Author: Papa Giorgio

Ed Schultz Showing His Ineptitude (98% Myth)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Ed Schultz continues the lie that the Bush tax-cuts only effect the top 2% of income earners. Let me tell you something. I have been diagnosed with MS, and my first bout with it was bad. Now, I like to say I’m 95% healthy and ready and raring to work. Yeah! Try and find a job right now. My wife has been blessed to just cover us. Ask her if the Bush tax cuts affect her or not…

I’d venture to say that most Americans who became parents in the last decade know Schultz’s claim is glaringly inaccurate for a specific reason — the child tax credit, which doubled to $1,000 per-child annually under the Bush tax cut of 2001. And helpfully indeed for those of us who aren’t wealthy, the child tax credit extended across all income brackets.

We are far from the top tier of income earners. NewsBusters continues:

“Unless Congress votes to extend the tax credit, the maximum amount will revert back to $500 for tax year 2011, and the number of families eligible for that amount will be much less as tougher eligibility standards that existed prior to EGTRRA (Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act) will go back into effect,” writes Eric Fox at Forbes.com.

As described by Erik Erickson yesterday at RedState, the Bush tax cut of 2001 was “George Bush’s version of Barack Obama’s stimulus plan” —

However, instead of creating a bunch of temporary government jobs and subsidizing the expansion of government, it cut tax rates, increased the child tax credit, increased the standard deduction for married couples, and increased contribution caps for a variety of savings programs. The result? The recession ended in November of 2001. (Source)

But, September 11, 2001, happened as the economy was recovering and throughout 2002, the economy grew at an anemic rate. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 revved up the 2001 tax cut package and cut taxes again on dividends and capital gains.

The result?

Under George W. Bush’s ‘tax cuts for the rich’ the rich paid more in taxes in 2005 than any time in the prior 20 years. In fact, as the Wall Street Journal noted, thanks to George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, the richest one percent went from paying 25 percent of all income taxes in 1990 to 39 percent in 2005. The richest 5 percent went from paying 44 percent of all income taxes in 1990 to paying 60 percent of all income taxes in 2005.

… More crucially, after the 2001 initial tax cuts, the annual growth rate went from 0.3 percent in 2001 to 2.5 percent in 2002. By 2004, GDP growth was the highest in 20 years. (Source)

Likewise, after the 2003 tax cuts, the unemployment rate fell to the lowest level since World War II. Let me repeat that: the Bush economic program created the lowest unemployment level ever. In fact, economists liken it to full employment given the demographic composition of those who were left on the unemployment line.

Benny Hinn Having an Affair With Paula White (?)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Televangelist Benny Hinn, who resides behind gates in Dana Point and has a church and television studio in Aliso Viejo, and Without Walls International Church pastor Paula White of Florida have posted statements on their websites denying a report that they are romantically involved (OC Weekly).

…White was a self-proclaimed “messed-up Mississippi girl” growing up in Tupelo. Her father committed suicide when she was 5, and White’s website says she suffered “sexual and physical abuse” up until she was 13. White says her life changed when at 18 she received a “divine visitation.”

By 1991, she and then-husband Randy White were founding their own mega-church in Tampa.

The couple announced their divorce in 2007, after the church came under fire to failing to repay $170,000 borrowed from an elderly widow. The money, originally borrowed in 1995, was used as down payment on a house.

Randy stayed on with the ministry, now called Without Walls International Church.

Last year, however, Paula returned to that church’s pulpit, replacing Randy, who resigned citing ill health. At her first sermon, White told the congregants: “Mama is back.”…

…(read more)…

The question is this, while the National Enquirer often gets it wrong [they were right on Jesse Jackson and John Edwards], when pics like this hit the “press,” it is hard to deny:

Loyola University/Chicago Refuses Karl Rove-Caught In Lie

Published by Papa Giorgio

I was sent to Gateway Pundit via the Founding Bloggers. Gateway shows that Loyola University Chicago has its adherence to a radical line of thought by whom they have let speak and refuse to let speak at their university. Here is Gateway’s post:

Loyola University in Chicago refused to allow Karl Rove to speak on campus this fall. University officials said it was due to their tax status but they have allowed liberal speakers on campus in the past.

