of Women Who Have Accused Bill Clinton Of Sexual Misconduct

 
Posted Wednesday, December 30th 2015 @ 11am  by Hannity.com Staff
Donald Trump is doubling down on his criticism of Bill Clinton after Hillary accused the GOP frontrunner of sexism on the campaign trail.
“If you bring up the woman card, I’m going to bring up the woman card, too, and I’m going to be talking about your husband and what happened with women because I think that’s fair game,” Trump said on Fox News’ On The Record.
Indeed, former President Bill Clinton has a checkered record when it comes to relationships with women. In addition to his well-known dalliances over the years with, amongst others, Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Florwers, at least 9 women have accused former president Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. In some of these cases, Hillary is believed to have been part of the political operation that went out of its way to attempt to smear and destroy the reputations of Bill Clinton’s accusers.
Clinton’s accusers include:
Paula Jones: A former Arkansas state employee, Jones sued Bill Clinton in 1994 for sexual harassment. Jones claims that in 1991 then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton propositioned and exposed himself to her in a Little Rock hotel. Clinton eventually settled with Jones out of court for $850,000, but never admitted to any wrongdoing.
Juanita Broaddrick: Broaddrick, a former nursing home administrator, alleges that Bill Clinton, who was running for Arkansas governor at the time, raped her in an Arkansas hotel room in the spring of 1978.
Kathleen Willey: Willey was a White House volunteer aide who, in March of 1998, alleged on the TV news program 60 Minutes that Bill Clinton had sexually assaulted her during his first term as President.
Eileen Wellstone: Wellstone, an English woman, alleges that Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near Oxford University where Clinton was a student in 1969.
Carolyn Moffet: Moffet was a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. Moffet alleges that she fled the hotel room after Clinton demanded she perform sex acts on him.
Elizabeth Ward Gracen: A Miss Arkansas who would go on to win the Miss America contest in 1982, Gracen alleges that she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won the Miss Arkansas competition.
Becky Brown: Becky Brown was Chelsea Clinton’s nanny. L.D. Brown, an Arkansas State Trooper and Becky’s husband, claims that Clinton attempted to seduce her in while the two were in governor’s mansion.
Helen Dowdy: Dowdy, the wife of one of Hillary’s cousins, alleges that in 1986 Bill Clinton groped her on the dance floor of a wedding.
Cristy Zercher: Zercher was a flight attendant aboard Clinton’s campaign jet from 1991-1992. Zercher told the Star magazine that Clinton groped her for over 40 minutes.

What Happens When The Most Powerful Man On Earth Is Delusional?

What Happens When The Most Powerful Man On Earth Is Delusional? 

What Happens When The Most Powerful Man On Earth Is Delusional?

