Month: July 2012

Dr. Gerald Schroeder Proves That God’s Existence is Most Probable

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • B.Sc. Chemical engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.)
  • M.Sc. Earth and planetary sciences, M.I.T.
  • PhD Earth Sciences and Physics, M.I.T.

Side note: Schroeder is one of the scientists that influenced Antony Flew (the “pope” of atheism) to give up his atheism and join the theistic side. Bio info taken from the Net:

Gerald Schroeder is a scientist with over thirty years of experience in research and teaching. He earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctorate degrees all at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, with his doctorate thesis being under the supervision of physics professor Robley D. Evans. This was followed by five years on the staff of the MIT physics department prior to moving to Israel, where he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science and then the Volcani Research Institute [The Agricultural Experiment Station established in 1921 developed into the Agricultural Research Organization (ARO), widely known as the Volcani Institute], while also having a laboratory at The Hebrew University. His Doctorate is in two fields: Earth sciences and physics.

Schroeder’s formal theological training in biblical, talmudic and kabalistic interpretation includes fifteen years of study under the late Rabbi Herman Pollack, Rabbi Chaim Brovender and Rabbi Noah Weinberg, of blessed memory.

The scientific career that Schroeder chose has given him varied and often unusual experiences. In his work with nuclear disarmament, he has been present at the detonation of six atomic bombs. Work in control of radioactivity has put him hundreds of meters below ground in U.S. and foreign uranium mines. Within this research, he invented and had patented the first real time monitor for airborne alpha beta gamma emitters. The government of the People’s Republic of China, during the decade before it established direct contacts with Israel, was willing to overlook his Jerusalem address and had him as a frequent advisor. He also has consulted for agencies of the governments of Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, Canada, USA. Invitations for him to lecture have come from around the world. He has over 60 publications in the world’s leading scientific journals on topics ranging from the radon atmosphere of the moon (in Science) to the metabolism of mother’s milk (in Nutrition Reports International). The results of Schroeder’s work have been reported in Time, Newsweek, Scientific American and in newspapers as far apart as Boston and Adelaide. His formal training in chemistry, physics and the Earth and planetary sciences provides the basis for the broad scientific perspective he brings to his books and lectures.

For the past twenty-five years, Dr. Schroeder has also pursued a study of ancient biblical interpretation. An ability to handle the biblical material in the original languages allows him to tap the subtle depths contained in the original texts. These nuances are often missed when working with translations. The uniqueness and success of Schroeder’s approach integrating biblical and scientific knowledge is demonstrated by the success of his first book, Genesis and the Big Bang (published by Bantam Doubleday), and the wide acclaim for his second book The Science of God (published by The Free Press of Simon & Schuster and Broadway Books of Bantam Doubleday) which was on the Barnes & Noble list of non-fiction best sellers and was Amazon.com’s best selling book in the field of physics/cosmology for all of 1998. This was followed by The Hidden Face of God, discovering the unity that binds all existence (published by The Free Press of Simon & Schuster). His book, God According to God, A scientist proves we’ve been wrong about God all along, was published in May 2009 with HarperOne and has enthusiastic endorsements by leading theologians, both Jewish and Christian, and a Noble Laureate scientist.

His books appear in 10 languages.

Gerald Schroeder lives in Jerusalem with his wife (the author, Barbara Sofer). They’ve had five children with a changing number of grandchildren. He moved to Israel from the USA in 1971. In addition to his current work in radiation control, he teaches at Aish HaTorah College of Jewish Studies, writes and lectures on the extraordinary confluence of modern science and ancient biblical commentary.

 

Charles Lane from the Washington Post Says Justice Roberts Is Playing Chess While Others Play Checkers (Updated with Hugh Hewitt’s Official Take)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Machiavellian Ruling?

❖ Helped to increase possibility of Romney Win:

a. The Romney campaign raised 4.6 million dollars the first day;

b. Over 40,000 new donors for Mitt Romney the first day;

c. Helped to stir the base up like in 2010 when the Tea Party was energized by this very topic, Obama-Care tax, we took 700[plus] seats.

