The “Christian” Left’s Case for Taxpayer-Funded, Government-Run Health Care

Podcast: Download (9.1MB)

In a national teleconference call this week titled “40 Minutes for Health Reform“, President Obama, leaders of the “Christian Left” like Jim Wallis and Joel Hunter, along with 15 different religious groups, spoke to some 140,000 listeners about the moral imperative for health care “reform”, otherwise known as taxpayer-funded and government-directed health care insurance for all.

The President used biblical phrases like “I am my brother’s keeper” and said that there are “a lot of folks bearing false witness”  about his health care plan and that health care is Read more

Why Health Care Reform is Bad for Your Health

Guest blogger bio: Michael Bauman, Professor of Theology and Culture, at Hillsdale College, and Scholar in Residence for Summit Semester.

The president says he wants to control health care costs, on the one hand, and to bring millions upon millions of new persons into the health care system, on the other.

Seen together, the president’s goals are contradictory and mutually exclusive.  Here’s why:  If you intend to introduce tens of millions of new health care consumers into the system, then the demand for health care products and services will rise dramatically.  When demand rises dramatically, prices rise dramatically as well.  If the president wants to achieve his first goal, that of reducing health care costs, then achieving his second goal will make it impossible.  What his left hand gives, his other left hand takes away.

But suppose he succeeds.  That is, suppose he succeeds not at both these goals, which is impossible, but at just one of them.  What happens when the government drives down prices, and what consequences follow when demand for health care products and services rises dramatically?

When the government tries to control health care costs, the consequence for health care providers like drug companies, medical instrument manufacturers, and doctors, is to drive some of them out of health care altogether.  That is, if Washington restricts the profits of health care providers, some of those providers will re-allocate their quite considerable investments in directions away from health care, to places where government interference does not hinder or limit their financial success.  They simply leave.  In the wake of the coming state-induced exodus from the tyranny of price controls, fewer health care providers can or will remain.  Fewer providers mean fewer products and fewer services.  In your very first economics lesson, you’ll recall, you learned that when the supply of a thing goes down, its price goes up.

In other words, the president’s program to control health care costs will produce the opposite result.  I promise you, health care after the president’s reform goes into effect will not be cheaper than it is today.  Health care after his reform will be more expensive than ever, far more expensive.

Count on it; plan for it.

The costs faced by a pharmaceutical company to develop new and effective drugs are staggering.  Laboratories and equipment are expensive.  Outstanding scientists demand high salaries.  The path to FDA approval is arduous, time consuming, and fraught with uncertainty.  The advertisement and distribution of the drugs that win approval are more costly still.  The upshot of all that expensive research, certification, and advertisement is dicey at best, and massive sums of money can be — and have been — lost.

In order to pay for the development, approval, advertisement, and distribution of new drugs and the cures they might make possible, therefore, drug companies must make enormous amounts of money on existing drugs.  If they do not, the development of new drugs cannot well continue.  Thus, by holding down prescription costs, by prohibiting what it considers exorbitant drug company profits, the government is, therefore, also prohibiting future drug development and future cures — perhaps the one that will save your life or the life of a loved one.  We will never know what things could have been accomplished and would have been accomplished in health care if the government puts a lid on prescription costs.  If Obama’s health care reform passes, more people will get sick, more people will stay sick, and more people will die.

Count on it; plan for it.

Consider the doctors:  If the government puts a cap on what a doctor can make for, say, intestinal surgery, then the very talented and intelligent folks who otherwise would have worked very hard to become wealthy surgeons will figure out how to make a very good living in other ways, perhaps in architecture, nuclear technology, or international trade.  In the shadow of government-restricted prices (and therefore government-restricted incomes), fewer and fewer of them will decide to undergo the long, difficult, and exceedingly expensive path through college, through medical school, through residency, and through certification in order to become doctors who can expect to earn less for themselves and their families than they would have earned had they turned their talents elsewhere and followed an easier and less restricted path to greater wealth.  The same thing will happen with the pharmacists.  If the president’s program goes into effect, the result will be fewer doctors and pharmacists serving the millions and millions more patients the president wants to get into the system.  In other words, there will be long lines — very long lines — at the clinic, at the emergency room, and at the pharmacy.

Count on it; plan for it.

