Monday, July 27, 2009

Obama’s Ersatz Capitalism

By JOSEPH E. STIGLITZ
Published: March 31, 2009

THE Obama administration’s $500 billion or more proposal to deal with America’s ailing banks has been described by some in the financial markets as a win-win-win proposal. Actually, it is a win-win-lose proposal: the banks win, investors win — and taxpayers lose.


Harry Campbell

Treasury hopes to get us out of the mess by replicating the flawed system that the private sector used to bring the world crashing down, with a proposal marked by overleveraging in the public sector, excessive complexity, poor incentives and a lack of transparency.

Let’s take a moment to remember what caused this mess in the first place. Banks got themselves, and our economy, into trouble by overleveraging — that is, using relatively little capital of their own, they borrowed heavily to buy extremely risky real estate assets. In the process, they used overly complex instruments like collateralized debt obligations.

The prospect of high compensation gave managers incentives to be shortsighted and undertake excessive risk, rather than lend money prudently. Banks made all these mistakes without anyone knowing, partly because so much of what they were doing was “off balance sheet” financing.

In theory, the administration’s plan is based on letting the market determine the prices of the banks’ “toxic assets” — including outstanding house loans and securities based on those loans. The reality, though, is that the market will not be pricing the toxic assets themselves, but options on those assets.

The two have little to do with each other. The government plan in effect involves insuring almost all losses. Since the private investors are spared most losses, then they primarily “value” their potential gains. This is exactly the same as being given an option.

Consider an asset that has a 50-50 chance of being worth either zero or $200 in a year’s time. The average “value” of the asset is $100. Ignoring interest, this is what the asset would sell for in a competitive market. It is what the asset is “worth.” Under the plan by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the government would provide about 92 percent of the money to buy the asset but would stand to receive only 50 percent of any gains, and would absorb almost all of the losses. Some partnership!

Assume that one of the public-private partnerships the Treasury has promised to create is willing to pay $150 for the asset. That’s 50 percent more than its true value, and the bank is more than happy to sell. So the private partner puts up $12, and the government supplies the rest — $12 in “equity” plus $126 in the form of a guaranteed loan.

If, in a year’s time, it turns out that the true value of the asset is zero, the private partner loses the $12, and the government loses $138. If the true value is $200, the government and the private partner split the $74 that’s left over after paying back the $126 loan. In that rosy scenario, the private partner more than triples his $12 investment. But the taxpayer, having risked $138, gains a mere $37.

Even in an imperfect market, one shouldn’t confuse the value of an asset with the value of the upside option on that asset.

But Americans are likely to lose even more than these calculations suggest, because of an effect called adverse selection. The banks get to choose the loans and securities that they want to sell. They will want to sell the worst assets, and especially the assets that they think the market overestimates (and thus is willing to pay too much for).

But the market is likely to recognize this, which will drive down the price that it is willing to pay. Only the government’s picking up enough of the losses overcomes this “adverse selection” effect. With the government absorbing the losses, the market doesn’t care if the banks are “cheating” them by selling their lousiest assets, because the government bears the cost.

The main problem is not a lack of liquidity. If it were, then a far simpler program would work: just provide the funds without loan guarantees. The real issue is that the banks made bad loans in a bubble and were highly leveraged. They have lost their capital, and this capital has to be replaced.

Paying fair market values for the assets will not work. Only by overpaying for the assets will the banks be adequately recapitalized. But overpaying for the assets simply shifts the losses to the government. In other words, the Geithner plan works only if and when the taxpayer loses big time.

Some Americans are afraid that the government might temporarily “nationalize” the banks, but that option would be preferable to the Geithner plan. After all, the F.D.I.C. has taken control of failing banks before, and done it well. It has even nationalized large institutions like Continental Illinois (taken over in 1984, back in private hands a few years later), and Washington Mutual (seized last September, and immediately resold).

What the Obama administration is doing is far worse than nationalization: it is ersatz capitalism, the privatizing of gains and the socializing of losses. It is a “partnership” in which one partner robs the other. And such partnerships — with the private sector in control — have perverse incentives, worse even than the ones that got us into the mess.

So what is the appeal of a proposal like this? Perhaps it’s the kind of Rube Goldberg device that Wall Street loves — clever, complex and nontransparent, allowing huge transfers of wealth to the financial markets. It has allowed the administration to avoid going back to Congress to ask for the money needed to fix our banks, and it provided a way to avoid nationalization.

But we are already suffering from a crisis of confidence. When the high costs of the administration’s plan become apparent, confidence will be eroded further. At that point the task of recreating a vibrant financial sector, and resuscitating the economy, will be even harder.


Joseph E. Stiglitz, a professor of economics at Columbia who was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers from 1995 to 1997, was awarded the Nobel prize in economics in 2001.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/01/opinion/01stiglitz.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
.
.

Potential swine flu vaccine could require 2 shots


Shots would be given weeks apart


By MARY SHEDDEN The Tampa Tribune

Published: July 24, 2009

TAMPA - Local health officials accustomed to distributing flu shots worry that administering a potential swine flu vaccine could be a logistical nightmare.

Federal health officials this week announced they are about to start clinical trials on vaccines for the swine flu responsible for six deaths in the Tampa Bay area and 25 deaths in Florida. The testing is on a fast track with the hope that a vaccine can be distributed this October, at the start of the more traditional flu season.

Any new vaccine, however, will be separate from the increasingly common seasonal flu vaccine available at local clinics, grocery stores and workplaces. And the swine flu vaccine could involve a series of two shots, given 28 days apart, said Warren McDougle, Hillsborough County Health Department epidemiologist.

That's going to be a hard sell, particularly because it just sounds so inconvenient, says JoAnn Shea, a nurse practitioner and director of employee health services at Tampa General Hospital. A swine flu vaccine would require two trips to a clinic, and that's in addition to the seasonal flu shot many already get.

Shea said last year, her team administered 4,500 seasonal flu shots to the almost 7,000 eligible employees and volunteers at Tampa General. Some got the shot elsewhere, but still, 1,200 refused the free offer. The top reason cited in a survey: inconvenience.

"If we didn't make it convenient for them, they would not get them," she said.

That's partly why Tampa General and local health departments already are hashing out the logistics of distributing a possible swine flu vaccine. "It's going to be a challenge for all health care organizations," she said.

Individuals don't have to wait for a vaccine to take steps to prevent the spread of swine flu, health officials said. Regular hand-washing or covering your mouth when sneezing or coughing can make a significant difference. Hygiene is particularly important for people in large groups, such as summer camps.

Testing on the potential swine flu vaccine is estimated to take about two months. If it is approved, vaccinations would be voluntary and rolled out in stages to handle the speed at which doses are being produced. Tests are being done on roughly 2,400 adults in eight states, according to the New York Times.

Swine flu has been declared a worldwide pandemic, not because of the severity of its symptoms, but because of its ability to spread quickly. Swine flu symptoms, such as a fever, tiredness and a sore throat, are normally milder than the seasonal flu, which is responsible for 36,000 deaths nationwide each year.

The good news: Despite a brisk flu season in the Southern Hemisphere, the new swine flu isn't yet mutating to become more dangerous, said Dr. Nancy Cox of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

"It's actually quite surprising" that the virus is showing so little genetic variation given its rapid spread, Cox said. Since April, it has sickened more than a million people in the United States alone and circled the globe in a matter of weeks.

The global swine flu epidemic is still in its early stages, even though reports of over 100,000 infections in England alone last week are plausible, the World Health Organization's flu chief said Friday,
Keiji Fukuda, WHO's Assistant Director-General for Health Security and Environment, said that given the size of the world's population, the new H1N1 virus is likely to spread for some time. WHO earlier estimated that as many as 2 billion people could become infected over the next two years.

"Even if we have hundreds of thousands of cases, or a few millions of cases ... we're relatively early in the pandemic," Fukuda said.

The global health agency stopped asking governments to report new cases last week, saying the effort was too great now that the disease has become so widespread in some countries.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report. Reporter Mary Shedden can be reached at (813) 259-7365.