December 30, 2015
Good news, America: the Obama administration has achieved peace in Syria. That's according to John Kirby, the Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Public Affairs and spokesperson at the US State Department, who issued a blog post filled with five-word summations of 2015. Here's their summation of the Syrian crisis: "Bringing Peace, Security to Syria."
So the hundreds of thousands dead, the millions of refugees, the rise of ISIS, the enshrinement of dictator Bashar Assad -- none of it ever happened. According to the State Department, everything's going swimmingly.
More good news: the Obama administration has also defeated terrorism: "Winning Fight Against Violent Extremists." Oddly, more Americans now say that America is losing the war on terrorism than at any time since 9/11; 74 percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with how the war on terror is progressing.
But the news gets even better: the State Department proclaims that it has achieved Iran's disarmament: "Iran Peaceful Nuclear Program Ensured." Well, there is that whole awkward Iran continuing to develop whatever it wants while funding terrorism across the world with money freed up by the United States and its allies. But really, we've stopped the mullahs dead in their tracks.
There are only two possible rationales for this sort of disconnect with reality: first, the Obama administration knows they're full of it, but they keep on gritting their teeth and pushing the misinformation; second, they seriously believe that they are achieving magnificent results. In other words, they're either cynical or delusional.
My money's on delusional.
Barack Obama is a pseudo-intellectual who believes so deeply in the power of his own ideas that he gets lost in them. It never occurs to him that they could breed violence or evil. They're beautiful. Like Dr. Manhattan in "Watchmen," he'd rather build crystal towers of stunning meticulousness on Mars than anything of value here on Earth -- but unlike Dr. Manhattan, he won't leave Earth alone. He'll transplant his notions of reality onto the rest of us.
Thus alleged deserter Bowe Bergdahl becomes a soldier who served honorably; Benghazi becomes a battle over a YouTube video; Israel becomes the aggressor against the peaceful Palestinians; ISIS becomes a jayvee threat; Iran becomes a potential ally. Obama has done the calculations on his chalkboard, and they all add up.
Except that they don't. But that won't stop Obama from pursuing his equations, thinking himself the John Nash who revolutionized game theory when he's actually the John Nash pasting headlines about the communist conspiracy to the walls of his study. It's all still beautiful in his head. It's just delusional.
And that delusion has real world costs. This week, we found out that Obama pressured Secretary of Defense Ash Carter to release more Guantanamo Bay terrorists into foreign hands, and even scolded him personally. Reuters reports, "Since then, the Pentagon has been more cooperative. Administration officials said they expect to begin transferring at least 17 detainees to foreign countries in January." The report said Obama fired Carter's predecessor, Chuck Hagel, for slow-walking Gitmo transfers as well.
That's because the Defense Department still has to operate in the realm of reality, where nearly 30 percent of Gitmo releases have either been confirmed re-entering the fray or are suspected of having done so. Obama doesn't have to worry about such realities. He's busy constructing crystal castles on Mars.
Except Mars is right here, on Earth.
And Obama's still the most powerful man on this planet.

By Raising Its Cigarette Tax, N.Y. Gets Lesson In Laffer Curve

By Raising Its Cigarette Tax, N.Y. Gets Lesson In Laffer Curve 

By Raising Its Cigarette Tax, N.Y. Gets Lesson In Laffer Curve

New York has the highest cigarette tax in the country.  APNew York has the highest cigarette tax in the country. AP View Enlarged Image 

Taxation: The state of New York thought it would reap a bonanza after increasing taxes on cigarettes. But there was no bonanza. In fact, the tax take actually fell. New Yorkers, may we introduce Art Laffer?
The noted economist's eponymous curve shows that when taxes go beyond a certain point, they actually start to yield less revenue, not more, as most people expect. In New York's case, the tax was raised in 2010 from an already-steep $2.75 a pack to $4.35 — up 58%. The increase gave New York the highest cigarette tax in the country.
The result? According to New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, the state has lost $400 million in revenue over the past five years. And it might be even worse than that.
The New York Post cites a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report that says the state's losses are much bigger — some $1.3 billion in taxes aren't collected each year, due to behavioral changes.
Of course, some of that loss might be considered favorable in that it represents people who simply quit rather than pay the higher levy. Indeed, estimates say that 19% of those who smoked have quit in the last decade.
Taxable sales, however, are down 54% in the same period. If the goal of the higher tax was just to get some smokers to quit, then mission accomplished. But if the goal was twofold — get smokers to quit and raise revenue — then it has failed.
But for many others who still smoke, the behavioral changes haven't been as favorable. Some just pay up. But others simply buy black-market cigarettes, supplied mostly by organized crime. The Tax Foundation estimates that 58% of cigarettes in New York come from out of state. So roughly 6 in 10 cigarettes now are not taxed by New York.
Still worse, the tax has turned into one of the most regressive in the nation. As the Daily Caller points out, households with annual incomes of less than $30,000 spent a whopping 23.6% on cigarettes in the year after the tax was imposed, up from a still-hefty 11.6% in 2004.
By comparison, households with over $60,000 a year in income spent just 2.2% on cigarettes. So another so-called "sin tax" turns out to be little more than a tax on the poor.
The law of unintended consequences is on display once again, as it was during Prohibition. That experiment also reduced revenue dramatically and led to a surge in organized crime.
So is it any surprise that the tax take is shrinking? No. This was in fact entirely foreseeable. But, of course, foreseeing it would have required New York voters and the politicians they put into office to actually learn something about economics.

