Archive for August, 2009

Beck to the Future II: Three Scary ObamaCare “Czars”

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

See Part 1

Beck to the Future: Glen Beck Exposes Dangerous Link Between Nazi Eugenics and ObamaCare Reform Experts

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., August 27, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Germany’s experience with National Socialism is one of the darker moments of human history. FOX News host Glenn Beck has taken on the challenge of applying the lessons of Nazi Germany (government-controlled health care, combined with the principle of valuing human beings based on “quality of life” and a severe economic crisis) to “question with boldness” the direction American health-care is heading under President Barack Obama and his policy advisors.

Beck hosts a radio program and a 5 P.M. television program on the FOX News Channel five days a week. But the anchorman’s passion is for taking an honest and fearless look at Obama’s advisors who have taken positions so radical out in the open that exposing them seems like melodramatic fiction.

In his health-care reform special, Beck looks at three critical advisors or “Czars” in President Obama’s Administration. These policy advisors manage new offices and exercise power within the Executive Branch, but are unaccountable to Congress in the way that cabinet appointees confirmed by the full Senate are.

In the first part Beck focused on Nazi Germany, because a system that valued the worth of human beings based on “quality of life” led inevitably to Hitler’s “final solution.” However it began when Germans became used to the idea that human life ultimately had a value related to qualities valued by the state as a collective whole. That thinking led to the acceptance of “Lebensunwertes Leben” or “life unworthy of life,” and crimes against humanity most Germans, other than the National Socialist elite, did not foresee as a consequence.

“Well-intentioned people can produce systems that raise serious questions,” admonished Beck, asking his viewers to take a hard look at several advisors in Obama’s inner-circle whose intentions are undermined by very serious flaws when it comes to judging which human lives have dignity – or even qualify for life at all. These advisors or “czars” are designing America’s new government-controlled health-care system. Beck names them as Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel, Health Reform Policy Advisor, John Holdren, Science Czar, and Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar, and reminds his audience to take up President Obama’s advice: to know his policies and who influences his thinking, look at his advisors.

Dr. “Zeke” Emmanuel and the Complete Lives System

Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel works in the White House Office of Management and Budget as a health-policy advisor and he is a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. Dr. Emmanuel is one of the pillars of Obama’s reform. However Dr. Emmanuel has stated repeatedly in public forums such as the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that doctors were driving up health-care costs because they value the Hippocratic Oath as “an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”

Instead, Dr. Emmanuel raises the possibility of a new ethical system, the “Complete Lives System” that would ration care away from the elderly, away from infants, and away from human beings judged unable to rationally participate in society (such as those with dementia), in favor of those aged 15-44, who have the best chance “to live a complete life.”

Dr. Emmanuel’s theory of rationing, however, could end up being applied in a severe national economic crisis, far worse than the current recession, and not unlike the Great Depression that crippled Germany. Germany had made the mistake of trying to dig itself out of its staggering national debt by heavily inflating the money supply in order to save its economy. Beck makes the point that this is not too dissimilar to the United States’ attempt to stimulate its economy, which unable to borrow more money from creditor-nations like China, has instead borrowed cash from the printing presses of the Federal Reserve.

Such a system could be implemented and recommended to the government insurance programs or private companies participating in the Health Insurance Exchange by means of a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research and its advisory panels as proposed in HR 3200 “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,” which soon enough may be named for the departed Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.). Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin brought attention to this fact in a Facebook statement that charged Obama and Dr. Emmanuel would turn the health-care system into a “death panel.” (see coverage here and here)

But as Beck points out, Dr. Emmanuel may not believe that people who can’t become developed citizens are not “basic” and “should not be guaranteed,” but he is not alone in his thinking. Obama’s “Science Czar” John Holdren does him one better: some people are not yet human.

John Holdren: Not Even Born Babies are Human … Yet

John Holdren is President Obama’s Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Beck says he is another key player in Obama’s health-care reform. But Holdren has a life-long obsession with population control and has written two books outlining a host of options to deal with what he sees as a global crisis of “human overpopulation.”

Beck points out that Holdren has this to say about who is human and who is not, and babies do not qualify as human beings: “The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experience and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.”

Holdren co-authored a college textbook called “Ecoscience” in which he advanced the idea that forced abortion and sterilization of women is justifiable under the US Constitution, and that sterilizing agents could be added to the drinking water in order to curb the growth of human populations.

That background does not sick well with Americans trying to judge for themselves whether to trust the safety and effects of the hastily approved H1N1 “swine flu” vaccine. Holdren has urged Americans to take the vaccine warning that up to 90,000 Americans could die from the virus this season – although to date less only 500 Americans have died of the virus. Many are wary of taking the fast-tracked vaccine citing the 1976 swine flu scare in which the vaccine killed more people than the disease and left many more with a nerve disease called Guillian Barre syndrome.

Cass Sunstein and Rationing by QALY

Cass Sunstein, Obama’s appointed advisor to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, shares opinions in common with Dr. Emmanuel and John Holdren when it comes to health-care rationing and the dignity of the human person. If Sunstein’s appointment is not rejected by the Senate, then Sunstein will oversee the OIRA, which creates government regulations for federal laws.

Sunstein advocates rationing based on “quality-adjusted life years” (QALY), meaning that the government would evaluate statistically whether a person’s life is worth the cost of living.

Sunstein is a radical animal rights thinker, who believes that animals such as dolphins and whales should have legal representation. Sunstein counts Princeton philosopher Peter Singer among his closest friends. Singer believes that children under the age of seven do not have sufficient rationality to count as human beings, and for that reason parents could commit infanticide.

Sunstein has also stated a desire to regulate the internet in order to fight what he calls a “system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.”

See Part 3

Beck to the Future III: “Quality of Life” Rationing Links Nazi Doctors and ObamaCare Experts

The Archbishop of Madrid, Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, expressed his opposition this week to the Socialist government’s proposal to change the country’s law on religious freedom.

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

New law on religious freedom unnecessary, says Madrid cardinal

Rimini, Italy, Aug 28, 2009 / 02:54 pm (CNA).- The Archbishop of Madrid, Cardinal Antonio Maria Rouco Varela, expressed his opposition this week to the Socialist government’s proposal to change the country’s law on religious freedom.  “What is this for then? Why do we need this new law? We haven’t found an answer,” the cardinal said.

After a speech at the Rimini Meeting organized by Catholic movement Communion and Liberation, Cardinal Rouco told reporters it was “interesting that the Spanish government wants to change the Law on Religious Freedom, because the current one is actually quite good.

In 1992, the Socialist government of Felipe Gonzalez established agreements with the Muslim, Jewish and Evangelical communities,” and therefore a new Socialist law would be out of place, he noted.

According the Spanish daily La Razon, Cardinal Rouco also recalled that a new law would be inferior to 1979 accords between Spain and the Holy See.  In any case, he added, “nobody has sent us a draft proposal, we are only aware of the statements of the minister of Justice and nothing official.”

Asked about the pro-life march set for October, Cardinal Rouco recalled the June statement by the Spanish Bishops’ Conference. “We pointed out there that it is especially grave that abortion be converted into a right, even if only for a few months.”  The march, he said, is “a living reflection of social reality, not only among Catholics. On various occasions the bishops have asked the faithful to commit themselves to great causes and in our day the defense of life is first of all.”

CHARLES SPURGEON THE PLEA OF FAITH

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

“Do as thou hast said.” 2 Samuel 7:25

NATHAN had been giving to David, on God’s behalf, sundry exceeding
great and precious promises. David expresses his gratitude to God for
having so promised, and he says, “Now, O Lord God, the word that thou
hast spoken concerning thy servant, and concerning his house, establish it
for ever, and do as thou hast said.”

It is a prayer to God. Those words naturally flowed from his rips: after
hearing such precious promises, he was anxious for their fulfillment. Such
words will be equally in place, if they shall be adopted by us in these
modern times, and if, after reading a promise, on turning to God’s Word,
we should finish by saying, “Remember the word unto thy servant, upon
which thou hast caused me to hope,” it will be a practical application of the
text, “Do as thou hast said.”

I shall not commence my sermon to-night by endeavoring to prove that this
Bible is what God has said; I do not come here to give you arguments to
prove the inspiration of Scripture; I assume that I speak to a Christian
congregation, and I assume, therefore, at starting, that this is God’s word
and none other. Leaving that matter, then, altogether, permit me to
proceed at once to the text, understanding by what God has said, the
Scriptures of his truth; and I trust there are some here who will be led, tonight,
to cry to God in behalf of some promise made to their souls, O Lord,
do as thou hast said.”