Van Drove Wrong Way for 2 Miles Before Crash

Jonathan Fickies for The New York Times

The scene of a three-car crash on the Taconic State Parkway on Sunday in Briarcliff, N.Y.

By ANAHAD O’CONNOR and NATE SCHWEBER
Published: July 27, 2009

A Long Island woman driving a minivan that plowed into an S.U.V. Sunday afternoon in Westchester, killing eight people and injuring three, had been going in the wrong direction for nearly two miles before the collision, the State Police said Monday. Two hours before the accident, she had called her brother and told him she was not feeling well, the police said.
The driver, Diane Schuler, 36, of West Babylon, turned her Ford Windstar onto the northbound exit ramp of the Taconic Parkway on Pleasantville Road, near Mount Pleasant, on what was her left, but to drivers going the correct way, their right, the authorities said. She then crossed three lanes of traffic into the passing lane and headed south, swerving around oncoming cars for 1.7 miles before crashing into a Chevy Trailblazer carrying three men from Yonkers on their way to a family party in Yorktown, N.Y.

“To her, it would have seemed like she was in the right-hand lane,” said Captain Michael Realmuto of the State Police.

The minivan had been headed in the wrong direction long enough to prompt at least six drivers who passed her to call 911, the authorities said.

Ms. Schuler and four of the five children in her minivan were killed, along with the three men in the Trailblazer: a man, his son and their friend. As it spun out of control about 1:35 p.m., the minivan also collided with a third vehicle, leaving the driver and passenger with minor injuries.

At a news conference Monday afternoon, Captain Realmuto provided some insight into what may have affected Ms. Schuler’s judgment. Two hours before the accident, he said, she called her brother, Warren Hance of Floral Park, N.Y. — the father of three of the four girls who died — and said she was not feeling well. Mr. Hance told her to stay where she was so he could come get her, but she did not know where she was at the time she called him, Captain Realmuto said.

“She wasn’t real specific when she spoke to her brother,” Lt. James H. Murphy said. “She seemed a little disoriented. She didn’t know where she was when she spoke to him.”

Ms. Schuler, three young nieces and her daughter, 2, and son, 5, were apparently returning from a weekend camping trip in Monticello, N.Y. The police said that she had not been taking medication and had no history of medical problems that might have played a role in the crash.

“We do not know what caused the operator of the vehicle to travel the wrong way on the Taconic State Parkway,” Captain Realmuto said. “Accidents involving drivers going the wrong way on the parkway are rare.”

The scene of the crash was one of devastation. Investigators said Ms. Schuler and at least one child may have been ejected from the minivan. Because many of the car seats were burned in an ensuing fire, investigators were still trying to determine whether seatbelts had been used.

The State Police identified the dead as Ms. Schuler; her daughter, Erin Schuler, 2; and three nieces, Kate Hance, 5; Alison Hance, 7; and Emma Hance, 9. Her son, Brian, 5, was being treated at Westchester Medical Center in Valhalla, N.Y., for head trauma and was in critical condition.

The three who died in the Trailblazer were Michael Bastardi, 81; his son, Guy Bastardi, 49; and a friend, Daniel Longo, 74, who was in the back seat. The man and the woman in the other car that was hit — Angela M. Tallarico, 53 and her passenger, Dean Tallarico, 53 — were treated for minor injuries at Phelps Memorial Hospital Center in Sleepy Hollow, N.Y.

After crashing into the two vehicles, the minivan came to a stop on a grassy strip between the lanes of the parkway, where it burned to its frame.

The accident was the second on the Taconic on Sunday involving a vehicle traveling in the wrong direction. The Associated Press reported that five people were injured several hours earlier in an accident about 20 miles north of Mount Pleasant. On the same day, at 2 a.m., a man was arrested driving the wrong way on the Taconic, the police said. They said that he was drunk.
.
.
.
.

The Watchman's Duty


Ezekiel 33

1Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

2Son of man, speak to the children of thy people, and say unto them, When I bring the sword upon a land, if the people of the land take a man of their coasts, and set him for their watchman:

3If when he seeth the sword come upon the land, he blow the trumpet, and warn the people;

4Then whosoever heareth the sound of the trumpet, and taketh not warning; if the sword come, and take him away, his blood shall be upon his own head.

5He heard the sound of the trumpet, and took not warning; his blood shall be upon him. But he that taketh warning shall deliver his soul.

6But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the watchman's hand.

7So thou, O son of man, I have set thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore thou shalt hear the word at my mouth, and warn them from me.

8When I say unto the wicked, O wicked man, thou shalt surely die; if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

9Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

10Therefore, O thou son of man, speak unto the house of Israel; Thus ye speak, saying, If our transgressions and our sins be upon us, and we pine away in them, how should we then live?

11Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

12Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people, The righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his transgression: as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby in the day that he turneth from his wickedness; neither shall the righteous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth.

13When I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live; if he trust to his own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousnesses shall not be remembered; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for it.

14Again, when I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; if he turn from his sin, and do that which is lawful and right;

15If the wicked restore the pledge, give again that he had robbed, walk in the statutes of life, without committing iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die.

16None of his sins that he hath committed shall be mentioned unto him: he hath done that which is lawful and right; he shall surely live.

17Yet the children of thy people say, The way of the Lord is not equal: but as for them, their way is not equal.

18When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, he shall even die thereby.

19But if the wicked turn from his wickedness, and do that which is lawful and right, he shall live thereby.

20Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. O ye house of Israel, I will judge you every one after his ways.

21And it came to pass in the twelfth year of our captivity, in the tenth month, in the fifth day of the month, that one that had escaped out of Jerusalem came unto me, saying, The city is smitten.

22Now the hand of the LORD was upon me in the evening, afore he that was escaped came; and had opened my mouth, until he came to me in the morning; and my mouth was opened, and I was no more dumb.

23Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying,

24Son of man, they that inhabit those wastes of the land of Israel speak, saying, Abraham was one, and he inherited the land: but we are many; the land is given us for inheritance.

25Wherefore say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Ye eat with the blood, and lift up your eyes toward your idols, and shed blood: and shall ye possess the land?

26Ye stand upon your sword, ye work abomination, and ye defile every one his neighbour's wife: and shall ye possess the land?

27Say thou thus unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; As I live, surely they that are in the wastes shall fall by the sword, and him that is in the open field will I give to the beasts to be devoured, and they that be in the forts and in the caves shall die of the pestilence.

28For I will lay the land most desolate, and the pomp of her strength shall cease; and the mountains of Israel shall be desolate, that none shall pass through.

29Then shall they know that I am the LORD, when I have laid the land most desolate because of all their abominations which they have committed.

30Also, thou son of man, the children of thy people still are talking against thee by the walls and in the doors of the houses, and speak one to another, every one to his brother, saying, Come, I pray you, and hear what is the word that cometh forth from the LORD.

31And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, but their heart goeth after their covetousness.

32And, lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument: for they hear thy words, but they do them not.

33And when this cometh to pass, (lo, it will come,) then shall they know that a prophet hath been among them.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

The Path Forward for Honduras

OPINION
JULY 26, 2009, 8:57 P.M. ET

The Path Forward for Honduras
Zelaya’s removal from office was a triumph for the rule of law.





By ROBERTO MICHELETTI


One of America’s most loyal Latin American allies—Honduras—has been in the midst of a constitutional crisis that threatens its democracy. Sadly, key undisputed facts regarding the crisis have often been ignored by America’s leaders, at least during the earliest days of the crisis.


In recent days, the rhetoric from allies of former President Manuel Zelaya has also dominated media reporting in the U.S. The worst distortion is the repetition of the false statement that Mr. Zelaya was removed from office by the military and for being a “reformer.” The truth is that he was removed by a democratically elected civilian government because the independent judicial and legislative branches of our government found that he had violated our laws and constitution.

Let’s review some fundamental facts that cannot be disputed:

• The Supreme Court, by a 15-0 vote, found that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally by proceeding with an unconstitutional “referendum,” and it ordered the Armed Forces to arrest him. The military executed the arrest order of the Supreme Court because it was the appropriate agency to do so under Honduran law.