Thomas Sowell: Good Riddance To 2015, The Year Of The Big Lie

Thomas Sowell: Good Riddance To 2015, The Year Of The Big Lie 

Thomas Sowell: Good Riddance To 2015, The Year Of The Big Lie

Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell
How shall we remember 2015? Or shall we try to forget it? It is always hard to know when a turning point has been reached, and usually it is long afterwards before we recognize it. However, if 2015 has been a turning point, it may well have marked a turn in a downward direction for America and for Western civilization.
This was the year when we essentially let the world know that we were giving up any effort to try to stop Iran — the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism — from getting a nuclear bomb. Surely it does not take much imagination to foresee what lies at the end of that road.
It will not matter if we have more nuclear bombs than they have, if they are willing to die and we are not. That can determine who surrenders. And ISIS and other terrorists have given us grisly demonstrations of what surrender would mean.
Putting aside, for the moment, the fateful question of whether 2015 is a turning point, what do we see when we look back instead of looking forward? What characterizes the year that is now ending?
More than anything else, 2015 has been the year of the big lie. There have been lies in other years, and some of them pretty big. But even so, 2015 has set new highs — or new lows.
This is the year when we learned, from her own e-mails, after three long years of stalling, stonewalling and evasions, that Secretary of State Clinton lied, and so did President Barack Obama and others under him, when they all told us in 2012 that the terrorist attack in Benghazi that killed the U.S. ambassador and three other Americans was not a terrorist attack, but a protest demonstration that got out of hand.
"What difference, at this point, does it make?" as Mrs. Clinton later melodramatically cried out at a congressional committee hearing investigating that episode.
First of all, it made enough of a difference for some of the highest officials of American government to concoct a false story that they knew at the time was false.
It mattered enough that, if the truth had come out, on the eve of a presidential election, it could have destroyed Barack Obama's happy tale of how he had dealt a crippling blow to terrorists by killing Osama bin Laden (with an assist from the Navy's SEALS).
Had Obama's lies about his triumph over terrorism been exposed on the eve of the election, that could have ended his stay in the White House. And that could have spared us and the world many of Obama's disasters in the Mideast and elsewhere around the world. That is why it matters and will continue to matter in the future.
Lying, by itself, is obviously not new. What is new is the growing acceptance of lying as "no big deal" by smug sophisticates, so long as these are lies that advance their political causes. Many in the media greeted the exposure of Hillary Clinton's lies by admiring how well she handled herself.
Lies are a wall between us and reality — and being walled off from reality is the biggest deal of all. Reality does not disappear because we don't see it. It just hits us like a ton of bricks when we least expect it.
The biggest lie of 2014 — "Hands up, don't shoot" — had its repercussions in 2015, with the open advocacy of the killing of policemen, in marches across the country. But the ambush killings of policemen that followed aroused no such outrage in the media as any police use of force against thugs.
Nor has there been the same outrage as the murder rate shot up when the police pulled back, as they have in the past, in the wake of being scapegoated by politicians and the media. Most of the people murdered have been black. But apparently these particular black lives don't matter much to activists and the media.
No one expects that lies will disappear from political rhetoric. If you took all the lies out of politics, how much would be left?
If there is anything that is bipartisan in Washington, it is lying. The most recent budget deal showed that congressional Republicans lied wholesale when they said that they would defund ObamaCare, Planned Parenthood and other pet projects of the Democrats.
As for 2015, good riddance. We can only hope that people who vote in 2016 will have learned something from 2015's disasters.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

2017 Acura NSX: The Slowest Supercar in the World? - Ignition Ep. 143

Why Some Senators Are Falsely Claiming They Opposed the Omnibus

Conservative Review - Why Some Senators Are Falsely Claiming They Opposed the Omnibus