I. Our first remark shall be HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO KNOW WHAT GOD
HAS SAID, for unless we know what God has said, it will be folly to say,
“do as thou hast said.” Perhaps there is no book more neglected in these
days than the Bible. I do verily believe there are more mouldy Bibles in this
world than there are of any sort of neglected books. We have stillborn
books in abundance; we have innumerable books which never see any
circulation except the circulation of the butter shop, but we have no book
that is so much bought, and then so speedily laid aside, and so little used,
as the Bible. If we buy a newspaper, it is generally handed from one person
to another, or we take care to peruse it pretty well; indeed some go so far
as to read advertisements and all. If a person purchases a novel, it is well
known how he will sit and read it all the way through, till the midnight
candle is burnt out; the book must be finished in one day, because it is so
admirable and interesting; but the Bible, of course, in the estimation of
many, is not an interesting book; and the subjects it treats of are not of any
very great importance. So most men think; they think it is a very good
book to carry out on a Sunday, but never meant to be used as a book of
pleasure, or a book to which one could turn with delight. Such is the
opinion of many; but no opinion can be more apart from the truth; for what
book can treat of truths one-half so important as those that concern the
soul. What book can so well deserve my attention as that which is written
by the greatest of all authors, God himself? If I must read a valuable book
with attention, how much more ought I to give my mind to the study of
that book which is invaluable, and which contains truth without the
slightest admixture of error? And if books upon my health, or books which
only concern the doings of my fellow creatures occupy some of my time,
and deservedly so, how much more time should I spend in reading that
which concerns my everlasting destiny; which reveals to me worlds hitherto
unknown; which tells me how I may escape from hell and fly to heaven?
But I must remark, that even among Christian people, the Bible is one of
the least read books that they have in their house. What with our
innumerable magazines, our religious newspapers, and our perpetual
controversies about the Bible, it is too seldom that people read the Bible.
There certainly is not that reading of it that there used to be. Our
predecessors, the ancient Puritans, would scarcely read any book but that;
and if a book was not concerning the Bible, they did not care about reading
it at all. Perhaps therein they may have been too strait and narrow, and may
somewhat have cramped their minds; but I would rather have my mind
cramped with divinity, than I would have it enlarged with falsehood; I
would rather have a little truth, and have a mind filled with that, though
that mind should only be as large as a nutshell, than have the most gigantic
intellect, and have that crammed with error. It is not the greatness of our
intellect, it is the rightness of it, that makes us men in this world, and right
men before God. I beseech you, therefore, you who are members of
Christian churches, if you have but little time, do not expend it in reading
ephemeral books, but take your Bible and read it constantly; and I promise
you one thing, that if you are already Christians, the more you read the
Bible the more you will love it. You may find it hard, perhaps, at present,
to read a short passage and meditate upon it all day; but as you proceed
you will see such depths unfathomable, such heights beyond your ken; and
you will discover such unutterable sweetness in this precious honey-comb
dropping with drops of honey, that you will say, “I must have more of it,”
and your spirit will always cry, “Give, give;” nor will it be content until you
can have God’s statutes upon your mind daily, to be your songs in the
house of your pilgrimage.

The errors of this present age have sprung from a non-reading of the
Bible. Do you think, my brethren, that if we all read the Scriptures with
judgment, and desired to know them rightly, there would be so many sects
as there are? Heresies and schisms have sprung from this; one man has
gone a little astray upon a point; another man, without referring to
Scripture, has endorsed all he has said; another one has added something
else to it; and then another one, being cunning, full of subtlety of the devil,
has twisted passages of Scripture, and has woven them into a system,
which has been fashioned in the first place by mistake, has accumulated and
become more colossal by sundry other mistakes which naturally accrued to
it, and at last has been perfected by the craft of designing heretics.
And, again: bigotry, ill feeling, and uncharitableness, must all be traced,
in a large degree, to our want of reading the Bible. What is the reason
why yon man hates me, because I preach what I believe to be right? If I do
speak the truth am I responsible for his hating me? Not in the least degree.
I am sometimes told by my people that I attack certain parties very hard.
Well, I cannot help it; if they are not right, it is not my fault — if they come
in my way, that I am compelled to run over them. Suppose two of you
should be driving in the road to-morrow, and one of you should be on the
right side of the road, and some accident should occur, you would say,
“Sir, the other man ought to have pulled up, he must pay the damages, for
he had no business there at all on his wrong side.” And it will be the same
with us if we preach God’s truth; we must go straight on; if the greatest illfeeling
in the world rise up we have nothing to do with it. God’s truth will
sometimes bring about warfare; Jesus Christ, you know, said himself that
he came to put warfare between man and man; to set the mother-in-law
against the daughter-in-law, and the daughter-in-law against the mother-inlaw;
and that a man’s foes should be those of his own household. But if
there be ill-feeling, if there be clamoring of sects, to whom is it due? Who
is responsible for it? Why, the man who makes the new sects, not the man
who abides fast and firm by the old one. If I am safely moored by a good
strong anchor of fundamental truth, and some other shall strike my vessel
and sink himself, I will not pay the damages. I stand firm: if others choose
to go away from the truth, to cut their cables and slip their moorings; then
let them. God grant that we may not do the same. Hold the truth, my
friends, and hold it as the easiest method of sweeping away heresies and
false doctrines. But now-a-days, you know, you are told, “Oh, it does not
matter what you believe; doctrines are nothing;” and they have tried lately
to make a very happy family of us, like the happy family near Waterloo
Bridge, where all kinds of creatures are shut up together; but they are only
kept in order by a lath which the man, when we turn our heads, applies
between the bars of the cage. Just so with denominations; they want to
amalgamete us all. We differ in various doctrines, and therefore some of us
must be wrong, if we hold doctrines which are directly hostile to each
other. But we are told, “It does not signify; doubtless, you are all right.”
Now, I cannot see that. If I say one thing, and another man says another,
how, by all that is holy, can both speak the truth? Shall black and white be
the same color? Shall falsehood and truth be the same? When they shall be,
and fire shall sleep in the same cradle with the waves of the ocean, then
shall we agree to amalgamate ourselves with those who deny our doctrines,
or speak evil of what we believe to be the gospel. My brethren, no man has
any right to absolve your judgment from allegiance to God; there is liberty
of conscience between man and man, but there is none between God and
man. No man has a right to believe what he likes; he is to believe what God
tells him; and if he does not believe that though he is not responsible to
man, or to any set of men, or to any government, yet mark you, he is
responsible to God. I beseech you, therefore, if you would avoid heresies,
and bring the church to a glorious union, read the Scriptures. Read not so
much man’s comments, or man’s books, but reed the Scriptures, and keep
your faith on this, — “God has said it.” If you cannot make all God’s
truths agree, yet remember God has not made two sets of truth opposite to
each other; that were an impossibility which even God himself could not
accomplish mighty though he be. My brethren, always stand by what God
has said, and do not be turned aside from it by all the arguments that can be
brought to bear against you. “Search the Scriptures, for they testify of
Christ.”

II. And now for our second point. ALL THAT FAITH WANTS TO BUILD
UPON IS WHAT GOD HAS SAID. “Do as thou hast said.” The only solid
foothold that faith has is, “It is written, God hath said it.” When a sinner
comes to God he must have nothing else to rely upon except this, “Do as
thou hast said.” There is a tendency in most men’s minds to bring before
God something which he did not say. Many of you, I dare say, will go and
ask God in prayer for something for which you cannot prove a positive
promise that he will ever give it to you. You go to God and say, “Lord, do
as John Bunyan said, do as Whitfield said, let me have an experience like
theirs.” Now, that is all wrong. We must, when we come to God, say only,
“Lord, do as thou hast said.” And then, again, I do believe that many of
those who are members of our churches have not put their faith simply in
what God has said. If I were to go round to some of you and ask you why
you believe yourselves to be Christians, it is marvellous what strange
reasons many of you would bring. It is very singular what strange views
persons often have as to the way of salvation. It is hard to bring a sinner to
God simply with this, — “Lord, do as thou hast said.”

I know some who think themselves to be God’s children, because they
dreamed they were. They had a very remarkable dream one night, and if
you were to laugh at them they would be unutterably indignant; they would
cut you at once out of the family of God, and call you an “accuser of the
brethren.” They do not rely upon what God has said in the Bible; but they
had some singular vision, when deep sleep had fallen upon them, and
because of that vision, they reckon they are children of God. In the course
of my seeing persons who come to me, I hear every now and then a story
like this, “Sir, I was in such-and-such a room, and suddenly I thought I saw
Jesus Christ, and heard a voice saying such-and-such a thing to me, and
that is the reason why I hope I am saved.” Now, that is not God’s way of
salvation; the sinner is not to say, “Lord, do as I dreamed, do as I fancy;”
but “Do as thou hast said.” And if I have any one here who has never had a
dream, or vision, he does not want to have, if he goes to God with this,
“Lord, thou hast said Christ died to save sinners, I am a sinner, save me,”
that is faith. “Do as thou hast said.” But there are other persons far more
rational, who if they were asked the reason for their supposing that they
are saved, would speak of some remarkable rhapsody which, on a
particular occasion they had when hearing a certain minister; or of a
particular text which struck them suddenly, and transported them to the
seventh heaven, and they had such thoughts as they never had before. “Oh
I sir,” they say “it is marvellous, I thought my heart would break, it was so
full of joy and gladness; I never felt so before in all my life; and when I
went out of the house, I felt so light and so ready to run home, I thought I
should sing all the way; so I know I must be a child of God.” Well, you
may know it, but I don’t, be cause there are many persons who have been
deluded by the devil in that fashion, who never had faith in Christ. Faith in
Christ never rests in rhapsody; it rests on a “thou hast said it.” Ask faith
whether it will ever take its standing on anything but a “thou hast said,”
and faith will answer, “No; I cannot climb to heaven on a ladder made of
dreams, they are too flimsy to bear my feet.” Faith, why does thou not
march on? Why dost thou not cross that bridge? “No,” says faith, “I
cannot; it is made up of rhapsodies, and rhapsodies are intoxicating things,
and I cannot place my feet upon them.” Faith will stand on a promise,
though it be no bigger than a grain of mustard seed; but it could not stand
on a rhapsody if it was as large as the everlasting mountains. Faith can
build on a “thou hast said it;” but it cannot build on frames and feelings, on
dreams and experiences — it only relies on this — “Thou hast said it.” Let
me caution my hearers against suppositions, which some of them have as
to salvation. Some persons think that the Holy Spirit is a kind of electric
shock working in the heart; that there is some mysterious and terrible thing
they cannot understand, which they must feel, not only very different from
what they ever felt before, but even superior to anything described in
God’s Word. Now, I beg to tell you, that so far from the effectual
operation of the Holy Spirit being a dark thing in its manifestation, it is,
because it is the Holy Spirit, a thing of simplicity and light. The way of
salvation is no great mystery, it is very plain; it is “believe and live.” And
faith needs no mysteries to hang itself upon; it catches hold of the bare
naked promise, and it says, “Lord, do as thou hast said.”