• Eight of the 15 votes on the Supreme Court were cast by members of Mr. Zelaya’s own Liberal Party. Strange that the pro-Zelaya propagandists who talk about the rule of law forget to mention the unanimous Supreme Court decision with a majority from Mr. Zelaya’s own party. Thus, Mr. Zelaya’s arrest was at the instigation of Honduran’s constitutional and civilian authorities—not the military.

• The Honduran Congress voted overwhelmingly in support of removing Mr. Zelaya. The vote included a majority of members of Mr. Zelaya’s Liberal Party.

• Independent government and religious leaders and institutions—including the Supreme Electoral Tribunal, the Administrative Law Tribunal, the independent Human Rights Ombudsman, four-out-of-five political parties, the two major presidential candidates of the Liberal and National Parties, and Honduras’s Catholic Cardinal—all agreed that Mr. Zelaya had acted illegally.

• The constitution expressly states in Article 239 that any president who seeks to amend the constitution and extend his term is automatically disqualified and is no longer president. There is no express provision for an impeachment process in the Honduran constitution. But the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision affirmed that Mr. Zelaya was attempting to extend his term with his illegal referendum. Thus, at the time of his arrest he was no longer—as a matter of law, as far as the Supreme Court was concerned—president of Honduras.

• Days before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya had his chief of staff illegally withdraw millions of dollars in cash from the Central Bank of Honduras.

• A day or so before his arrest, Mr. Zelaya led a violent mob to overrun an Air Force base to seize referendum ballots that had been shipped into Honduras by Hugo Chávez’s Venezuelan government.

• I succeeded Mr. Zelaya under the Honduran constitution’s order of succession (our vice president had resigned before all of this began so that he could run for president). This is and has always been an entirely civilian government. The military was ordered by an entirely civilian Supreme Court to arrest Mr. Zelaya. His removal was ordered by an entirely civilian and elected Congress. To suggest that Mr. Zelaya was ousted by means of a military coup is demonstrably false.

Regarding the decision to expel Mr. Zelaya from the country the evening of June 28 without a trial, reasonable people can believe the situation could have been handled differently. But it is also necessary to understand the decision in the context of genuine fear of Mr. Zelaya’s proven willingness to violate the law and to engage in mob-led violence.

The way forward is to work with Costa Rican President Oscar Arias. He is proposing ways to ensure that Mr. Zelaya complies with Honduras’s laws and its constitution and allows the people of Honduras to elect a new president in the regularly scheduled Nov. 29 elections (or perhaps earlier, if the date is moved up as President Arias has suggested and as Honduran law allows).

If all parties reach agreement to allow Mr. Zelaya to return to Honduras—a big “if”—we believe that he cannot be trusted to comply with the law and therefore it is our position that he must be prosecuted with full due process.


President Arias’s proposal for a moratorium on prosecution of all parties may be considered, but our Supreme Court has indicated that such a proposal presents serious legal problems under our constitution.

Like America, our constitutional democracy has three co-equal and independent branches of government—a fact that Mr. Zelaya ignored when he openly defied the positions of both the Supreme Court and Congress. But we are ready to continue discussions once the Supreme Court, the attorney general and Congress analyze President Arias’s proposal. That proposal has been turned over to them so that they can review provisions that impact their legal authority. Once we know their legal positions we will proceed accordingly.

The Honduran people must have confidence that their Congress is a co-equal branch of government. They must be assured that the rule of law in Honduras applies to everyone, even their president, and that their Supreme Court’s orders will not be dismissed and swept aside by other nations as inconvenient obstacles.

Meanwhile, the other elements of the Arias proposal, especially the establishment of a Truth Commission to make findings of fact and international enforcement mechanisms to ensure Mr. Zelaya complies with the agreement, are worthy of serious consideration.

Mr. Zelaya’s irresponsible attempt on Friday afternoon to cross the border into Honduras before President Arias has obtained agreement from all parties—an attempt that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appropriately described as “reckless”—was just another example of why Mr. Zelaya cannot be trusted to keep his word.

Regardless of what happens, the worst thing the U.S. can do is to impose economic sanctions that would primarily hurt the poorest people in Honduras. Rather than impose sanctions, the U.S. should continue the wise policies of Mrs. Clinton. She is supporting President Arias’s efforts to mediate the issues. The goal is a peaceful solution that is consistent with Honduran law in a civil society where even the president is not above the law.

Mr. Micheletti, previously the president of the Honduran Congress, became president of Honduras upon the departure of Manuel Zelaya. He is a member of the Liberal Party, the same party as Mr. Zelaya.
.
.
Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574311083177158174.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

.

CHANGE













Obama Shifts Tone on Gates After Mulling Debate


Alex Brandon/Associated Press
“I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up,” the president said of the case Friday in the White House briefing room.


By PETER BAKER and HELENE COOPER
Published: July 24, 2009


WASHINGTON — President Obama tried Friday to defuse a volatile national debate over the arrest of a black Harvard University professor as he acknowledged that his own comments had inflamed tensions and insisted he had not meant to malign the arresting officer.


Mr. Obama placed calls to both the professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., and the man who arrested him, Sgt. James Crowley, two days after saying the police had “acted stupidly” last week in hauling Professor Gates from his home in handcuffs. Mr. Obama said he still considered the arrest “an overreaction,” but added that “Professor Gates probably overreacted as well.”

“I obviously helped to contribute ratcheting it up,” the president said in an appearance in the White House briefing room. “I want to make clear that in my choice of words, I think I unfortunately gave an impression that I was maligning the Cambridge Police Department or Sergeant Crowley specifically, and I could have calibrated those words differently.”

Mr. Obama’s unusual personal intervention and public statement came just four hours after the White House said he had no more to say on the matter. But after talking with Michelle Obama and some of his closest friends amid unrelenting publicity, his advisers said, the president reversed course in hopes of quashing a dispute that had set off strong reactions and made it harder for the White House to focus attention on his efforts to pass health care legislation.

The Gates case has become the first significant racial controversy Mr. Obama has confronted since being sworn in as the nation’s first African-American president. The improvisational handling of it underscored the delicate challenges for a leader who has tried to govern by crossing old lines and emphasizing commonalities over differences.

Advisers said both his sharp statement, which was made at Wednesday night’s news conference, and his toned-down remarks on Friday reflected strains of his experiences. He was personally outraged by the arrest and wanted to speak bluntly about it, aides said. And they said he was distressed that his words proved polarizing and contrary to his instincts for conciliation.

Whether he succeeded in tamping down the emotions of the case remained to be seen. In their telephone conversation, Mr. Obama said, Sergeant Crowley suggested that he and Professor Gates come to the White House to share a beer with the president. Mr. Obama then conveyed that idea in his phone call with Professor Gates.

Professor Gates said in an e-mail message afterward that he was “pleased to accept his invitation” to come to the White House and meet Sergeant Crowley. “After all, I first made the offer to meet with Sgt. Crowley myself, last Monday,” he wrote. “I told the president that my entire career as an educator has been devoted to racial healing and improved race relations in this country. I am determined that this be a teaching moment.”

Sergeant Crowley made no public comments after his conversation with the president. He has denied doing anything wrong and has declined to apologize to Professor Gates.

The episode stemmed from a misunderstanding when Professor Gates returned to his Cambridge home on July 16 and found his door stuck. A woman reported seeing someone trying to break into the house and the police responded. Although the arresting police officer became aware that Professor Gates was in his own home, the police said he was belligerent and arrested him for disorderly conduct. The charge was later dropped.

Mr. Obama defended his decision to weigh in. “The fact that this has become such a big issue I think is indicative of the fact that, you know, race is still a troubling aspect of our society,” he said. “Whether I were black or white,” he said, commenting “is part of my portfolio.”

Mr. Obama first discussed with aides how to address the arrest during a meeting before his Wednesday news conference. Aides said Mr. Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer, zeroed in on the fact that the arrest came after police confirmed that Professor Gates was in his own home.