Why Some Senators Are Falsely Claiming They Opposed the Omnibus

By: CR Staff | December 28th, 2015

Just before Congress recessed for the remainder of 2015, it took up a massive $1.1 trillion omnibus. That massive spending package was negotiated behind closed doors and revealed to the nation in the wee hours of the morning on December 16th. The bill that a select few negotiators birthed, was over 2,000 pages long and presented to their colleagues as a take it or leave it option with no opportunity for amendments or input.
Given both the absurd price tag of the bill and a host of other issues with the bill, it is no surprise that members of Congress who had a hand in moving this legislation closer to the finish line would like to disown the finished product. Recently, CR was contacted by several Senators claiming they opposed the Omnibus and that by extension, our Liberty Score was inaccurate. These Senators claim because they checked the “no” box on the final passage vote that they have clean hands. Unfortunately for their constituents, it isn’t that simple.
One of the unique things about the Senate and the rules that provide for consideration of legislation is the ability for the minority to slow debate. When it comes to legislation such as these trillion dollar bills, those rules allow the minority to keep the bill in the sunlight just a bit longer. Any senator has the ability to object to ending debate on a bill. Given the absurd process that surrounded the conception of the Omnibus, the limited time frame under which it was considered, and the inability to offer amendments, it is reasonable that many senators would object to ending debate.
However, this objection can be overruled under Rule 22 in the Senate: the cloture rule. Cloture requires three fifths of all voting and present Senators to affirmatively shut off debate. In other words, they are forcing their colleagues to be quiet and move a bill one step closer to final passage.
The main difference between the procedural vote known as “cloture” and final passage is the number of votes required to advance a bill. Final passage is a simple majority, typically 51, while cloture requires three fifths, typically 60.
It is logical to assume that any senator that opposes or claims to oppose this massive omnibus would want to take every opportunity to weigh in on both the substance of the bill and the process by which it was conceived and considered. For any Senator to claim they oppose this bill yet vote to advance it would be illogical and inconsistent.
This latest Omnibus is a textbook example of what some of us at CR refer to as “live fire exercise” versus “cover votes.”
On the omnibus, there were four votes taken (cloture, motion to table, motion to wave a budget point of order, and final passage).As explained above, not all votes are equal.
It is important to understand why a member would have voted differently on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Omnibus versus the vote on a motion to table or final passage of the package.  The short answer is that all the other votes were throw-away cover votes. The only vote that was meaningful was the vote on cloture to start debate.
Here is how it played out on December 18th in the Senate:
  • The first vote was to end debate on a “Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendments to the Senate Amendments to H.R. 2029.This vote passed 72-26 (with Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) missing the votes);
  • The second vote was a motion to table (to kill) the Omnibus, requiring 51 votes.  That vote failed 31-67 (with two Senators not voting);
  • The third vote was on a budget point of order that was waived. This vote required 60 votes to waive, and passed 73-25 ( with two Senators not voting);
  • The final vote was for final passage of the package. This vote required 51 votes to pass, and passed 65-33 (with two Senators not voting).
In this series of votes, the first vote -- cloture was the only meaningful vote. It was that vote which allowed members to take a stand against both the Omnibus’ substance and process in the most impactful way.  Voting no to start debate was the only way for Senators to protect their rights to offer amendments to a two thousand page bill that cost the taxpayers at least $1.8 trillion and was the subject of zero hearings.
Add in the fact that Senate Majority Leader McConnell rushed to the floor to lock in a time agreement when not many Senators had time to object, and you have a broken legislative process.  Not allowing 60 votes on cloture to the bill was the only way to stop it from passing or changing the process under which the bill was considered.
These take it or leave it-style Omnibus or government spending bills became the norm under former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Unfortunately, that tradition has continued under Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The second vote was a vote on a motion to table the package. This vote had been promised to members who wanted to manufacture a cover vote in order to pretend they opposed the Omnibus.  Members of that group of flip-floppers who voted to advance the bill but then vote to kill it included Sens. Richard Burr (R-NC), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Dean Heller (R-NV), James Lankford (R-OK) and RobPortman (R-OH).  Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) was the only Senator who voted against cloture but also against the motion to table.
Even though the vote breakdown was similar on cloture and the motion to table, the six Republicans who flipped are being inconsistent. Why advance a bill they oppose? Duplicitous, no? Many will claim they opposed the Omnibus, despite moving the bill over a key procedural hurdle.
It is logical to assume that any Senator who voted to proceed to the bill wanted it to pass.  This is an important point to remember if your Senator comes home to discuss his “opposition” to the Omnibus.
Therefore, Conservative Review included the cloture vote on the Omnibus in its Liberty Score because it was the most telling vote on the bill. That vote was arguably the best opportunity for the massive Omnibus to be stopped because only 41 votes were needed on cloture as opposed to 51 on final passage.