Evan Gassman at the Young America’s Foundation sent out this press release today:

HERNDON, VA –While many college students are currently enjoying their time off, some are utilizing this summer to prepare for the upcoming school year. Conservative activists at Loyola University Chicago were planning to bring best-selling author and Young America’s Foundation lecturer Karl Rove to their campus for the fall semester. Administrators had other plans, however.

University officials denied the request to host Karl Rove, arguing that due to their 501(c)(3) tax status, they cannot host a “political” speaker before the midterm elections. Those with even the faintest knowledge of tax law understand that is simply not the case.

Kimberly A. Moore, director of student affairs and Greek affairs at Loyola University Chicago, told students in an email that, “The timing of this event is problematic given the campaign cycle. Loyola has to maintain impartiality in order to protect our tax-exempt status.” It is important to note that Karl Rove is not working for any campaign this season.

As if that weren’t egregious enough, Loyola University Chicago has a history of hosting partisan speakers on election years. On September 1, 2004, Howard Dean was allowed to speak on campus. Just a couple weeks later, third party candidate Ralph Nader not only spoke on campus, but it was also advertised as a campaign event and donations were solicited.

After long discussions, Loyola officials offered to host the event after the midterm elections, but given Karl Rove’s busy schedule, that is simply not possible.

Sean Vera, the student who is trying to bring Karl Rove to his campus, commented on the situation: “It is very disconcerting to see Loyola not live up to the standards of academic freedom that they frequently preach about. I never expected Loyola would prevent the free exchange of ideas and that they would do so in such a partisan manner.”

The Founding Bloggers posted the video of one reunion allowed to be held on their campus by SDS (Students for a Democratic Society – a radical group). Many of their constitutions and positional statements can be found here. The video Founding posts is this one:

William Lane Craig Gives the Best Evidences for the Theistic/Christian Faith

Published by Papa Giorgio

William Lane Craig gives one of his best presentations on evidences for theism. It is directly aimed at the heart of atheistic arguments and destroys many of the straw-men placed by said atheists.

There is a short follow up by atheist professor Daniel Dennett that lasts about 10-minutes or so, who has no defense of his atheism in light of what just happened. He basically mentions that his non-knowledge will some day be filled in (atheism-of-the-gaps). Professor McGrath (theist) finishes up with about a 5-minute outro.

Theistic Evidences at Philsophers Convention from Papa Giorgio on Vimeo.

Let the Rationing Begin

Published by Papa Giorgio

Actually this is the second shot, the first involved the kids (Egalitarianism Doing the Opposite of What It Sets Out To Do), but this snowball will get bigger and bigger as time goes on.

ObamaCare: The Rationing Begins in Earnest

This is the first shot in the health care revolution.

On Thursday the Food and Drug Administration will try to take the anti-cancer drug Avastin “off-label.” Avastin is a Stage 4 drug used to battle breast cancer. Avastin is not a cure but has been shown to stop the growth of cancer for an average of five months — meaning some late stage breast cancer victims live beyond five months.

But late stage breast cancer patients do not fit into the cost-benefit analysis of the Obama Administration. We told America rationing would happen if the health care takeover bill passed and Thursday women with breast cancer will be its first victims.

Avastin is the first medicine to fight cancer by blocking the growth of blood vessels that feed tumors. While Avastin is expensive and may not be the miracle drug some anticipated for breast cancer (it is for other types of cancer) from the success of the early trials, the overwhelming majority of breast cancer specialists believe the drug can be effective and useful in certain patients….