But his use of the word “stupidly” at the news conference that evening generated angry responses from Cambridge police, and some of his aides privately rued the word choice. Mr. Obama, who said he was surprised at the response, discussed the issue over dinner with friends at his home in Chicago on Thursday during a quick trip there for a fund-raiser, according to people close to the family. On Friday morning, they said, he also talked it through with Mrs. Obama.

By then, the controversy had dominated White House staff meetings. Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, had told reporters at 10 a.m. that Mr. Obama had nothing more to say. Some advisers had concluded the furor would not dissipate unless Mr. Obama made another statement, while others were wary of him revisiting the episode and particularly did not want him to apologize, they said.

During the morning, police union members held a news conference in Cambridge calling on Mr. Obama to apologize for demeaning Sergeant Crowley and suggesting it was Professor Gates who had made it a racial incident.

“The facts of this case suggest that the president used the right adjective but directed it to the wrong party,” said Sgt. Dennis O’Connor, president of the Cambridge Police Superior Officers Association.

Sgt. Leon Lashley, an African-American officer at the Gates house that day, separately told The Associated Press that he supported Sergeant Crowley’s actions “100 percent.”

The police event contributed to what one White House aide called a “critical mass,” but aides said it was not the deciding factor, noting that Mr. Obama had not watched. Shortly after noon, Mr. Obama called his senior adviser, David Axelrod. “I’m going to call Sergeant Crowley and then I think I ought to step into the press room and address it,” Mr. Axelrod said he said.

The president dictated some thoughts intended to avoid directly blaming either the professor or the officer, and speechwriters had less than two hours to craft remarks. Mr. Obama called Sergeant Crowley about 2:15 p.m. and they spoke for five minutes. He went to the briefing room to make his statement, then called Professor Gates about 3:15 p.m.

Mr. Obama said the issue was making it harder for him to focus attention on health care. “I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but nobody has been paying much attention to health care,” he said.

He did not apologize but softened his language. “I continue to believe, based on what I have heard, that there was an overreaction in pulling Professor Gates out of his home to the station,” he said. “I also continue to believe, based on what I heard, that Professor Gates probably overreacted as well.”

Mr. Obama described Sergeant Crowley as an “outstanding police officer and a good man” who has “a fine track record on racial sensitivity.” But he said the incident showed that “because of the difficulties of the past, you know, African-Americans are sensitive to these issues.”

John Payton, president of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, said that unlike white presidents who could dance around racial issues, Mr. Obama had to be direct. “That’s the whole difference. Bush could punt. Obama can’t punt,” he said. “This issue resonates with him.”

Christopher Edley Jr., a former adviser to President Bill Clinton on race issues and now law school dean at the University of California, Berkeley, said the episode dispelled the “rosy hopefulness” stemming from Mr. Obama’s election “in case anybody needed more evidence that we’re not beyond race.”


Peter Baker and Helene Cooper reported from Washington. Abby Goodnough contributed from Boston, Liz Robbins from New York and Jeff Zeleny from Washington.
.
.
.
.
.
P.S. Since the incident occurred and the President's reversal;
President Obama has invited Sergeant Crowley and Professor Gates for a "beer".
A beer?
Now, that doesn't sound very Presidential, does it?
Maybe, the Prez will bum a cigarette from one of the Secret Service body guards once he's had this beer?
This is getting more insane (dysfunctional) by the minute!
.
Reference:
.

Raul Castro to Cubans: Return to the Land

July 26, 2009 4:39 PM
Raul Castro to Cubans: Return to the Land

Posted by Portia Siegelbaum Cuban President Raul Castro was short on details as he implied difficult economic times were still here for Cubans. The world economic crisis, and particularly a reduction in income from exports, means Cuba cannot meet its projected growth index, Castro told an early Sunday morning rally in the eastern Cuban city of Holguin.

The growth forecast has already been cut from 6% to 2.5%, according to government sources.

On Tuesday, he said, the Council of Ministers would be meeting to discuss a second adjustment in the nation's spending plan. The next day, a plenary of the Communist Party Central Committee will also take place.

And, Castro said, the National Assembly or parliament (that normally meets in July before recessing for the summer) will gather on August 1 to discuss, among other issues, the Contraloria, the body that oversees all spending and management by government agencies.




(AP Photo/Javier Galeano)

(Left: Demonstrators at a rally marking Cuba's Day of National Rebellion in Holguin, Sunday, July 26, 2009.)

In his short, 34-minute speech at the traditional July 26 rally marking Cuba's Day of National Rebellion (the 1953 armed uprising against the Batista dictatorship that six years later brought his older brother Fidel to power), Raul Castro reiterated the urgent need to increase agricultural production to replace food imports. At present, Cuba buys 80% of the food it consumes from international suppliers.

Castro, who stepped in to run the country when Fidel Castro was sidelined by illness in 2006, reiterated his call for more people to return to the land. On July 26, 2007, he had announced a plan to provide free leases to land parcels to those interested in growing fruits and vegetables. That program, he told rally participants, is moving along "satisfactorily."

"Eight-two thousand requests for land have been approved," he said. But now the issue is to work "more efficiently."

He described growing what is now "costing us hundreds of millions of dollars to import" a top priority task.

"The land is here, the Cubans are here and the land is waiting for us," he said.

There were some 1.69 million hectares of state land lying fallow before the land lease program got underway.

Three devastating hurricanes last year destroyed homes and agriculture across the island with losses put at $10 billion. That combined with the global economic crunch has drastically reduced the island's liquidity.

The government has already taken measures ranging from scheduled power blackouts to limiting the use of air conditioners at state offices, schools and shops to just three hours a day (from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m.). Public transportation has been cut back and selective factory and workplace closedowns are being implemented. Foreign businesses operating on the island have found their bank accounts frozen (a policy that apparently has been slightly tempered in recent days), and some individuals say they have had trouble cashing checks or making hard currency withdrawals from their private bank accounts.

Caridad Fuente, a married retiree with one grown-up son, listened to the speech with mixed feelings. On the one hand, she sees belt tightening is in order; but on the other, she says, "It's a good thing the government is organizing the economy on a more realistic basis."

One thing is clear, Fuente says: "We will have to work more and more efficiently."

And as Cuba's population ages there are efforts underway to bring younger generations into the work force earlier.

The Ministry of Higher Education recently took the decision to send first- and second-year university students to work in agriculture for at least one month during the school year, and third- and fourth-year students will be sent to work in areas related to their fields of study for the same period of time.

Carlos Alzucaray, a researcher at the Center for Studies of the United States, said there were two things that particularly struck him about Raul Castro's speech: First, that he announced the upcoming meetings of the Council of State and the Communist Party plenary. "These kinds of meetings are not usually spoken about publicly. I think this reflects a new openness and reinforces Raul's insistence on institutions and organization," he said.

Secondly, "Raul focused only on domestic issues with only the briefest mention of his recent trip to Africa and the global economic crisis. He didn't even mention Honduras."

Unlike previous July 26 speeches, there was no long list of achievements in Castro's speech, noted Alzucaray. Even more importantly, he said, Castro only referred to the U.S. embargo in an aside. "Instead of blaming the embargo for our problems, he talked about what we have to do to overcome its impact," noted Alzucaray, who has written extensively on U.S.-Cuba relations. "I think that's a good thing."

By CBS News producer Portia Siegelbaum reporting from Havana
.
.
.
.

Chips In Official IDs Raise Privacy Fears

Jul. 12, 2009

As Government Tags Passports, Licenses, Critics Fear Privacy Is 'chipped' Away



Photo
(AP)


Climbing into his Volvo, outfitted with a Matrics antenna and a Motorola reader he'd bought on eBay for $190, Chris Paget cruised the streets of San Francisco with this objective: To read the identity cards of strangers, wirelessly, without ever leaving his car.

It took him 20 minutes to strike hacker's gold.

Zipping past Fisherman's Wharf, his scanner detected, then downloaded to his laptop, the unique serial numbers of two pedestrians' electronic U.S. passport cards embedded with radio frequency identification, or RFID, tags. Within an hour, he'd "skimmed" the identifiers of four more of the new, microchipped PASS cards from a distance of 20 feet.