My faith can on this promise live; I know that on this promise it never can
die. But faith wants neither testimonies of man, nor learning of
philosophers, nor eloquence of orators, nor rhapsodies, nor visions, nor
revelations. It wants nothing else but what God has said applied to the
heart; and it goes to God, and says, “Lord, do as thou hast said.”

III. And now for the third remark. We see that faith is a very bold thing;
when God says a thing it goes to God, and says, “Lord, do as thou hast
said.”

My third remark is, that FAITH IS QUITE RIGHT IN SO DOING. The Lord
always meant, when he said a thing, that we should remind him of it. God’s
promises were never means to be waste paper; he means that they should
be used. Whenever God gives a promise, if a man does not use that
promise, the promise fails in effect to that man, and God’s great intention
therein is in some measure frustrated. God sent the promise on purpose to
be used. If I see a Bank of England note, it is a promise for a certain
amount of money, and I take it and use it. But oh I my friend, do try and
use God’s promises; nothing pleases God better than to see his promises
put in circulation; he loves to see his children bring them up to him, and
say, “Lord, do as thou hast said.” And let me tell you that it glorifies God
to use his promises. Do you think that God will be any the poorer for
giving you the riches he has promised? Do you think he will be any the less
holy for giving holiness to you? Do you think he will be any the less pure
for washing you from your sins? And he has said, “Come now, let us
reason together, though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as wool;
though they be red, they shall be whiter than snow.” Faith gets hold of that
promise, and it does not stand saying, “this is a precious promise, I will
look at it ;” it goes right up to the throne, and says, “Lord, here is the
promise, do as thou hast said.” And God says, “Oh! faith, I am as glad to
see the promise brought to me, as thou art to bring it, I meant my promise
to be used, and the using of it glorifies me.” Why, if any one gave us a
cheque, and we did not go to have it cashed, though we might want the
money badly enough, suppose we said, “I don’t like to go,” there would be
some slur cast upon the character of the man whose signature had made it
valid. And so when a Christian gets a promise, if he does not take it to
God, he dishonors him. But when faith in all its raggedness and poverty,
and sickness about it, goes to God and says, “Lord, I have nothing to
recommend me but this, ‘thou hast said it:’ there is the promise, Lord, give
me the fulfillment.” God smiles, and says, “Ay, my child, I love to see thee
trust me; there, take back the fulfillment, and go on thy way rejoicing.”
Never think that God will be troubled by your asking him about his
promises so much. God likes to be troubled, if I may use such an
expression; he likes you to go to his door, and say, “Great Banker, cash
this note; great Promiser, fulfill this promise; great covenant God, fulfill thy
covenant, and send me not empty away.” “Do as thou hast said,” is a
legitimate request; we ought to say it; it honors God, and God meant that
we should so use his promises, “Do as thou hast said.”

Another remark. Faith has very good reason for appealing to God to do
as he has said. If you should say to faith, “Faith, why do you expect God
to do as he has said? do you know you are undeserving of such-and-such a
mercy, though he has said it, why do you expect it?” Faith would answer,
“I have a whole bundle of reasons that justify the act. And in the first place,
I have a right to expect him to do as he has said, because he is a true God;
I know he cannot lie. He has said he will give me such-and-such a thing; if
he was not a truthful God, I would not say, ‘do as thou hast said!’ but
since he is a true God, and never was known to break his promise, and
since, moreover, by two immutable things, wherein it is impossible for God
to lie — his oath and his promise — he has made the thing secure; and
since I know that in Christ all the promises are yea and amen, I think I have
good reason enough for going to him and saying, ‘do as thou hast said.’ If
he were some fallible being who promised and would not perform, I might
hesitate somewhat, but since he is always true and constantly precious, I
will go and say to him, ‘Lord, do as thou hast said.’” Poor sinner! God has
said, “He that confesseth his sin shall find mercy.” Now, if you go to God,
you want no other plea than this, — “‘Lord, do as thou hast said;’ ‘I have
confessed my sins ;’ ‘do as thou hast said.’” “But, sinner, why should I do
as I have said? you do not deserve it.” “Lord, thou art a true God.”

“Thou hast promised to forgive,
All who on thy Son believe;
Lord I know thou canst not lie,
Give me Christ or else I die.”

Go, poor sinner, tell the Lord that, and as truly as he is God, he will never
send you empty away. Faith has good reasons to feel that God is true, and
therefore he will do as he has said. And not only so, but he is able to do it;
his ability is infinite. His intentions also are the same, his promises never
get worn out by being circulated, and they become all the more sure for
being tried. Poor sinner, here again is a joyful thought: thou canst go to
God, and say, “Lord thou hast promised to wash away all our iniquities,
and cast them into the depths of the sea. Lord, if thou hadst been a
changeable God, I might have thought thou wouldst not wash away mine,
but thou didst wash Manasseh, and thou didst wash Paul; now, Lord,
because thou art unchangeable, ‘do as thou hast said.’ For thou art just the
same now, just as merciful, just as powerful, and just as kind as ever thou
wert. What, wilt thou break thy promise, Lord? ‘Do as thou hast said.’”
But faith puts it on stronger ground than this: it says, “Lord, if thou dost
not do as thou hast said, thou wilt be dishonored, thou wilt be disgraced.”
If a man does not carry out his promise, he is cashiered; men care not to
associate with one who breaks his promise; and what would become of
God’s great name if he were to break his promise? Poor black sinner! thou
art coming to the fountain; God has given the promise that he will wash
every sinner that comes to the fountain. Now, with reverence, let me speak
it poor sinner; if Christ did not wash you, it would be a dishonor to his
truth. If you were to go to Christ, and he were to cast you out, surely, the
devils in hell would despise the name of him who breaks his promise
Beloved, to suppose that God could violate his promise, is to suppose him
divested of his Godhead. Take away God’s honor from him, and he
becomes less than man. Take away the honor which even man holds dear,
and what do you make of God? “Oh! sir,” you say, “but I do not deserve it;
I am such a poor worthless creature, he will not keep his promise to me.” I
tell you that does not make a whit difference in God’s promise; if he has
promised, he is divinely bound to perform his promise, in whatever state
you may be. Though you have slandered God, though you may have hated
him and despised him, and run away from him, and in every way ill-treated
him — if he has made a promise to you here, I will be bound for my God.
He would keep a promise to the devil if he had made one; and if he has
made a promise to you who are ever so vile, he will keep that promise to
you. Hear the promise, then, once more, Are you a sinner? “This is a
faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners, even the chief.” And, again: “He is able to save
unto the uttermost them that come unto God by him.” And, again: “Come
unto me, all ye that are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” And let me
say again, with the profoundest reverence, that if Christ did not give rest to
every weary heavy laden sinner that came to him, he would be un-Christed,
he would lose his truthfulness, he would be undeified, he would lose his
veracity, and the loss of one poor believing sinner would be the loss of
God’s own godhead; it would be the dethroning of the immortal; it would
be the pulling down of heaven, the breaking asunder of the universe, and
the dissolution of creation’s own earth, and of creation’s self. Faith may
well go to God, and say, “Lord, do as thou hast said; for if thou dost not, it
will be a dishonor to thyself.”