Why Some Senators Are Falsely Claiming They Opposed the Omnibus

By: CR Staff | December 28th, 2015
  • Font Size
  • A
  • A
  • A
Print Images
Just before Congress recessed for the remainder of 2015, it took up a massive $1.1 trillion omnibus. That massive spending package was negotiated behind closed doors and revealed to the nation in the wee hours of the morning on December 16th. The bill that a select few negotiators birthed, was over 2,000 pages long and presented to their colleagues as a take it or leave it option with no opportunity for amendments or input.
Given both the absurd price tag of the bill and a host of other issues with the bill, it is no surprise that members of Congress who had a hand in moving this legislation closer to the finish line would like to disown the finished product. Recently, CR was contacted by several Senators claiming they opposed the Omnibus and that by extension, our Liberty Score was inaccurate. These Senators claim because they checked the “no” box on the final passage vote that they have clean hands. Unfortunately for their constituents, it isn’t that simple.
One of the unique things about the Senate and the rules that provide for consideration of legislation is the ability for the minority to slow debate. When it comes to legislation such as these trillion dollar bills, those rules allow the minority to keep the bill in the sunlight just a bit longer. Any senator has the ability to object to ending debate on a bill. Given the absurd process that surrounded the conception of the Omnibus, the limited time frame under which it was considered, and the inability to offer amendments, it is reasonable that many senators would object to ending debate.
However, this objection can be overruled under Rule 22 in the Senate: the cloture rule. Cloture requires three fifths of all voting and present Senators to affirmatively shut off debate. In other words, they are forcing their colleagues to be quiet and move a bill one step closer to final passage.
The main difference between the procedural vote known as “cloture” and final passage is the number of votes required to advance a bill. Final passage is a simple majority, typically 51, while cloture requires three fifths, typically 60.
It is logical to assume that any senator that opposes or claims to oppose this massive omnibus would want to take every opportunity to weigh in on both the substance of the bill and the process by which it was conceived and considered. For any Senator to claim they oppose this bill yet vote to advance it would be illogical and inconsistent.
This latest Omnibus is a textbook example of what some of us at CR refer to as “live fire exercise” versus “cover votes.”
On the omnibus, there were four votes taken (cloture, motion to table, motion to wave a budget point of order, and final passage).As explained above, not all votes are equal.
It is important to understand why a member would have voted differently on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Omnibus versus the vote on a motion to table or final passage of the package.  The short answer is that all the other votes were throw-away cover votes. The only vote that was meaningful was the vote on cloture to start debate.
Here is how it played out on December 18th in the Senate:
  • The first vote was to end debate on a “Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Motion to Concur in the House Amendments to the Senate Amendments to H.R. 2029.This vote passed 72-26 (with Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Marco Rubio (R-FL) missing the votes);
  • The second vote was a motion to table (to kill) the Omnibus, requiring 51 votes.  That vote failed 31-67 (with two Senators not voting);
  • The third vote was on a budget point of order that was waived. This vote required 60 votes to waive, and passed 73-25 ( with two Senators not voting);
  • The final vote was for final passage of the package. This vote required 51 votes to pass, and passed 65-33 (with two Senators not voting).
In this series of votes, the first vote -- cloture was the only meaningful vote. It was that vote which allowed members to take a stand against both the Omnibus’ substance and process in the most impactful way.  Voting no to start debate was the only way for Senators to protect their rights to offer amendments to a two thousand page bill that cost the taxpayers at least $1.8 trillion and was the subject of zero hearings.
Add in the fact that Senate Majority Leader McConnell rushed to the floor to lock in a time agreement when not many Senators had time to object, and you have a broken legislative process.  Not allowing 60 votes on cloture to the bill was the only way to stop it from passing or changing the process under which the bill was considered.
These take it or leave it-style Omnibus or government spending bills became the norm under former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. Unfortunately, that tradition has continued under Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The second vote was a vote on a motion to table the package. This vote had been promised to members who wanted to manufacture a cover vote in order to pretend they opposed the Omnibus.  Members of that group of flip-floppers who voted to advance the bill but then vote to kill it included Sens. Richard Burr (R-NC), Cory Gardner (R-CO), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Dean Heller (R-NV), James Lankford (R-OK) and RobPortman (R-OH).  Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) was the only Senator who voted against cloture but also against the motion to table.
Even though the vote breakdown was similar on cloture and the motion to table, the six Republicans who flipped are being inconsistent. Why advance a bill they oppose? Duplicitous, no? Many will claim they opposed the Omnibus, despite moving the bill over a key procedural hurdle.
It is logical to assume that any Senator who voted to proceed to the bill wanted it to pass.  This is an important point to remember if your Senator comes home to discuss his “opposition” to the Omnibus.
Therefore, Conservative Review included the cloture vote on the Omnibus in its Liberty Score because it was the most telling vote on the bill. That vote was arguably the best opportunity for the massive Omnibus to be stopped because only 41 votes were needed on cloture as opposed to 51 on final passage.
- See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/12/why-some-senators-are-falsely-claiming-they-opposed-the-omnibus#sthash.usC8fn5d.dpuf