Embedding identity documents _ passports, drivers licenses, and the like _ with RFID chips is a no-brainer to government officials. Increasingly, they are promoting it as a 21st century application of technology that will help speed border crossings, safeguard credentials against counterfeiters, and keep terrorists from sneaking into the country.

But Paget's February experiment demonstrated something privacy advocates had feared for years: That RFID, coupled with other technologies, could make people trackable without their knowledge or consent.

He filmed his drive-by heist, and soon his video went viral on the Web, intensifying a debate over a push by government, federal and state, to put tracking technologies in identity documents and over their potential to erode privacy.

Putting a traceable RFID in every pocket has the potential to make everybody a blip on someone's radar screen, critics say, and to redefine Orwellian government snooping for the digital age.

"Little Brother," some are already calling it _ even though elements of the global surveillance web they warn against exist only on drawing boards, neither available nor approved for use.

But with advances in tracking technologies coming at an ever-faster rate, critics say, it won't be long before governments could be able to identify and track anyone in real time, 24-7, from a cafe in Paris to the shores of California.

The key to getting such a system to work, these opponents say, is making sure everyone carries an RFID tag linked to a biometric data file.

On June 1, it became mandatory for Americans entering the United States by land or sea from Canada, Mexico, Bermuda and the Caribbean to present identity documents embedded with RFID tags, though conventional passports remain valid until they expire.

Among new options are the chipped "e-passport," and the new, electronic PASS card _ credit-card sized, with the bearer's digital photograph and a chip that can be scanned through a pocket, backpack or purse from 30 feet.

Alternatively, travelers can use "enhanced" driver's licenses embedded with RFID tags now being issued in some border states: Washington, Vermont, Michigan and New York. Texas and Arizona have entered into agreements with the federal government to offer chipped licenses, and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has recommended expansion to non-border states. Kansas and Florida officials have received DHS briefings on the licenses, agency records show.

The purpose of using RFID is not to identify people, says Mary Ellen Callahan, the chief privacy officer at Homeland Security, but rather "to verify that the identification document holds valid information about you."

Likewise, U.S. border agents are "pinging" databases only to confirm that licenses aren't counterfeited. "They're not pulling up your speeding tickets," she says, or looking at personal information beyond what is on a passport.

The change is largely about speed and convenience, she says. An RFID document that doubles as a U.S. travel credential "only makes it easier to pull the right record fast enough, to make sure that the border flows, and is operational" _ even though a 2005 Government Accountability Office report found that governmentRFID readers often failed to detect travelers' tags.

Such assurances don't persuade those who liken RFID-embedded documents to barcodes with antennas and contend they create risks to privacy that far outweigh the technology's heralded benefits. They warn it will actually enable identity thieves, stalkers and other criminals to commit "contactless" crimes against victims who won't immediately know they've been violated.

Neville Pattinson, vice president for government affairs at Gemalto, Inc., a major supplier of microchipped cards, is no RFID basher. He's a board member of the Smart Card Alliance, an RFID industry group, and is serving on the Department of Homeland Security's Data Privacy and Integrity Advisory Committee.

Still, Pattinson has sharply criticized the RFIDs in U.S. driver's licenses and passport cards. In a 2007 article for the Privacy Advisor, a newsletter for privacy professionals, he called them vulnerable "to attacks from hackers, identity thieves and possibly even terrorists."

RFID, he wrote, has a fundamental flaw: Each chip is built to faithfully transmit its unique identifier "in the clear, exposing the tag number to interception during the wireless communication."

Once a tag number is intercepted, "it is relatively easy to directly associate it with an individual," he says. "If this is done, then it is possible to make an entire set of movements posing as somebody else without that person's knowledge."

Echoing these concerns were the AeA _ the lobbying association for technology firms _ the Smart Card Alliance, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, the Business Travel Coalition, and the Association of Corporate Travel Executives.

Meanwhile, Homeland Security has been promoting broad use of RFID even though its own advisory committee on data integrity and privacy warned that radio-tagged IDs have the potential to allow "widespread surveillance of individuals" without their knowledge or consent.

In its 2006 draft report, the committee concluded that RFID "increases risks to personal privacy and security, with no commensurate benefit for performance or national security," and recommended that "RFID be disfavored for identifying and tracking human beings."

For now, chipped PASS cards and enhanced driver's licenses are optional and not yet widely deployed in the United States. To date, roughly 192,000 EDLs have been issued in Washington, Vermont, Michigan and New York.

But as more Americans carry them "you can bet that long-range tracking of people on a large scale will rise exponentially," says Paget, a self-described "ethical hacker" who works as an Internet security consultant.

Could RFID numbers eventually become de facto identifiers of Americans, like the Social Security number?

Such a day is not far off, warns Katherine Albrecht, a privacy advocate and co-author of "Spychips," a book that is sharply critical of the use of RFID in consumer items and official ID documents.

"There's a reason you don't wear your Social Security number across your T-shirt," Albrecht says, "and beaming out your new, national RFID number in a 30-foot radius would be far worse."

There are no federal laws against the surreptitious skimming of Americans' RFID numbers, so it won't be long before people seek to profit from this, says Bruce Schneier, an author and chief security officer at BT, the British telecommunications operator.

Data brokers that compile computer dossiers on millions of individuals from public records, credit applications and other sources "will certainly maintain databases of RFID numbers and associated people," he says. "They'd do a disservice to their stockholders if they didn't."

But Gigi Zenk, a spokeswoman for the Washington state Department of Licensing, says Americans "aren't that concerned about the RFID, particularly in this day and age when there are a lot of other ways toaccess personal information on people."

Tracking an individual is much easier through a cell phone, or a satellite tag embedded in a car, she says. "An RFID that contains no private information, just a randomly assigned number, is probably one of the least things to be concerned about, frankly."

Still, even some ardent RFID supporters recognize that these next-generation RFID cards raise prickly questions.

Mark Roberti, editor of RFID Journal, an industry newsletter, recently acknowledged that as the use of RFID in official documents grows, the potential for abuse increases.

"A government could do this, for instance, to track opponents," he wrote in an opinion piece discussing Paget's cloning experiment. "To date, this type of abuse has not occurred, but it could if governments fail to take privacy issues seriously."

___

Imagine this: Sensors triggered by radio waves instructing cameras to zero in on people carrying RFID, unblinkingly tracking their movements.

Unbelievable? Intrusive? Outrageous?

Actually, it happens every day and makes people smile _ at the Alton Towers amusement park in Britain, which videotapes visitors who agree to wear RFID bracelets as they move about the facility, then sells the footage as a keepsake.

This application shows how the technology can be used effortlessly _ and benignly. But critics, noting it can also be abused, say federal authorities in the United States didn't do enough from the start to address that risk.

The first U.S. identity document to be embedded with RFID was the "e-passport."

In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks _ and the finding that some of the terrorists entered the United States using phony passports _ the State Department proposed mandating that Americans and foreign visitors carry "enhanced" passport booklets, with microchips embedded in the covers.

The chips, it announced, would store the holder's information from the data page, a biometric version of the bearer's photo, and receive special coding to prevent data from being altered.

In February 2005, when the State Department asked for public comment, it got an outcry: Of the 2,335 comments received, 98.5 percent were negative, with 86 percent expressing security or privacy concerns, the department reported in an October 2005 notice in the Federal Register.

"Identity theft was of grave concern," it stated, adding that "others expressed fears that the U.S. Government or other governments would use the chip to track and censor, intimidate or otherwise control or harm them."

It also noted that many Americans expressed worries "that the information could be read at distances in excess of 10 feet."

Those concerned citizens, it turns out, had cause.

According to department records obtained by researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, under a Freedom of Information Act request and reviewed by the AP, discussion about security concerns with the e-passport occurred as early as January 2003 but tests weren't ordered until the department began receiving public criticism two years later.