And now let us conclude by asking, what has God said? I cannot tell you
all that he has said to you, because I cannot mark out all the different
characters here. But, my dear friends, whatever may be your character,
from the earliest stage of religion up to the last, there is always some
special promise to you; and you have only to turn your Bible over and find
it out, and then go to God with “Do as thou hast said.” Let me just select a
few characters. There is one here, exceeding faint in the ways of the Lord.
“Oh!” he says, “I am faint, though I hope I am pursuing.” Now, here is the
promise, — “He giveth power unto the faint;” When you get such a
promise, stick hard and fast to it; do not let the devil cheat you out of it,
but keep on saying, “Lord, thou hast said, He giveth power unto the faint.”
“Do as thou hast said.” Let it ring and ring again in the ears of the
promiser, and he will be a performer yet. “Ah!” says another, “I am not
faint; I am afraid I scarcely have life at all; I am a hungry and thirsty soul; I
want Christ, but I cannot get at him.” Hear this: “Blessed are they that
hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be filled.” Take that
promise to God, and keep to it: do not plead anything else, but go to God
over and over again with this, — “Lord, thou hast said it; do as thou hast
said.” Are you covered all over with sin, and under a deep sense of your
iniquities? Go and tell him this: “Thou hast said, ‘I will cast their iniquities
into the depths of the sea.’ Lord, I know I have these sins; I do not deny it;
but thou hast said, ‘I will pardon them.’ I have no reason why thou
shouldst pardon them; I cannot promise that I shall be better; but, Lord,
thou hast said it, and that is enough; ‘Do as thou hast said.’” Another one
here is afraid lest he should not be able to hold on to the end, and lest after
having been a child of God he should be a cast-away. Then, if that be thy
state, go and take this to God: “The mountains may depart, and the hills
may be removed, but the covenant of my love shall not depart from you;”
and when you are thinking that the Savior is going away, catch hold of his
skirts, and say, “Jesus, do as thou hast said. Thou hast said, ‘I will never
leave thee;’ ‘do as thou hast said.’” Or, if thou hast lost his presence,
remember the promise, “I will come again to you.” Go and say, “Lord, I
have lost the sweet comfort of thy presence in my heart, but thou hast said,
‘I will come again to you.’” And if Satan says, “He is gone away, and will
never come back again,” tell Satan he has nothing to do with it; God has
said it, and keep to this, “Do as thou hast said.” If you do that, you will
want no other argument and no other reason.

Let us suppose a case, and having tried to illustrate the truth by it, we will
have done. There is a desperate ruffian; he has been concerned in twenty
burglaries; it is said he has committed several murders; the police are on his
track, they are hunting after him; he cannot be discovered. The principal
point is to discover him, for it is hoped that by his discovery and his pardon
more good might be done than even by his execution. Persons come to this
desperately bad fellow, and they tell him, “If you give yourself up, I dare
say you will get a free pardon.” “I do not give myself up on daresays,” he
says. Another comes, and says, “If you were to give yourself up, I would
intercede for you; I know my lord so-and-so, and such a man, member of
parliament, would intercede for you.” “No,” he would say, “let well alone.
I am pretty safe now; I am not going to give myself up on the mere
speculation that someone will intercede for me.” But by-and-bye there
comes out a huge placard, “V. R. Free pardon to such a man if he
surrenders himself.” He walks straight up to the place. Some one says to
him, “Stop, my dear fellow; they will hang you, perhaps.” “No,” says he,
“they won’t.” Some one says, “They have been many years looking after
you; you do not think that if you get into the fangs of the law now the
Queen will pardon you?” “Yes,” he says, “I can trust her? she has never
given a free pardon, and then executed anyone.” He goes to the office, and
they say, “We are astonished to see this fellow; he might have kept away;
he had no necessity to give himself up.” “See,” says one, “there is a
policeman, are you not afraid? There are the handcuffs; are you not afraid
that they will be put on your wrists and that you will be put into jail?”
“No,” he says, “I will walk all through the prison, but there is not a cell in
which I may be locked up. The Queen has said she will pardon me, and I
do not want any thing else.” “But look at your conduct; you know you
deserve to be hanged.” “I know I do, but I have received a free pardon,
and I will surrender myself:” “But who can tell how many burglaries you
will commit if you are allowed to go free.” “Never mind, she has promised
to pardon me, and I know well that her word will not be violated. Sure the
majesty of England will not lie against such an offender as I am.” Now, you
would not wonder at that, would you? It would be no very marvellous
thing, because we can trust her Majesty pretty fairly. But it is the hardest
thing to get sinners to come to God. “No,” says one, “I have been a
drunkard, God will not forgive me.” My dear fellow, it is said, “All manner
of sin and iniquity shall be forgiven to man.” “Oh,” says another, “I have
been a swearer, I have been an infidel, I have blasphemed God, and broken
all his statutes.” My dear fellow-creature, it is said, “All manner of sin and
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men,” Cannot you believe it? God means
what he says; and can you not come to God, trembling, though you be, and
cast yourself before his feet, and say, “Lord, if thou dost damn me, I
deserve it; if thou shouldst cast me down to hell, I know thou wouldst be
just” but then Lord thou hast said, “Him that cometh to me I will in no
wise cast out.” I tell you God will do as he has said. If you have but faith
to believe that promise, you never need fear.

Worthless, vilest of the vile, sweepings of the universe, the very offal of
creation, if you come to God he will take you in, for his promise is not to
be broken by reason of your vileness; he will receive you, if you can but
plead a promise of your own case, and say to him, “Do as thou hast said.”
Now, then, I will say in conclusion, it will be easy enough for every poor
sinner, for every penitent sinner, for every weak saint, to go home, and
turn his Bible over; and by a little diligence he will be able to find out a
promise that will exactly suit his case; and if he does not find such a
promise, it will be because he did not look long enough, for there is one
that just fits, and when he has got hold of it let him go to God, and say,
“Lord, do as thou hast said,” and let him keep to that; and the heavens
would sooner fall than one of God’s promises should be broken. Oh! trust
my Master! oh! trust my Master; trust your souls to him! trust your bodies
to him, I beseach you; do it, for his own name’s sake! Amen and Amen.

Controversial Bill would give president Obama emergency control of Internet

Friday, August 28th, 2009

Atlas Shrugs

Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet….

Probably the most controversial language begins in Section 201, which permits the president to “direct the national response to the cyber threat” if necessary for “the national defense and security.” The White House is supposed to engage in “periodic mapping” of private networks deemed to be critical, and those companies “shall share” requested information with the federal government. (“Cyber” is defined as anything having to do with the Internet, telecommunications, computers, or computer networks.)

“The language has changed but it doesn’t contain any real additional limits,” EFF’s Tien says. “It simply switches the more direct and obvious language they had originally to the more ambiguous (version)…The designation of what is a critical infrastructure system or network as far as I can tell has no specific process. There’s no provision for any administrative process or review. That’s where the problems seem to start. And then you have the amorphous powers that go along with it.”

Translation: If your company is deemed “critical,” a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network…

Silicon Israel How market capitalism saved the Jewish state by George Gilder

Friday, August 28th, 2009

The most precious resource in the world economy is human genius, which we may define as the ability to devise significant inventions that enhance survival and prosperity. At any one time, genius is embodied in just a few score thousand people, a creative minority that accounts for most human accomplishment and wealth. Cities and nations rise and thrive when they welcome entrepreneurial and technical genius; when they overtax, criminalize, or ostracize it, they wither.

During the twentieth century, an astounding proportion of geniuses have been Jewish, and the fate of nations from Russia westward has largely reflected how they have treated their Jews. When Jews lived in Vienna and Budapest early in the century, these cities of the Hapsburg Empire were world centers of intellectual activity and economic growth; then the Nazis came to power, the Jews fled or were killed, and growth and culture disappeared with them. When Jews came to New York and Los Angeles, those cities towered over the global economy and culture. When Jews escaped Europe for Los Alamos and, more recently, for Silicon Valley, the world’s economy and military balance shifted decisively. Thus many nations have faced a crucial moral test: Will they admire, reward, and emulate a minority that has achieved towering accomplishments? Or will they writhe in resentment and plot its destruction?

The test has assumed a global face today, when a large proportion of the world’s genius resides in Israel. Israel has very recently become a center of innovation, second in absolute achievement only to the United States, and on a per-capita basis dwarfing the contributions of all other nations, America included. How Israel is treated by the rest of the world thus represents a crucial test for civilization. Will we pass it?

My interest in Israeli innovation began in 1998, when I invited an Israeli physicist named David Medved to speak at the Gilder/Forbes Telecosm conference. Medved described the promise of “free-space optics”—what most of us call “light”—for high-end communications among corporate buildings and campuses. He also spoke of air force experiments in Israel that used the still-higher frequencies and shorter waves of ultraviolet light for battlefield communications. Some of the most important explorations of electromagnetic technology, I realized, were happening in Israel.

Nearly a decade later, Medved introduced me to his son Jonathan, a pioneering Israeli venture capitalist. In his offices high over Jerusalem, the younger Medved told me the startling tale of Israel’s rapid rise to worldwide preeminence in high technology. I had long known that Israel held laboratories and design centers for American microchip companies. I knew that, in a real sense, much American technology could reasonably bear the label israel inside. I was familiar with a few prominent Israeli start-ups, such as the electric-car company launched by Wired cover boy Shai Agassi, which boldly bypassed the entire auto industry in redesigning the automobile from scratch, and Gavriel Iddan’s company Given Imaging, with its digestible camera in a capsule for endoscopies and colonoscopies.