….Dr. Richard Pazdur is the FDA’s Cancer Czar.   Pazdur decides which anti-cancer drugs patients can have access to.  In the case of Avastin, Pazdur changed the criteria to a new very subjective and slippery standard of “clinically meaningful.” And apparently the FDA and Pazdur don’t believe that extending the life of a Breast Cancer victim by 3 to 5 months or more is “Clinically Meaningful.”

How do you put a price tag on those precious months for the families who are living through the hell of losing a Mother, Sister, Daughter, Aunt or Wife?  Taking Avastin off label is nothing more then government rationing of healthcare. Period….

…(read more)…

Defining Terms Between Two Sides of an Issue

Published by Papa Giorgio

A mock conversation from the jr. high level book What’s Darwin Got to Do With It? A Friendly Conversation About Evolution:

  • Creationist: Before we get started, we’ve got to clear up some terms. Words can be used a lot of different ways.
  • Evolutionist: That’s what we have dictionaries for.
  • Creationist: This is a little trickier than that. like, how would you define the word “adult?”
  • Evolutionist: Mature. Responsible. Grown up. Why?
  • Creationist: So, when you (as a mature, responsible grown-up) want something to read, do you shop at an adult bookstore?… I don’t think so. We have the same problem here. Evolution” and “creationism” are both wagon words. “
  • Evolutionist: Wagon words?
  • Creationist: Yeah, you know, loaded with other stuff that comes along when you pull the handle [of a wagon].
  • Evolutionist: How do you mean?
  • Creationist: Well, take “evolution.” Some people talk as though all it means is “change over time.” If that were all it meant, I’d buy it.
  • Evolutionist: You mean I win already?
  • Creationist: No, of course not. All I’m saying is that nobody in their right mind questions that some animals have changed some through the course of their existence on earth. What I find, though, is that when I grab the [wagon] handle, all sorts of other things come along with it. Things like a belief that an unguided, purposeless process can cause the accumulation of minor changes and cascade them into major complex innovations.
  • Evolutionist: What about “creationism?”
  • Creationist: Well, I prefer to be called a design theorist. My major point is that some things in the natural world are so complex that it seems more likely that they were designed rather than arose by chance. Unfortunately, when I pull this handle… you find that you’re also stuck with defending a geologically young earth… and the idea that everything we see on earth was created in six calendar days.
  • Evolutionist: So you’re saying that the terms are too broad?
  • Creationist: Yeah. I’ve seen people use “evolution” to refer to something as simple as minor changes in bird beaks. I’ve also seen people use the term to mean the spontaneous appearance of life… its unguided creation of major innovations (like the birds themselves)… and its purposeless progression into incredible complexity (like the human brain).
  • Evolutionist: And I’ve seen people use the term “creationism” for everything from a strict literal reading of Genesis… all the way to the idea that God started the ball rolling and then let nature take its course. Yeah, I guess you’re right – the terms are too broad.
  • Creationist: May I suggest that we use these terms so that we don’t end up pulling more than we want?

Some working language then:

Creation or Creation-science

The belief that the earth is no more than 10,000 years old, and that all biological life forms were created in six calendar days and have remained relatively stable throughout their existence.

Intelligent Design or Design Theory

The belief that the earth and biological life owe their existence to a purposeful, intelligent creation.

Darwinism

The belief that undirected mechanistic processes (primarily random mutation and natural selection) can account for all the diverse and complex living organisms that exist. Insists that there is no long range plan or purpose in the history of life (i.e., that changes happen without intent).

Micro-evolution

Refers to minor variations that occur in populations over time. Examples include variation in moth population and finch beaks, and the emergence of different breeds of dogs.

Macro-evolution

Refers to the emergence of major innovations or the unguided development of new structures (like wings), new organs (like lungs), and body plans (like the origin of insects and birds). Includes changes above the species level, especially new phyla or classes. [species and classes are a hot – debatable – topic.]

Common Descent

The theory that all currently living organisms are descended from a common [or a few common] ancestor[s].

My Favorite

General Theory of Evolution (GTE): “the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.”