❖ What a Romney win will mean:

a. With Romney in all he has to do is give the 50-states a waiver to undermine the law;

b. With the renewed interest by the electorate to get Obama/Obama-Care out by by putting in Republican Senators and Representatives, all we need is 50[+]1 in the Senate to throw it out;

c. Roberts took the power away from the Obama campaign running against it, thus, Roberts showered up the Romney campaign.

❖ Shored up Supreme Court nominees:

a. With a good chance that two positions will open up on the Court for whomever is President next term, Roberts is thinking ahead and wants to ensure having more conservative judges on the bench;

b. Makes the Court look less partisan for years to come;

c. Roberts will not be called partisan for 30-years if he serves that long.

❖ Obama-Care will be overturned… no worries [Roberts Knows This!]:

a. The HHS mandate will be coming down the pipeline… it will be overturned on this basis (this may demand one more conservative judge);

b. The “Exchanges” between states being an impossibility both Constitutionally (the majority opinion eviscerated this concept), and Republican governors [like Jindal for instance] have said they will not implement them.

c. Since this is a direct tax, via the Court, this has another Constitutional ground to lose on or for Congress to overturn on. That is this:

Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution [Apportionment of Representatives; Direct Taxes]: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union…

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, Paragraph 1 [Bills of Revenue Originate in House]: All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.

d. BECAUSE it is a tax, reconciliation can be used to repeal the law.

e. The Affordable Care Act made a one-word mistake in the 2800-page bill that [c]ould demolish the entire law.

❖ Set-Up for a future ruling!

a. The ruling (with the previous one on the Endangered Species Act: National Home Builders Ass’n v. Defenders of Wildlife), undercuts the Federal Government’s power over the states considerably, Roberts and the other judges wrote of this in the majority opinion. With one more conservative judge on the panel, I think you would have one of the most offensive rulings ever (like the bad law in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v Wade, and this one in the commerce clause found in Wickard v. Filburn) being possibly turned over with the next case to make it to the Court in regards to it.

This and more makes me wonder… because everyone that knows Roberts personally says he is really intelligent. And the fact that he changed his mind late in the game (switching sides) tells me that this all dawned on him and he switched sides then. So far from being an argument that Obama’s criticism of the Court changed his mind, many are saying this is a Marbury v. Madison moment.

Promises, Promises: Health Care Should `Never Be Purchased With Tax Increases On Middle Class Families`

Published by Papa Giorgio

From Gateway Pundit:

The American Spectatorreported:

Critics of the majority’s decision will say for the foreseeable future that Chief Justice Roberts rewrote Obamacare to save it. Michael Carvin, who argued against Obamacare before the Supreme Court, noted dryly, “I’m glad he rewrote the statute instead of the Constitution.”

Carvin’s summary of the Supreme Court’s ruling was on target: “What the Obama Administration… thought they were doing was completely unconstitutional; what they lied to the American people about was constitutional.… Unfortunately they got away with that bait-and-switch. A fraud has been perpetrated on the American citizenry.”

In oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the administration’s attorneys argued — as they knew they had to — that the mandate was constitutional as a tax. This despite the fact that Democrats passed Obamacare by stating specifically and repeatedly that the mandate was not a tax, including a testy response by President Obama himself to unusually challenging questioning by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in 2009.

As recently as a few months ago, President Obama’s budget director said in a Congressional hearing that the mandate is not a tax, with Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying “it operates as a tax, but it is not per se a tax.”

If the bill had been marketed to members of Congress and the public as a tax, it is unlikely that even the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase would have been enough to pass the law, despite the large Democrat congressional majorities at the time. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said that “if it had been seen as a tax, they wouldn’t have gotten ten votes, much less sixty.”

As for those Democrats in Congress who have argued, and may continue to argue, that the Obamacare mandate is not a tax, Graham said “they either don’t know what they’re doing, or they lied to us. So this is a huge issue in the fall.” Graham called for every Congressional Republican who is up for election to ask their Democratic opponents whether they support this tax increase; given that Democrats have little choice but to support Obamacare, this is the political equivalent of asking someone if he has stopped beating his wife yet, and a solid political tactic.