But what I learned in Jerusalem was that Israel was not only a site for research and outsourcing and the occasional conceptual coup, but the emerging world leader, outside the United States, in launching new companies and technologies. This tiny embattled country, smaller than most American states, is outperforming European and Asian Goliaths ten to 100 times larger. In a watershed moment for the country, Israel in 2007 passed Canada as the home of the most foreign companies on the technology-heavy NASDAQ index; it is now launching far more high-tech companies per year than any country in Europe.

To take one example among many, Israel is a prime source not only of free-space optics but also of another form of hidden light: ultra-wideband technology. This technology features wireless transmissions that are not, like cell-phone signals, millions of hertz wide at relatively high power, but billions of hertz wide—gigahertz—at power too low to be detected by ordinary antennas. The technology is typically used for mundane purposes, such as connecting personal computers and televisions wirelessly. But a firm called Camero, in Netanya, Israel, has invented an ingenious ultra-wideband device that enables counterterrorist fighters and police to see through walls and identify armed men and other threats within. An easily portable box about the size and weight of a laptop computer, Camero’s Xaver 400 could suffuse an urban battlefield with hidden light that would penetrate walls and bunkers and be detectable only by its users. Such inventions are changing the balance of power in urban guerrilla warfare, to the advantage of the civilized and the dismay of the barbarians.

As I investigated companies like Camero, it became clear to me that Israel had achieved an economic miracle that was important to the United States and to the world. As late as the mid-1980s, Israel was a basket case, with inflation rates spiking from 400 percent to nearly 1,000 percent by early 1985. As recently as 1990, Israel was a relatively insignificant technology force, aside from a few military and agricultural initiatives. Yet in little more than a decade, the country has become an engine of global technology progress. Still more important, Israel’s technology leadership has made it a vital ally of the United States against a global movement of jihadist terror. How did it make such an astonishing leap?

With the history of twentieth-century science and technology largely a saga of Jewish accomplishment, it might seem to have been foreordained that after World War II, the rising Jewish nation would emerge as a scientific and technological leader. Yet for all the talk of deserts in bloom, the miracle did not occur quickly. For many decades after Israel achieved independence in 1948, the Jews assembled there generated few significant companies or technologies, no significant financial institutions to fund them, and little important science. Accomplishments made in American states like California, New York, and even New Jersey exceeded those of Israeli enterprise, and Jews outside Israel far outperformed Jews in Israel.

In the country’s early years, its research activities were mostly public, devoted to defense, and paltry by any standard. As late as 1965, the ratio of research-and-development spending in Israel to its gross domestic product was under 1 percent, nearly the lowest in the entire Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, behind only Italy. Just one-tenth of 1 percent of Israel’s employees were engineers, putting it far behind the United States and even Sweden. Michael Porter’s definitive 1990 tome The Competitive Advantage of Nations mentioned Israel only once.

All this despite the presence of the Technion, one of the world’s supreme institutions of practical science and the chief contribution of Israel’s founders to its eventual preeminence in technology. Located atop a hill overlooking Haifa, the institute sprawls over its spectacular site with a massive maze of concrete institutional architecture as formidable as MIT’s: labs, auditoriums, nuclear facilities, giant telescopes, and research monoliths, mostly named for American Jewish tycoons. But nearly 80 years passed after the Technion’s opening in 1924, with Jews around the world forging the science of the age in an intellectual efflorescence unparalleled in human history, without any exceptional contributions from Israel.

How to explain this lassitude? For much of Israel’s short history, the country has been a reactionary force, upholding a philosophy of victimization and socialist redistribution that could only impede its progress. In 1957, a team of American economic consultants found that Israel’s “high labor costs . . . reflected the high degree of job security . . . [and] the absence of adequate incentive to or rewards for superior efficiency or performance.” This was partly a result, they added, of “virtually complete protection from foreign competition.” Two years later, A. J. Meyer of the Harvard Center for Middle Eastern Studies noted “uncertainty in the minds of many [Israeli] industrial producers that theirs is the ‘good’ occupation or that society really gives them credit—financially and in status—for their efforts.” He also cited “welfare state concepts [that] often dictate that incompetent workers stay on payrolls.”

Many of Israel’s Jews, as the writer Midge Decter described them, “were coming into the country armed with their socialism and their ideologies of labor and a Jewish return to the soil.” Imagine it: urban socialists trying to reclaim their past glory and save themselves in a hostile world by returning to the soil in a desert! They created communal experiments—kibbutzim—and put intellectuals to work with hoes and shovels, for all the world like a voluntary version of Chairman Mao’s Cultural Revolution. In a truly menacing démarche of ideological madness, they attempted to abolish the family and private property.

Panicked, moreover, by the Jewish caricatures and stereotypes wielded by their enemies, they resolved to become mendicant nebbishes—touring the centers of Western money and industry with tin cups in hand—rather than bankers and financiers. They assigned close to a third of the economy to the ownership of Histadrut, a socialist workers’ organization prone to threatening nationwide strikes. Under Histadrut pressure, they instituted minimum wages that stifled employment and propelled inflation. Then they imposed more controls on wages, prices, and rents, making everything scarce.

In a general enthusiasm for public ownership of the means of production and finance, the government through the 1990s owned four major banks, 200 corporations, and much of the land. Israel’s taxes rose to a confiscatory 56 percent of total earnings, close to the highest in the world, stifling even those private initiatives that managed to pass through the country’s sieves of socialism. Erecting barriers of bureaucracy, sentiment, and culture, Israeli leaders balked the entrepreneurs and inventors who gathered there, creating a country inhospitable to Jewish genius.

Far more welcoming of Jewish and Israeli talent in those days were American companies, particularly Intel. It was an Israeli engineer, Dov Frohman, who invented electrically programmable read-only memory (EPROM), a chip-based permanent memory that could retain a personal computer’s core programming even when the power was off. EPROM would contribute some 80 percent of Intel’s profits over the next decade and sustain the company’s growth to become the world’s leading semiconductor company. (With the help of a company called Xicor, started by Israeli Raffi Klein, EPROM soon evolved into the flash memories that today dominate the industry. Today, flash memories are a forte of the Israeli microchip industry and lie behind many American miracles of miniaturization, from so-called thumb drives to Apple’s newer iPods to Hewlett-Packard’s Mini netbooks.)

After leaving Intel in 1974 for a charitable sojourn teaching electrical engineering in Ghana, Frohman returned to Israel to establish an Intel design center in Haifa. This laboratory soon conceived the so-called 8088 microprocessor, which was incorporated into the first IBM personal computer. In 1979, also in Haifa, Frohman supervised the development of Intel’s first mathematical floating-point coprocessor, a critical element in most subsequent personal computers and workstations.

As a guest in the country, albeit an imposing one, Intel could tap the genius of Jews while bypassing the rules, tolls, and taxes that frustrated Israeli companies. Following the Haifa design center, Frohman wanted Intel Israel to establish a semiconductor “fab,” or factory, in Jerusalem, together with the necessary chemical and engineering support services. After a battle with Intel executive Andrew Grove—himself a Hungarian Jew who became a legendary figure in Silicon Valley—over the costs of training Israelis to run the fab, Frohman managed to enlist $60 million in subsidies from the Israeli government and led the project to completion in three and a half years. By the late 1980s, the Jerusalem fab, Intel’s first outside the United States, was producing some 75 percent of the global output of Intel’s flagship 386 microprocessor and was gearing up to produce the 486 as well. Frohman later persuaded Grove to open production plants in Kiryat Gat in the Negev, Israel’s desert. Meanwhile, from Intel’s Israeli design centers—by now, there were several—emerged several generations of the Pentium microprocessor, as well as the Centrino low-power processor that integrated Wi-Fi wireless capabilities into portable PCs.

For all the achievements of Israelis working for Intel and other foreign firms, Israel’s native technology sector languished. Redemption came in unexpected forms. One was an infusion of genius: nearly a million immigrants, chiefly from the Soviet Union, whom Israel absorbed in the late 1980s and the 1990s. Impelled by constant harassment from the U.S. government—including Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s emancipation amendment, which for a decade was attached to any American legislation of interest to the USSR—the Soviet government finally agreed to a frontal lobotomy of its economy. Under Gorbachev, it released the bulk of the Soviet Jews, who had continued, despite constant oppression, to supply many of the technical skills that kept the USSR afloat as a superpower.

The influx of Soviet Jews into Israel represented a 25 percent population increase in ten years, a tsunami of new arrivals that would be equivalent to the entire population of France being accepted into the United States. Largely barred in the USSR from owning land or businesses, many of these Jews had honed their minds into keen instruments of algorithmic science, engineering, and mathematics. Most had wanted to come to America but were diverted to Israel by an agreement between Israel and the United States. Few knew Hebrew or saw a need for it. At best, they were ambivalent Zionists. But many were ferociously smart, fervently anti-Communist, and disdainful of their new country’s bizarre commitment to a socialist ethos that punished achievement.

At the same time as the flood of Soviet immigrants, a smaller but seminal wave of Americans arrived in Israel from such companies as IBM and Bell Laboratories, with a knowledge of Silicon Valley and an interest in opportunities in Israel. Capping off and funding these catalytic outsiders was a generation of eminent American retirees who arrived in Israel with billions of dollars of available capital, petawatts of imperious brainpower, a practiced disdain for bureaucratic pettifogs, and Olympian confidence in their own judgment and capabilities.