When the AP asked when testing was initiated, the State Department said only that "a battery of durability and electromagnetic tests were performed" by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, along with tests "to measure the ability of data on electronic passports to be surreptitiously skimmed or for communications with the chip reader to be eavesdropped," testing which "led to additional privacy controls being placed on U.S. electronic passports ... "

Indeed, in 2005, the department incorporated metallic fibers into the e-passport's front cover, since metal can reduce the range at which RFID can be read. Personal information in the chips was encrypted and a cryptographic "key" added, which required inspectors to optically scan the e-passport first for the chip to communicate wirelessly.

he department also announced it would test e-passports with select employees, before giving them to the public. "We wouldn't be issuing the passports to ourselves if we didn't think they're secure," said Frank Moss, deputy assistant Secretary of State for passport services, in a CNN interview.

But what of Americans' concerns about the e-passport's read range?

In its October 2005 Federal Register notice, the State Department reassured Americans that the e-passport's chip _ the ISO 14443 tag _ would emit radio waves only within a 4-inch radius, making it tougher to hack.

Technologists in Israel and England, however, soon found otherwise. In May 2006, at the University of Tel Aviv, researchers cobbled together $110 worth of parts from hobbyists kits and directly skimmed an encrypted tag from several feet away. At the University of Cambridge, a student showed that a transmission between an e-passport and a legitimate reader could be intercepted from 160 feet.

The State Department, according to its own records obtained under FOIA, was aware of the problem months before its Federal Register notice and more than a year before the e-passport was rolled out in August 2006.

"Do not claim that these chips can only be read at a distance of 10 cm (4 inches)," Moss wrote in an April 22, 2005, e-mail to Randy Vanderhoof, executive director of the Smart Card Alliance. "That really has been proven to be wrong."

The chips could be skimmed from a yard away, he added _ all a hacker would need to read e-passport numbers, say, in an elevator or on a subway.

Other red flags went up. In February 2006, an encrypted Dutch e-passport was hacked on national television, with researchers gaining access to the document's digital photograph, fingerprint and personal data. Then British e-passports were hacked using a $500 reader and software written in less than 48 hours.

The State Department countered by saying European e-passports weren't as safe as their American counterparts because they lacked the cryptographic key and the anti-skimming cover.

But recent studies have shown that more powerful readers can penetrate even the metal sheathing in the U.S. e-passport's cover.

John Brennan, a senior policy adviser at the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs, concedes it may be possible for a reader to overpower the e-passport's protective shield from a distance.

However, he adds, "you could not do this in any large-scale, concerted fashion without putting a bunch of infrastructure in place to make it happen. The practical vulnerabilities may be far less than some of the theoretical scenarios that people have put out there."

That thinking is flawed, says Lee Tien, a senior attorney and surveillance expert with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which opposes RFID in identity documents.

It won't take a massive government project to build reader networks around the country, he says: They will grow organically, for commercial purposes, from convention centers to shopping malls, sports stadiums to college campuses. Federal agencies and law enforcement wouldn't have to control those networks; they already buy information about individuals from commercial data brokers.

"And remember," Tien adds, "technology always gets better ... "

___

With questions swirling around the e-passport's security, why then did the government roll out more RFID-tagged documents _ the PASS card and enhanced driver's license, which provide less protection against hackers?

The RFIDs in enhanced driver's licenses and PASS cards are nearly as slim as paper. Each contains a silicon computer chip attached to a wire antenna, which transmits a unique identifier via radio waves when "awakened" by an electromagnetic reader.

The technology they use is designed to track products through the supply chain. These chips, known as EPCglobal Gen 2, have no encryption, and minmal data protection features. They are intended to release their data to any inquiring Gen 2 reader within a 30-foot radius.

This might be appropriate when a supplier is tracking a shipment of toilet paper or dog food; but when personal information is at stake, privacy advocates ask: Is long-range readability truly desirable?

The departments of State and Homeland Security say remotely readable ID cards transmit only RFID numbers that correspond to records stored in government databases, which they say are secure. Even if a hacker were to copy an RFID number onto a blank tag and place it into a counterfeit ID, they say, the forger's face still wouldn't match the true cardholder's photo in the database, rendering it useless.

Still, computer experts such as Schneier say government databases can be hacked. Others worry about a day when hackers might deploy readers at "chokepoints," such as checkout lines, skim RFID numbers from people's driver's licenses, then pair those numbers to personal data skimmed from chipped credit cards (though credit cards are harder to skim). They imagine stalkers using skimmed RFID numbers to track their targets' comings and goings. They fear government agents will compile chip numbers at peace rallies, mosques or gun shows, simply by strolling through a crowd with a reader.

Others worry more about the linking of chips with other identification methods, including biometric technologies, such as facial recognition.

The International Civil Aviation Organization, the U.N. agency that sets global standards for passports, now calls for facial recognition in all scannable e-passports.

Should biometric technologies be coupled with RFID, "governments will have, for the first time in history, the means to identify, monitor and track citizens anywhere in the world in real time," says Mark Lerner, spokesman for the Constitutional Alliance, a network of nonprofit groups, lawmakers and citizens opposed to remotely readable identity and travel documents.

Implausible?

For now, perhaps. Radio tags in EDLs and passport cards can't be scanned miles away.

But scientists are working on technologies that might enable a satellite or a cell tower to scan a chip's contents. Critics also note advances in the sharpness of closed-circuit cameras, and point out they're increasingly ubiquitous. And more fingerprints, iris scans and digitized facial images are being stored in government databases. The FBI has announced plans to assemble the world's largest biometric database, nicknamed "Next Generation Identification."

"RFID's role is to make the collection and transmission of people's biometric data quick, easy and nonintrusive," says Lerner. "Think of it as the thread that ties together the surveillance package."

___

On the Net:

http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/programs/gc(underscore)1200693579776.shtm

http://travel.state.gov/passport/eppt/eppt(underscore)2498.html

http://www.stoprealidcoalition.com/

http://www.smartcardalliance.org/pages/publications-realid

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/02/rfid-passports-scanned-car

http://epic.org/privacy/surveillance/spotlight/0907/

.
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/12/ap/tech/main5152882.shtml
.
.

All Nations Follow America's Lead




When all the people heard the sound of the cornet, flute, harp, sackbut, psaltery, and all kinds of musick, all the people, the nations, and the languages, fell down and worshipped the golden image that Nebuchadnezzar the king had set up. Dan. 3:7.


History will be repeated. False religion will be exalted. The first day of the week, a common working day, possessing no sanctity whatever, will be set up as was the image at Babylon. All nations and tongues and peoples will be commanded to worship this spurious sabbath. This is Satan's plan to make of no account the day instituted by God, and given to the world as a memorial of creation. {Mar 214.1}

The decree enforcing the worship of this day is to go forth to all the world. {Mar 214.2}

As America, the land of religious liberty, shall unite with the papacy in forcing the conscience and compelling men to honor the false sabbath, the people of every country on the globe will be led to follow her example. {Mar 214.3}

Foreign nations will follow the example of the United States. Though she leads out, yet the same crisis will come upon our people in all parts of the world. {Mar 214.4}

Nations will be stirred to their very center. Support will be withdrawn from those who proclaim God's only standard of righteousness, the only sure test of character. And all who will not bow to the decree of the national councils and obey the national laws to exalt the sabbath instituted by the man of sin, to the disregard of God's holy day, will feel, not the oppressive power of popery alone, but of the Protestant world, the image of the beast. {Mar 214.5}

The season of distress before God's people will call for a faith that will not falter. His children must make it manifest that He is the only object of their worship, and that no consideration, not even that of life itself, can induce them to make the least concession to false worship. To the loyal heart the commands of sinful, finite men will sink into insignificance beside the word of the eternal God. Truth will be obeyed though the result be imprisonment or exile or death. {Mar 214.6}


.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Why is Roman Catholicism attacked so much?






Why is Roman Catholicism attacked so much?


Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said: If I were not a Catholic and were looking for the true Church in the world today, I would look for the one Church which did not get along well with the world; in other words, I would look for the Church which the world hates. My reason for doing this would be that if Christ is in any one of the churches of the world today, he must still be hated as he was when he was on earth in the flesh. If you would find Christ today, then find the Church that does not get along with the world.