Why People Can't Face the Truth about Obama

Why People Can't Face the Truth about Obama

Why People Can't Face the Truth about Obama

 
The psychological processes which prevent people from facing facts when the unthinkable has become obvious can be explained by the models of social psychology called cognitive dissonance theory.
Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress and discomfort caused when important beliefs, attitudes or values, called cognitions, are inconsistent, conflicting or contradictory to each other. In the 1950s the psychologist Leon Festinger theorized that the mind spontaneously, continuously reduces cognitive dissonance to enable goal-directed functioning in a paradoxical, inconsistent, deceptive world. Festinger's discovery founded a rich tradition of research which has demonstrated how the mind resolves contradictions. It provides a powerful way to understand why people can't face what President Obama is doing to America.
Research has demonstrated countless times that cognitions do not have to be true to create dissonance, they just have to be believed. Barack Obama was elected to reduce the dissonance between the beliefs 'America is the land of the free', and the falsehoods 'America is still racist' and 'President Obama will go a long way to solving the problem of racism.' Because 'America is racist” is false, its corollaries are equally false. 'We must elect a black Democrat -- not black Republican -- because Republicans don't emphasize America is racist. Obama is fabulous, no need to know much about him, or whether he can lead the nation. He will make us feel better about ourselves'.
The antecedents of Barack Obama's hatred of America are now well understood. Obama was groomed from the womb to abhor this white majority, predominantly Christian free enterprise Republic. From his expatriate, capitalism-hating mother, from his alcoholic Communist father and his perv Communist mentor, detesting America was in his mother's milk and the blood in his veins. But it was the murderous Bill Ayers who recognized in Obama a destructive potential greater than a million bombs cooked up in basements. Ayers concocted the poison cocktail called Barack Obama that everybody wanted to drink, but nobody wanted to taste first.
America is Barack Obama's prey. He is tearing America apart and feeding the pieces of her life to his foreign and domestic fellow travelers. He is not transforming the nation but terminating it. Even the most transformational administrations haven't enabled the murder of Americans by declared enemies, weakened the national defense, mocked the concerns, and dimmed the hopes of average Americans as this president has. Even the highly transformational Franklin Roosevelt did not return Nazi generals to the enemy during the war as Obama did in the Bergdahl swap. Roosevelt did not entertain and enrich Nazi bigwigs as Obama has the Muslim Brotherhood. Imagine Roosevelt facilitating German atom bomb research and enriching the Axis powers as Obama has in the Iran deal. No president has erased the nation's borders at land and sea as Obama in advertising inducements for an invasion from around the world. No president in American history has aided enemies, undermined the economy and derided the American people as the current commander-in-chief.
The immensity of Obama's disloyalty is key to why people cannot face the truth about him.
If the Obama election were going to reduce the dissonance he would have started his administration thusly: “As I have said, we are one nation, going forward together. Mine will be the first truly color-blind administration in American history. Every appointment I make will be based solely on qualifications and proven competence without reference to race.” Of course, this is the opposite of what Obama did. He fine-combed through America searching for scraps of racism. He strengthened the lie that America is a racist nation as cover for his destruction. Amongst innumerable examples: Attorney General Holder introduced the Obama administration by implying the white majority are all racists, built a DOJ whose foremost concern is racism, carried forward by Loretta Lynch, who just said a street strewn with American corpses murdered by Jihadi terrorists is a “wonderful” opportunity to fight racism.