Mix the leadership of these dynamic capitalists with a million restive and insurgent Soviets, and the reaction was economically incandescent. Throw in natural leadership from the irrepressible Natan Sharansky, who had faced down confinement in the Gulag and formed a new conservative political party in Israel to mobilize his Russian compatriots, and the impact reverberated through the social and political order as well. Such an influx could not be clamped or channeled, tapered or intimidated into the existing economic framework, and, as Israeli financier Tal Keinan remarks of the Russian newcomers, “they could not all work for Intel.” Today, immigrants from the former Soviet Union constitute fully half of Israel’s high-tech workers.

Despite the dramatic progress of the 1990s, at the dawn of this century, Israel still lacked a financial sector capable of propelling the nation into the globally dominant role it stands poised to fill today. To get there would take one more great reform.

The successful allocation of capital, like the launch of a new technology, is an elegant expression of the capitalist law that mind rules and matter serves. Jews throughout history have excelled in this most intellectual of capitalist endeavors. And yet Israel until recently had virtually no investment houses, deep capital markets, or venture capital. With performance fees barred, hedge funds were essentially illegal. “All my Jewish friends were making their money at Goldman Sachs, while Israel’s finance was dominated by a heavily subsidized labor union,” remembers Keinan. “The Zionist Rothschilds dominated European banking, but the only significant Rothschild presence in Israel was a winery.”

In the mid-1980s, Yitzhak Shamir’s Likud government, with Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu as its United Nations ambassador, did cut taxes—increasing the rewards of work and investment by some 30 percent, dramatically boosting economic growth, and reducing inflation. As prime minister in the 1990s, Netanyahu also ushered in dramatic deregulation, along with tax cuts that brought in floods of new revenue. Further spurring local entrepreneurs was the Yozma program in 1993, which waived double taxation on foreign venture-capital investments in Israel and put up a matching fund of $100 million from the government. Demand for the money became so intense that the government hiked the amount and doubled the matching-funds requirement. Nevertheless, throughout the 1990s, most of the money powering Israel’s technological ascent came from the Israeli government or from American technology companies. As the millennium dawned, Israel had failed to create a financial-services industry or to wrest control of much of Israel’s capital from the hands of Histadrut.

The force driving the Israelis decisively out of their socialist slough into the modern world of finance was once again the ingenuity of Netanyahu. As finance minister, Netanyahu used the financial crisis of 2003 and 2004, precipitated by the latest campaign of Palestinian terror, as a lever to transform Israel’s economy from a largely socialized domain dependent on foreign finance into one of the world’s most open and flourishing financial systems. In the process, he created what occasional advisor Keinan today calls “the greatest opportunity in our lifetimes.”

An Israeli supply-sider, Netanyahu faced the adamant opposition of Histadrut and its allies in the Knesset. To overcome the hostility to finance capitalism that had long hobbled the Israeli economy, Netanyahu enlisted vital help from President George W. Bush and his treasury secretary, John Snow. Netanyahu sought a sovereign loan guarantee that would give Israeli bonds the full faith and credit of the United States Treasury, so that despite intifadas and other perils, Israel could issue bonds on the same terms as the world’s leading economy. Not wanting the U.S. to appear a patsy, Snow refused to do the deal without a significant quid pro quo, stipulating that Netanyahu secure from the Knesset a series of major financial reforms.

First, Histadrut, which dominates the pension system in Israel, had to give up its direct line to the Israeli treasury, which had guaranteed it an inflation-adjusted 6 percent annual yield. This special arrangement would be phased out over a period of 20 years. Starting immediately with the first 5 percent of its holdings, Histadrut would need to begin finding other ways to invest its $300 million per month of cash flow. Somehow a financial industry would have to arise in Israel to handle this huge trove of funds. A second briar-patch reform demanded by Snow was the immediate privatization of Israel’s state-owned industries, reducing the government’s stake in these companies from an average of 60 percent ownership to minority ownerships of about 20 percent. Among the privatized ventures were oil refineries, nearly all the banks, the Bezeq telephone monopoly, and the national airline, El Al. The third key reform was the emancipation of the financial-services industry, complete with legalization of investment banks, international private equity funds, and performance fees for hedge funds. Eliminated were double taxes not merely on investments in Israel but also on international investment activities by Israelis. The Netanyahu-Snow agenda went into effect on January 1, 2005.

In under 25 years—starting from those first modest tax reforms of the mid-1980s—Israel has accomplished the most overwhelming transformation in the history of economics, from a nondescript laggard in the industrial world to a luminous first. Today, on a per-capita basis, Israel far leads the world in research and technological creativity. Between 1991 and 2000, even before the big reform of 2005, Israel’s annual venture-capital outlays, nearly all private, rose nearly 60-fold, from $58 million to $3.3 billion; companies launched by Israeli venture funds rose from 100 to 800; and Israel’s information-technology revenues rose from $1.6 billion to $12.5 billion. By 1999, Israel ranked second only to the United States in invested private-equity capital as a share of GDP. And it led the world in the share of its growth attributable to high-tech ventures: 70 percent.

Even a year or two later—while the rest of the world slumped after the millennial telecom and dot-com crash and Israel suffered an acute recession—its venture capitalists strengthened its lead in technological enterprise. During the first five years of the twenty-first century, venture-capital outlays in Israel rivaled venture-capital outlays in all of the United States outside California, long the world’s paramount source of entrepreneurial activity in high technology.

Today, Israel’s tech supremacy is even greater. A 2008 survey of the world’s venture capitalists by Deloitte & Touche showed that in six key fields—telecom, microchips, software, biopharmaceuticals, medical devices, and clean energy—Israel ranked second only to the United States in technological innovation. Germany, ten times larger, roughly tied Israel. In 2008, Israel produced 483 venture-backed companies with just over $2 billion invested; Germany produces approximately 100 venture-backed companies annually. The rankings registered absolute performance, but adjusted for its population, Israel comes in far ahead of all other countries, including the United States.

Venture capital is the most catalytic force in the world economy. In the United States, venture-backed companies produced nearly one-fifth of GDP in 2007. At a time when American venture capital is flagging under the financial crisis, the emergence of a comparable venture scene in Israel, linked closely to Silicon Valley, is providential for both the American economy and its military defense.

This development makes Israel one of America’s most important economic allies. Israel’s creativity now pervades many of the most powerful and popular new technologies, from personal computers to iPods, from the Internet to the medical center.

Early in 2009, for example, Intel launched a massive new advertising campaign to celebrate what it described as its most important advance since its initial invention of the microprocessor chip some 40 years ago: the new Core i7 device, code-named “Nehalem,” which combined leading-edge computing power with unprecedented economy of energy use. Like many of the inventions that have made Intel the world’s leading microchip company, the Core i7 was designed in Israel.

Israelis are also leaders in arguably the most important technology arena today, particularly for military uses. This is the ability of computers using parallelism to sense, accept, and process information as quickly as modern transmission techniques—especially fiber-optics lines—can deliver it. A representative device in this effort, and a powerful symbol of Israel’s leading position in Internet technology, is the “network processor.” Just as a Pentium microchip is the microprocessor that makes most PCs work, the network processor is the device that makes the next-generation Internet work, doing the vital routing and switching at network nodes. The next-generation Internet will allow “petaflops” (1015 floating-point operations per second) of real-time computational power to be deployed to virtually any point on the earth. The network processor will let any desktop computer access data and processing power exponentially greater than that incorporated in any PC or any single corporate data center.

The next-generation Internet and its associated technologies will be both the next great machine of capitalism and the next great weapon in its defense. Only by accepting and processing sensory data as fast as or faster than the human brain registering a glimpse of a known terrorist’s face buried beneath $100,000 worth of plastic surgery will computers make the leap from glorified adding machines to indispensable allies against the forces of chaos and terror. Leading the field are companies like Eli Fruchter’s EZchip (in which I have long been an investor), launched in the late 1990s with a few dollars, no customers, and a compelling PowerPoint presentation in lieu of any actual products. In less than a decade, EZchip drove most of its rivals—firms like Intel, Motorola, and IBM—to the sidelines, and welcomed the rest, like Cisco and Juniper, to its list of major customers.

During a trip to Israel in 2008, Fruchter, Amir Eyal, and Guy Koren of EZchip took me out to dinner in Caesarea. The restaurant was on the Mediterranean beach. Above the beach stood the ruins of Roman temples and terraces, theaters and arches, all surfaced with golden sandstone and carefully refurbished and illuminated. Shops and restaurants were decorously arrayed along the beach. The rush of water on the sand, the scent of fish in the air, the glow of sunset, and the lights on the Roman stone all lent the area a magical feeling of peace and prosperity.