Look for the Church that is hated by the world as Christ was hated by the world. Look for the Church which is accused of being behind the times as our Lord was accused of being ignorant and never having learned. Look for the Church which men sneer at as socially inferior as they sneered at our Lord because he came from Nazareth. Look for the Church which is accused of having a devil as our Lord was accused of being possessed by Beelzebub, the prince of devils. Look for the Church which, in seasons of bigotry, men say must be destroyed in the name of God as men crucified Christ and thought they had done a service to God. Look for the Church which the world rejects because it claims it is infallible as Pilate rejected Christ because he called himself the Truth. Look for the Church which is rejected by the world as our Lord was rejected by men.

Look for the Church which amid the confusion of conflicting opinions its members love as they love Christ and respect its voice as the very voice of its founder, and the suspicion will grow that if the Church is unpopular with the spirit of the world then it is unworldly, and if it is unworldly it is other-worldly. Since it is other-worldly it is infinitely loved and infinitely hated as was Christ himself. But only that which is divine can be infinitely hated and infinitely loved. Therefore the Church is divine. (slightly edited for readability)


By BigPrune

July 18, 2009

Source: http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/bigprune/2009/jul/18/why-is-roman-catholicism-attacked-so-much/

P.S. Why is Roman Catholicism attacked so much?

  1. Perhaps because of its arrogant claim to represent God's will on Earth.
  2. Or maybe, it's its desire to control men's consciences which are given free will by their Creator?
  3. Because it claims a ridiculous vow of poverty when it is the richest entity on Earth.
  4. Because it has martyred hundreds of millions of people it claimed were heretics.
  5. Because it divided the Americas between Spain and Portugal by a stroke of a pen.

Are those enough reasons? Or should we enumerate more?

A short attention span is not only a symptom of ADD/ADHD children, or Bi-Polar patients...

Should ignorance of history be diagnosed as a disease, too?

How about selective memory???

Arsenio

.

Not With Outward Show



Chap. 55 - Not With Outward Show

Some of the Pharisees had come to Jesus demanding "when the kingdom of God should come." More than three years had passed since John the Baptist gave the message that like a trumpet call had sounded through the land, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." Matt. 3:2. And as yet these Pharisees saw no indication of the establishment of the kingdom. Many of those who rejected John, and at every step had opposed Jesus, were insinuating that His mission had failed. {DA 506.1}

Jesus answered, "The kingdom of God cometh not with outward show; [margin]: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." The kingdom of God begins in the heart. Look not here or there for manifestations of earthly power to mark its coming. {DA 506.2}

"The days will come," He said, turning to His disciples, "when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it." Because it is not attended by worldly pomp, you are in danger of failing to discern the glory of My mission. You do not realize how great is your present privilege in having among you, though veiled in humanity, Him who is the life and the light of men. The days will come when you will look back with longing upon the opportunities you now enjoy to walk and talk with the Son of God. {DA 506.3}

Because of their selfishness and earthliness, even the disciples of Jesus
507
could not comprehend the spiritual glory which He sought to reveal unto them. It was not until after Christ's ascension to His Father, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon the believers, that the disciples fully appreciated the Saviour's character and mission. After they had received the baptism of the Spirit, they began to realize that they had been in the very presence of the Lord of glory. As the sayings of Christ were brought to their remembrance, their minds were opened to comprehend the prophecies, and to understand the miracles which He had wrought. The wonders of His life passed before them, and they were as men awakened from a dream. They realized that "the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14. Christ had actually come from God to a sinful world to save the fallen sons and daughters of Adam. The disciples now seemed, to themselves, of much less importance than before they realized this. They never wearied of rehearsing His words and works. His lessons, which they had but dimly understood, now came to them as a fresh revelation. The Scriptures became to them a new book. {DA 506.4}

As the disciples searched the prophecies that testified of Christ, they were brought into fellowship with the Deity, and learned of Him who had ascended to heaven to complete the work He had begun on earth. They recognized the fact that in Him dwelt knowledge which no human being, unaided by divine agency, could comprehend. They needed the help of Him whom kings, prophets, and righteous men had foretold. With amazement they read and reread the prophetic delineations of His character and work. How dimly had they comprehended the prophetic scriptures! how slow they had been in taking in the great truths which testified of Christ! Looking upon Him in His humiliation, as He walked a man among men, they had not understood the mystery of His incarnation, the dual character of His nature. Their eyes were holden, so that they did not fully recognize divinity in humanity. But after they were illuminated by the Holy Spirit, how they longed to see Him again, and to place themselves at His feet! How they wished that they might come to Him, and have Him explain the scriptures which they could not comprehend! How attentively would they listen to His words! What had Christ meant when He said, "I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now"? John 16:12. How eager they were to know it all! They grieved that their faith had been so
508
feeble, that their ideas had been so wide of the mark, that they had so failed of comprehending the reality. {DA 507.1}

A herald had been sent from God to proclaim the coming of Christ, and to call the attention of the Jewish nation and of the world to His mission, that men might prepare for His reception. The wonderful personage whom John had announced had been among them for more than thirty years, and they had not really known Him as the One sent from God. Remorse took hold of the disciples because they had allowed the prevailing unbelief to leaven their opinions and becloud their understanding. The Light of this dark world had been shining amid its gloom, and they had failed to comprehend whence were its beams. They asked themselves why they had pursued a course that made it necessary for Christ to reprove them. They often repeated His conversations, and said, Why did we allow earthly considerations and the opposition of priests and rabbis to confuse our senses, so that we did not comprehend that a greater than Moses was among us, that One wiser than Solomon was instructing us? How dull were our ears! how feeble was our understanding! {DA 508.1}

Thomas would not believe until he had thrust his finger into the wound made by the Roman soldiers. Peter had denied Him in His humiliation and rejection. These painful remembrances came before them in distinct lines. They had been with Him, but they had not known or appreciated Him. But how these things now stirred their hearts as they recognized their unbelief! {DA 508.2}

As priests and rulers combined against them, and they were brought before councils and thrust into prison, the followers of Christ rejoiced "that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for His name." Acts 5:41. They rejoiced to prove, before men and angels, that they recognized the glory of Christ, and chose to follow Him at the loss of all things. {DA 508.3}

It is as true now as in apostolic days, that without the illumination of the divine Spirit, humanity cannot discern the glory of Christ. The truth and the work of God are unappreciated by a world-loving and compromising Christianity. Not in the ways of ease, of earthly honor or worldly conformity, are the followers of the Master found. They are far in advance, in the paths of toil, and humiliation, and reproach, in the front of the battle "against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places." Eph. 6:12, R. V. And now, as in
509
Christ's day, they are misunderstood and reproached and oppressed by the priests and Pharisees of their time. {DA 508.4}

The kingdom of God comes not with outward show. The gospel of the grace of God, with its spirit of self-abnegation, can never be in harmony with the spirit of the world. The two principles are antagonistic. "The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." 1 Cor. 2:14. {DA 509.1}

But today in the religious world there are multitudes who, as they believe, are working for the establishment of the kingdom of Christ as an earthly and temporal dominion. They desire to make our Lord the ruler of the kingdoms of this world, the ruler in its courts and camps, its legislative halls, its palaces and market places. They expect Him to rule through legal enactments, enforced by human authority. Since Christ is not now here in person, they themselves will undertake to act in His stead, to execute the laws of His kingdom. The establishment of such a kingdom is what the Jews desired in the days of Christ. They would have received Jesus, had He been willing to establish a temporal dominion, to enforce what they regarded as the laws of God, and to make them the expositors of His will and the agents of His authority. But He said, "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36. He would not accept the earthly throne. {DA 509.2}

The government under which Jesus lived was corrupt and oppressive; on every hand were crying abuses,--extortion, intolerance, and grinding cruelty. Yet the Saviour attempted no civil reforms. He attacked no national abuses, nor condemned the national enemies. He did not interfere with the authority or administration of those in power. He who was our example kept aloof from earthly governments. Not because He was indifferent to the woes of men, but because the remedy did not lie in merely human and external measures. To be efficient, the cure must reach men individually, and must regenerate the heart. {DA 509.3}

Not by the decisions of courts or councils or legislative assemblies, not by the patronage of worldly great men, is the kingdom of Christ established, but by the implanting of Christ's nature in humanity through the work of the Holy Spirit. "As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1:12, 13. Here is the only power that
510
can work the uplifting of mankind. And the human agency for the accomplishment of this work is the teaching and practicing of the word of God. {DA 509.4}

When the apostle Paul began his ministry in Corinth, that populous, wealthy, and wicked city, polluted by the nameless vices of heathenism, he said, "I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him crucified." 1 Cor. 2:2. Writing afterward to some of those who had been corrupted by the foulest sins, he could say, "But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." "I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ." 1 Cor. 6:11; 1:4. {DA 510.1}

Now, as in Christ's day, the work of God's kingdom lies not with those who are clamoring for recognition and support by earthly rulers and human laws, but with those who are declaring to the people in His name those spiritual truths that will work in the receivers the experience of Paul: "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me." Gal. 2:20. Then they will labor as did Paul for the benefit of men. He said, "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." 2 Cor. 5:20. {DA 510.2}



The Desire of Ages, Ellen G. White, pp.-506-510.