America is racist, so illegals can enter unchecked. America is racist, destroy her free markets, send billions to nonwhite people as “warmist” reparations for her ill-gotten success. America is racist, empower and enrich her enemies like Iran. Barack Obama and his ilk experience zero cognitive dissonance regarding the contradictory beliefs 'America is about freedom' and 'America is racist'. They never believed that America or her Constitution are about freedom. They believe the incurably evil and racist America must be eliminated for the good of the world.
Before the mass denial of Obama's hatred is explained by dissonance theory, let's mention subdissonant Americans. Subdissonant Americans have no discomfort whether America is about freedom or racism because they are too intellectually limited, dumbed-down, or drugged out to care. If asked “Why does the sun shine?” a six-year-old will answer, “That is what the sun is 'post to do.” This is termed the moral explanation of concrete thinking. Based on IQ distribution, approximately 15% of the population do not think beyond the moral explanation, and do not recognize a president who isn't doing what he is supposed to do. Other subdissonant groups are those too ill educated or addicted to care about freedom or racism.
Festinger's induced-compliance paradigm of dissonance theory explains why black Americans may be the last group to face Obama's destructiveness -- because his policies have hurt them the most. In a famous experiment, people were instructed to lie to others and say a boring task was interesting. The induced-compliance paradigm found that people paid only $1 to lie convinced themselves they were telling the truth more than people paid $20 to tell the same lie! This counterintuitive effect has been replicated many times. People who received minimal external motivation for managing dissonance -- those paid the least -- produced stronger internal justifications to deny their actual experience. The underpaid believed their own lies better than those paid twenty times more. The overpaid say, “I'm in it for the money, period.” This is why many very wealthy people slug the colada in Obama's banana republic while the poorest blacks continue to justify the president, even as they get poorer.
Obama is destroying America overtly and covertly. By promoting policies which are normalizing harmful drugs, undermining the natural family, and generally promoting moral chaos he slyly increases the number of subdissonant Americans, people too ill or distracted to care. He has brainwashed or bought off virtually the entire government including the Republican establishment. A noble people who years ago would have resolved dissonance by believing in America's goodness and standing firm against tyranny no longer do.
The social psychologist Elliot Aronson advanced cognitive dissonance theory, further explaining why people can't face Obama's hatred and destruction. Aronson's self-concept model theorized the central purpose of dissonance reduction is to preserve positive self-image (I am a good person) and self-justification (I was right all along). Because so many Americans now have been convinced we are a racist nation, to maintain a positive self-image people cannot face the truth about Obama.
The loss of opportunities and the diminishing of hopes which Obama's policies have inflicted create a monumental need for self-justification among his supporters. “The president shows us America is still racist. We were right all along.” They have let go the truth that America is about freedom. No one knows how many still stand upon that truth, how many care, or if there are enough big lies left to elect Hillary.

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

Eric Metaxas: Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God 

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.
Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.
With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.
What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.
Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”
As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.
Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.
Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?
There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.
Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?
Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”
The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.