I thought of Gaza, under 100 miles to the south, with similar beaches and balmy weather, and similar possibilities of human advance. Could the Gazans join the Israelis to create a Riviera on their exquisite beaches, their glowing sands? To do so, they would have to leave behind a world of zero-sum chimeras and fantasies of jihadist revenge. And they would discover that their greatest ally is a man long portrayed as their most feared enemy, a man who, having led for decades the fight to liberate Israeli Jews from self-destructive socialist resentment, now offers to bring all of Palestine and perhaps all of Arabia on the same journey.

Netanyahu’s vision is an Israel that, as a global financial center, could transform the economics of the Middle East. Israel could become a Hong Kong of the desert. Just as Hong Kong ultimately reshaped the Chinese economy in its own image when Deng Xiaoping mimicked its free economy, Israel could become a force for economic liberation in the Middle East, reaching out to Palestinians and other Arabs with the blandishments of commercial opportunity. After all, it has long been Israeli enterprise that has attracted Arabs to Palestine. Between 1967, when Israel took over the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and 1987, when the first intifada erupted, those two territories were one of the fastest-growing economies on earth. GDP surged 30 percent a year for a decade, the Arab population nearly tripled, six new universities were launched, and Arab longevity jumped from 43 years to 74.

Netanyahu has long believed that the peace process as we know it is irrelevant, focused on a handful of issues that breed anger and perpetuate conflict. Meanwhile, true peace—and the promise of a decent life—lies waiting to be picked up by those Palestinians and Israelis who are willing, and now increasingly able, to invest in creation over destruction.

George Gilder is the founding director of Gilder Technology Associates, a venture capital fund, and a contributing editor of Forbes. His books have sold more than 2 million copies worldwide. The newest is The Israel Test.

Just in case anyone is still labouring under the misapprehension that Richard Dawkins is an objective scientist whose atheistic prejudices don’t affect his day job, Dawkins has helpfully set the record straight.

Friday, August 28th, 2009

Life Bite

Dawkins – hectoring ring master of the atheistic circus

By Andrew Halloway

Just in case anyone is still labouring under the misapprehension that Richard Dawkins is an objective scientist whose atheistic prejudices don’t affect his day job, Dawkins has helpfully set the record straight.

His latest book in worship of evolution seems to show as much evidence of showmanship and verbal trickery as it does evidence for Darwin’s theory.

The Times on 24 August published an extract from this forthcoming tome, ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’. In the extract, Dawkins states his book is not about attacking religion, as he’s got the T-shirt on that – yet that’s exactly what he does in this extract. He maintains that believers in creation are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers and mocks them as history-deniers, and in the very same paragraph after saying he’s not attacking religion he continues to trash creationism and then tells vicars not to support it in the pulpit!

Here is what he says (my interpolations are in bracketed italics):

“The Greatest Show on Earth is a book about the positive evidence that evolution is a fact. It is not intended as an anti-religious book. I’ve done that, it’s another T-shirt, this is not the place to wear it again. [And in the very next breath:] Bishops and theologians who have attended to the evidence for evolution have given up the struggle against it. Some may do so reluctantly, some, like Richard Harries, enthusiastically, but all except the woefully uninformed [i.e. anyone who dares to doubt evolution] are forced to accept the fact of evolution. They may think God had a hand in starting the process off… thoughtful and rational churchmen and women accept the evidence for evolution [implication: believers who don’t are irrational and thoughtless]… Be careful, Vicar. You are playing with dynamite.”

And so it continues.

But aside from that hypocrisy, the main problem with this extract is that Dawkins elevates his name-calling to new heights. Previously, creationists and Intelligent Design theorists were denounced as ‘science deniers’ but, as I’ve said above, apparently they are now also ‘history-deniers’ on a par with Holocaust deniers.

Now, apart from this being insulting (nothing new there as far as Dawkins’ invective is concerned), it is also an unscientific use of language. History, by definition, begins with written evidence. ‘Pre-history’, again, by definition, pre-dates history because it refers to the era before human writing began.

Therefore, for Dawkins to claim that evolution is solid history is clearly a misnomer, for the vast majority of evolution’s story relates to pre-history – the time before man wrote anything, indeed long before man is supposed to have existed. In the evolutionary scenario, man only appeared in the very recent past, and writing man in only the last blink of geological time. The development of the vast majority of life pre-dates homo sapiens. Consequently, how can a theory about the incredibly ancient past, with no human witnesses to testify about it, be in any way reasonably compared with something that happened within memory of living human witnesses that has a wealth of documentary (and film) evidence to support it?

There is no comparison whatsoever, yet Dawkins is a master of word association. Call someone something often enough and people will believe it in the end – propaganda by anyone else’s definition.

Here are two extracts from Dawkins’ extract to illustrate:

“Imagine that, as a teacher of European history, you are continually faced with belligerent demands to ‘teach the controversy’ [a reference to Intelligent Design theorists’ campaign to allow teachers to teach children about the evidence against evolution as well as for it], and to give “equal time” to the “alternative theory” that the Holocaust never happened but was invented by a bunch of Zionist fabricators… The plight of many science teachers today is not less dire. When they attempt to expound the central and guiding principle of biology; when they honestly place the living world in its historical context — which means evolution…”

“I shall be using the name ‘history-deniers’ for those people who deny evolution… The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.”

Not content with that, he then asserts his belief yet again, in blunderbuss style, that evolution is a fact and any scientist who disagrees can’t be “reputable”:

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact… and my book will demonstrate it. No reputable scientist disputes it, and no unbiased reader will close the book doubting it.”

Methinks he doth protest too much! The truth is that there are plenty of reputable scientists with lists of degrees longer than your arm who dispute the claims of evolution. Dawkins knows this, but insists on calling even the most highly qualified of them disreputable simply because they question the truth of evolution.

Dawkins’ unassailable faith in neo-Darwinism goes beyond what any scientific theory, however well evidenced, can justify. Even the so-called ‘laws’ of physics and chemistry, undisputed by anyone, are known to be the best descriptions of reality that we can come up with, but they are still not hard and fast laws that can never be adjusted in the future. No one can be 100% certain that a better description won’t come along.

But for Dawkins, evolution is impervious to change – ironically, for a theory that is all about change. In the final part of the extract, Dawkins describes evolution as being better evidenced than any crime convicted in any court in the world – ever! Viz:

“We are like detectives who come on the scene after a crime has been committed. The murderer’s actions have vanished into the past. The detective has no hope of witnessing the actual crime with his own eyes. What the detective does have is traces that remain, and there is a great deal to trust there. There are footprints, fingerprints (and nowadays DNA fingerprints too), bloodstains, letters, diaries. The world is the way the world should be if this and this history, but not that and that history, led up to the present.

“Evolution is an inescapable fact… Given that, in most cases, we don’t live long enough to watch evolution happening before our eyes, we shall revisit the metaphor of the detective coming upon the scene of a crime after the event and making inferences. The aids to inference that lead scientists to the fact of evolution are far more numerous, more convincing, more incontrovertible, than any eyewitness reports that have ever been used, in any court of law, in any century, to establish guilt in any crime. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Reasonable doubt? That is the understatement of all time.”

Firstly, Dawkins here is apparently unable to distinguish between what is called historical science, which should always be held tentatively, and empirical science, which can be observed, tested and retested in a laboratory. Historical science consists of theories about the past that cannot be subjected to the same rigorous rules as empirical, ‘test tube’ science. Historical scientific theories like evolution are, in the end, our best guesses about the past, based on logic. In that respect, evolution can never be on a par with empirical science, unless it CAN be observed happening “before our eyes” in our lifetime.

Secondly, Dawkins’ assertion that evolution trumps even the best legal cases in history is simply ridiculous. The fact is that eyewitness evidence – which evolution lacks – is one of the strongest forms of evidence in a courtroom, and any case which contains corroborating eyewitness testimonies would easily outweigh the case for evolution which has to rely on physical and circumstantial evidence alone, and make the best guess from such evidence. A lawyer would have a field day with Dawkins’ flawed line of reasoning here.

It’s clear that Dawkins’ evolutionary faith is more akin to the fundamentalist religious beliefs that he so vehemently opposes than to true science.

Unfortunately, many of our so-called respectable newspapers are only too eager to engage in the same mud-slinging as Dawkins, and support his agenda. For example, here is how The Times headlined Dawkins’ extract: ‘Creationists, now they’re coming for your children’. I couldn’t think of a more sensationalist, scare-mongering tabloid headline if I tried!

Sadly Dawkins and his disciples do a disservice to science. Modern science as we know it arose within a Protestant Christian culture. However much we owe to the Classical philosophers of Greek and Roman history, they never developed the systematic belief system that allowed modern science to arise. It is the Christian faith that Dawkins loves to hate that provided the confidence in the reliability and rationality of the created universe that was needed to get science going. If the universe was created by a rational Mind, then it was consistent to believe that investigation of phenomena would lead to rational understanding.

Dawkins is attempting to destroy the very foundation culture of this thing he trumps so loudly – science. Science only arose because of religion, and specifically the Christian religion at that.

(Forgive me, Richard, if calling you a ‘showman’ is name calling in return, but I don’t think it’s quite so offensive as being compared with Holocaust-denying Nazi sympathisers.)

World Council of Churches general secretary-elect Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit was asked on Friday to outline his vision for the organization. He didn’t have to look far for inspiration.