Note: Bolds and Highlights added..

THE ECUMENICAL PLAN FOR UNITY



As outlined by Jesuits



Do we have any documented Jesuit strategy for uniting the Protestant Churches under Catholic leadership.

The Jesuit Karl Rahner, top Jesuit scholar of the twentieth century, with Heinrich Fries, Roman Catholic professor of Ecumenical Theology, lay out the strategy for achieving the unity of the churches under Rome's direction, in their book, "Unity of the Churches: An Actual Possibility," published in 1983.

Their book "is a product of seasoned scholars, building on the earlier work of the Second Vatican council, the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches"

Thesis I --Build a Community of Faith
"The fundamental truths of Christianity, as they are expressed in Holy Scripture, in the Apostles' Creed, and in that of Nicaea and Constantinople are binding on all partner churches of the one Church to be. . .The one Church to be is a possibility only if it is a community of faith. . .the individual receives his faith by way of the community of faith and of the believers; and . . .the individual comes to faith by joining this antecedent community. . .The community therefore assumes primacy over the individual in the realm of Christian faith because the recipient and carrier of the original message was from the very beginning a ‘people' of believers and not an isolated individual." p.13

Note: This shows the push to focus only on Christ, for the unity can only be achieved if it is a community of faith and not one that worries about doctrines or believe systems. The theme throughout the plan is on the community of faith. In this the church takes precedence over the individual — theology can only be done in and by the community, not by the individuals.

I wonder how Noah, and Jeremiah would have fared in this system? Or Elijah as he stood alone on Mount Carmel for God?

Thesis I rests on the Creeds which express, in Fries words, "the fundamental truths of Christian faith. Furthermore, the Creed draws attention to the fact that faith is not a private matter. . .the public community of faith itself . . .has its support and basis of existence in the Creed." p. 16

Note: The apostle showed that religion does not consist in rites and ceremonies, creeds and theories. If it did, the sinful people could be saved just by following the creed. Paul taught that religion is a practical, saving energy, a principle wholly from God, a personal experience of God's renewing power upon the individual person. A writing of God's law upon each individual heart. Yet here we see this plan telling us people must be educated to following a believe system that is part of the whole community of believers! Private ideas about faith are not good? -- Of course, as we read on, they push diversity with tongue in check declaring faith is not of private interpretation.

Thesis II Individual Dogma

"Beyond that (accepting the creed), a realistic principle of faith should apply: Nothing may be rejected decisively and confessionally in one partner church which is binding dogma in another partner church. P. 25

Note: This means that no church structure is vocal about rejecting decisively as wrong any dogma or doctrine presents in another church
(except of course the three angels message because it goes directly against the creed)

Rahner continues to explain that the information explosion has caused such an overload of ideas that no one can possibility form his own conclusions. "As an individual, one becomes ever more impotent; one has to depend more and more on the knowledge of others, which one can no longer assimilate or check oneself. . .except among the few in the Roman Congregation of the Faith (Inquisition) who must watch over and judge the orthodoxy of other theologians' doctrines." p.28-29

Note: The individual's brain becomes impotent and therefore must put his trust in the church . . .
"for the church itself is the guarantor, through its formal teaching authority, of the truth of the individual doctrines it presents.? P. 32

Rahner calls for the Protestant churches to merely "reserve judgment" (don't judge) and make room for the not-yet agreed upon but nevertheless acknowledged as agreed up."

Confusing talk but what it says is to agree to agree on what you don't really agree on.

Rahner then declares: "Actually the only requirement is that these other churches not reject out of hand an explicit doctrine of the Catholic church as being irreconcilable with the fundamental substance of their Christianity. The development of ECCLESIASTICAL CONSCIOUSNESS in all the churches has progressed to such an extent that this is possible." P. 39

Note: The Jesuit's primary concern is with the development of ecclesiastical consciousness — that means changing the thinking of the church leaders.

Thesis III

"In this one Church of Jesus, composed of the uniting churches, there are regional partner churches which can, to large extent, maintain their existing structures." p. 43

Note: The churches will not be turned into Catholic Churches, they will maintain outward independence but still be assimilated into one church.

The book describes the unity churches already enjoy as they cooperate in many areas and how this will continue in greater measure.

Churches are to maintain their existing structures, but they should all form a sisterhood of pluralism. "Rome must not ask for their dissolution in order to achieve unity,.. . .there must be fraternal exchanges and intensive cooperation among the theologians of these churches.

Herein is the greatest danger — the structure of the churches remain — but the inside is totally changed to fit the mold.

Again that is exactly what we see happening--
Change the church -- change it's doctrines.
--so the church will fit into the scheme of the great deceptive religious movement. Yet people will believe that just because they are a part of the system they are saved --
when in actuality the system will have departed far from the truth.

But now comes the crunch:
What about those things they agreed to agree on even though they did not agree?
"The solution to these problems will nevertheless require that all sides give up a certain number of old familiar customs, so as to make possible not just coexistence with tolerance and much indifference but a true unity."

Note: The idea is to decide first in favor of unity then, they will have to give up certain number of old familiar customs.

Now comes Rahner's stunning foundation statement:

"With respect to ecclesiastical leadership the average congregation in the Protestant churches in fact usually practices the kind of obedience to their church leaders that is customary in the roman Catholic church. Therefore one should not overestimate the danger of a rebellion at the grass roots against their ecclesiastical leaders' decisions regarding unification. On the basis of their theological expertise and their religious conscience, the representatives of this ecclesiastical leadership can decide in favor of church unity, and can also work with sufficient zeal among the church members to gain their understanding for this decision" p. 54

The plan is to focus on the leaders--get them in partnership with the plan (how do they do this? Infiltration?) — if the leaders are changed they will then lead their churches into change that will render them acceptable to the unification.

So now -- having convinced the people that the "community of faith" is the most important aspect of salvation -- all they need to do is get enough leaders changed and the people will follow like sheep to the slaughter.

Finally Thesis IV

"All partner churches acknowledge the meaning and right of the Petrine service of the Roman pope to be the concrete guarantor of the unity of the church in truth and love" p. 59

Ellen White prophesied all this years ago.
GC.444
" The wide diversity of belief in the Protestant churches is regarded by many as decisive proof that no effort to secure a forced uniformity can ever be made. But there has been for years, in churches of the Protestant faith, a strong and growing sentiment in favor of a union based upon common points of doctrine. To secure such a union, the discussion of subjects upon which all were not agreed--however important they might be from a Bible standpoint--must necessarily be waived.

When the leading churches of the United States, uniting upon such points of doctrine as are held by them in common, shall influence the state to enforce their decrees and to sustain their institutions, then Protestant America will have formed an image of the Roman hierarchy, and the infliction of civil penalties upon dissenters will inevitably result.

And what do we see just ahead? Another general council! A world's convention! Evangelical alliance, and universal creed! "When this shall be gained, then, in the effort to secure complete uniformity, it will be only a step to the resort to force."

Now the question : Are we being lead into this plan?


Source: http://dedication.www3.50megs.com/jplan.html