Friday, August 28th, 2009

World Council of Churches general secretary-elect Rev. Dr Olav Fykse Tveit was asked on Friday to outline his vision for the organization. He didn’t have to look far for inspiration.

A tapestry on the wall just to his left at the press conference, in the same hall where he was elected to the office the day before, displayed the words – in Greek – of Christ’s prayer in John 17: “. . . that they all may be one”.

“That is the foundation of the World Council of Churches, and its goal,” said Tveit, currently general secretary of the Church of Norway Council on Ecumenical and International Relations. “Any vision for this work has to make that vision visible. It’s not the old agenda; it’s the new agenda, as well.”

Tveit went on to say that the WCC has particular gifts to offer the world, including a strong legacy of service, a unique global access through its network of churches, and a talented group of staff and members who can be God’s hands around the world.

Those gifts will be needed to address four major areas that Tveit identified as priorities Friday: solidarity among the world’s Christians, interreligious relationships, broader ecumenical connections and justice issues.

Tveit said many Christians today are minorities in the communities and countries where they live, or in areas that are suffering from violence or extreme poverty, or both.

“We can raise the voice of others, and we can strengthen the voice of others,” he said, noting the importance of accompaniment and advocacy.

In regard to other religions, Tveit said dialogue and work with Islam is particularly important in the current time. He cited the positive relationships he has had in his native Norway as moderator of the Church of Norway–Islamic Council of Norway contact group. Churches, he noted, have “great potential” to break down the various barriers that exist in the world.

He said the road forward begins with a simple premise: to “see one another as fellow human beings. All faiths call us to that.”

That same view, he said, needs to extend to the many Christian churches and faith groups who are not among the 349 member churches of the WCC. Tveit said cooperation among the various bodies is important for a common witness, as well as for areas “where we can challenge one another”.

He added that he looks forward to continuing the WCC’s strong ties with the Roman Catholic Church, which is not a WCC member but has a long-standing working relationship. Tveit called that partnership “one of the crucial relationships for this organization”.

And on justice issues, he pointed to the effects of climate change as one example. He noted the experiences of his region – particularly Greenland, which has dealt with “dramatic melting” of its snow and ice pack – as well as the Pacific, where some islands are slowly being submerged.

“To hear the voices (of those) who live with these changes now, not just what might happen in the future, is something very different,” Tveit said. He emphasized in answers to later questions that it is “a Christian duty to respond to the needs of our neighbour”.

He touched on a host of other issues during the 40-minute press conference, acknowledging that he has much to learn, reflect on and pray about in the four-plus months until he officially takes office. He said again that he’s looking forward to the work ahead, despite its daunting scope.

“It’s a challenging task,” Tveit said. “It’s not an impossible task. I think it also can be a very important task.”

“Tears are not enough.” Fernando Enns spoke that phrase in introductory remarks to the World Council of Churches central committee on 28 August. It was repeated several times during a morning plenary session on the WCC’s upcoming International Ecumenical Peace Convocation (IEPC).

Friday, August 28th, 2009

“Tears are not enough.” Fernando Enns spoke that phrase in introductory remarks to the World Council of Churches central committee on 28 August. It was repeated several times during a morning plenary session on the WCC’s upcoming International Ecumenical Peace Convocation (IEPC).

“It is not an option just to cry over (violence)”, said Enns, a member of the Mennonite Church in Germany and professor at the University of Hamburg. “We have to go another route, have another ministry.”

The IEPC, scheduled for 17-25 May, 2011 in Kingston, Jamaica, is one route the WCC is taking to address violence in an intentional way. The convocation will be the culminating event for the WCC’s Decade to Overcome Violence that began in 2001.

“We are committed to making (the IEPC) a major experience in the life of the churches and a landmark for the WCC,” Enns said.

Four speakers shared their personal experiences in the practical applications of peacemaking. Their remarks were tied to daily themes planned for the IEPC: Peace in the Community, Peace with the Earth, Peace in the Marketplace and Peace among the Peoples.

• Professor Isabel Phiri of the Commission on Education and Ecumenical Formation shared from her context in South Africa, where she said domestic violence and overall violence against women and children is very high. “This is not a South Africa problem, but a global issue,” she said. She spoke about projects taking place through universities, Bible studies, and men’s groups to work on positive solutions.

• Rev. Aaro Rytkönen of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland discussed the just use of resources and the “protection of God’s creation”. He drew connections between climate change and violence, pointing out that climate change has reduced food production in some regions. “Where there’s no food, there’s a greater chance that people are fighting for it,” he said.

• Rev. Dr Ofelia Ortega of Cuba, the WCC president from Latin America, highlighted wide disparities in wealth and inequalities in trade and economic systems. “The presence of greed is a form of violence, like a virus,” she said. She suggested the global South could provide different models of relationships, with an “economy of enough for all”.

• And Archbishop Bernard Ntahoturi of the Anglican Church of Burundi spoke about the challenges of returning refugees in his country, and healing from past violence. “We see now signs of hope. When people start to talk to each other and listen to each other their cries are heard,” he said. He thanked WCC delegations who came to work with churches in Burundi, saying they were valued in bringing about peace.

Many more stories are expected to be shared when some 1,000 people gather in Jamaica. The convocation will also include opportunities for spiritual renewal and for action with local peacemaking efforts in Kingston, according to the event’s organizers.

“We commit to making it a memorable and life-changing experience for all those who will attend,” said Rev. Gary Harriott, general secretary of the Jamaica Council of Churches and member of the IEPC planning committee.

In addition, an Ecumenical Declaration on Just Peace will be issued by the convocation; a first draft has been completed and is being circulated for comments and responses. Former WCC general secretary Dr Konrad Raiser will oversee a team that will work on the second draft.

More information on the International Ecumenical Peace Convocation:
http://www.overcomingviolence.org/?id=2913

More information on the 26 August – 2 September 2009 Central Committee meeting: http://www.oikoumene.org/cc2009

Free high resolution photos are available:
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/events-sections/cc2009/photo-galleries.html

Additional information: Juan Michel,+41 22 791 6153 +41 79 507 6363 media@wcc-coe.org

The World Council of Churches promotes Christian unity in faith, witness and service for a just and peaceful world. An ecumenical fellowship of churches founded in 1948, today the WCC brings together 349 Protestant, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches representing more than 560 million Christians in over 110 countries, and works cooperatively with the Roman Catholic Church. The WCC general secretary is Rev. Dr Samuel Kobia, from the Methodist Church in Kenya. Headquarters: Geneva, Switzerland.

Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm The Creationist zoo: how the British Humanist Association are turning into thought police

Friday, August 28th, 2009

Telegraph – Will Heaven

The British Humanist Association has asked the tourist board to stop promoting the Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm in Somerset because the zoo “misleads the public by not being open about its Creationist agenda in its promotional activities and by advancing misunderstandings of the natural world”. The secular Stasi, in other words, is at it again.

Look: I’m not a creationist. And, as I’ve argued elsewhere, I certainly don’t think creationism should be taught in schools (though I don’t think mentioning it should be considered a criminal offence). But shouldn’t these atheists learn to chill out a bit? The clue is in the name – it’s the “Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm”, not a Richard Dawkins centre of excellence. It doesn’t even promote creationism per se. The Telegraph reports the zoo’s owners, Anthony and Christina Bush, saying:

”We are slightly different from popular Creationism and hold a view that the natural world around us is the product of both God and evolution.

”Although technically Creationists, we do not hold the stereotypical Creationist views that the world was created 6,000 years ago and there is no evolution.”

So they believe in Intelligent Design: that God played an invisible part in the biological process of evolution. It’s a religious belief, and not one that everyone will agree with. But the Bushes don’t make a secret of it; they are not subtly corrupting the minds of the young. Signs around the zoo reportedly highlight that the “three great people groups” could be descended from the three sons of Bible ark builder Noah, and that animals hunt and kill food because ”man rebelled against God”. It’s a peculiar outlook, I admit, but this is no more subversive than children at a Church of England primary school learning bible stories, or even having to recite the ‘Our Father’ at morning assembly.

Take a look at the zoo’s website. The zoo makes its views known and easily accessible, and it does so it in a polite and sensitive manner, pointing out that the Bushes “do not wish to cause offence” and that “Creationists are indebted to Darwin for pointing out that some organisms are related”.

It comes as no surprise that, out of 120,000 visitors a year, around 10 complaints are received by the zoo concerning the owners’ creationist agenda. And what a boring and curmudgeonly lot those ten humanists must be. While the visiting children were amused and awed by the impressive animals on display – the Bengal tigers, the giraffes, the rhinos, the zebras – the atheists wandered around, brimful with secular venom, noting down the wording on the signs. Three cheers for the zoo owners, I say, and why don’t they go one step further: this bank holiday weekend, banish the miserly atheists from their wonderful zoo, and send them slithering away – they’ll soon find some other Christian thought crime to vent spleen on.

Can a True Christian Believe the Prosperity Gospel?

Friday, August 28th, 2009

Yes, a person can be saved and still be duped by the false teachings of the prosperity gospel. John Piper discusses this further:

Switch to our mobile site