The lesson of price controls is not new.  Simply think of the government-imposed control on gas prices in the 1970s and the chaos, shortages, long lines and rationing that followed in its wake  — only substitute health care for gas and clinics for gas stations.

Or, to take a lesson from countries like Canada and the UK (where government health care plans have been in place for many years), waiting lines are unconscionably long and some people actually die waiting for their turn in surgery because there aren’t enough surgeons and operating rooms to meet the needs.  To avoid that fate, Canadians often cross the border to get medical care at their own expense in the US, in cities like Detroit or Buffalo, where medical care is far more readily available than in Canada.  In other words, they come to the system the president is trying to reform, and they leave the sort of system he is trying to emulate.  If the president’s counter-productive plan goes into effect, even Canadians will die.

My point, if it’s not obvious, is that, judging by the incentives it creates and the consequences it generates, this is a health care plan from hell.

But it’s worse than that, far worse.  By introducing millions more folks into the system at the same time that his cost control measures are shrinking that system, the president’s plan will strain our remaining health care resources enormously, perhaps to the breaking point, laying an unbearable demand upon what survives of a health care supply system shrinking under the effects of government policy.  The results for millions of Americans needing medical care will be catastrophic.  In order to meet the burgeoning demands that an expanding clientele puts on a shrinking system, the government will institute rationing.

Put succinctly, price controls lead to shortages; shortages lead to higher prices and to long lines; long lines lead to rationing; rationing health care leads to suffering and death.

When family and friends suffer or die because they couldn’t get the health care they required, Americans will begin to regret the votes they cast in recent years, and they will struggle to return to the system that served them better — if by then a return is still possible.

My dire tale of higher prices, shortages, long lines and rationing is understated.  I have purposely left the most expensive and most dangerous part of the President’s health care reform until the end.  To this point, I have focused primarily on health care providers and health care consumers.  I turn now to health care bureaucrats — perhaps the most wasteful and dangerous element of the President’s entire misbegotten scheme.

Depending upon precisely what sorts of things one includes in the equation, health care is approximately one-seventh of the entire American economy.  To bring that much business under the watchful (but myopic) eye of government requires a simply enormous army of bureaucrats.  To them will fall the power of evaluation and analysis of every sort, and the power to enforce their decisions.  Almost nothing could be worse.

The notion that government bureaucrats and career politicians are competent to determine (from a distance, at a desk, or in a committee with other bureaucrats) what drugs “ought” to be prescribed, what tests “ought” to be conducted, what procedures “ought” to be undergone, and what “ought” to be the proper cost of every consultation, operation, test, or procedure in every American locality from Anchorage to Key West is unmitigated hubris and foolishness beyond measure.  Those bureaucrats do not even know or understand how little their own jobs and services are worth; they absolutely cannot know the worth of the jobs of medical researchers and neuro-surgeons in varied localities across the nation, and what they “ought” to be paid for doing them.  Nor will they know what things “ought” to be done for and by patients they have never met and never will meet.

Precious few of the apparatchiks empowered by the government to make these decisions will be medically trained.  Indeed, there aren’t enough properly trained bureaucrats in the world to make this program work.  Almost none will have seen face-to-face even one of the persons whose lives and health they hold in their red tape entangling hands.  Indeed, they will not be dealing with persons at all, as they see it, but with “cases” – cases that must be dealt with according to the case book, the standard operating procedures complied by other bureaucrats in other parts of government who spend their professional lives doing equally impossible jobs with equally deleterious effect.

Like all other persons, bureaucrats are creatures of incentive.  Those with careers in the medical bureaucracy will wish to succeed.  They will wish to rise ever higher in the bureaucracy, to be in charge of ever increasing portions of taxpayer money and to exercise more power than now they do.  In order to rise up the bureaucratic ladder, they must preside well over the affairs inside their bailiwick.  They must follow the rules.  They must keep their departmental budgets balanced.  While I am in favor of governments living within their means, the implications of doing so in health care are staggering.

It often happens that almost 90% of a person’s health care expenses occur in the last two or three years of life. When we get old, we get expensive. If the government is overseeing the program by which your health care costs get paid, and if that program is dangerously low on money, the bureaucrat in charge of your case, who knows that it’s cheaper to die than to live, who knows that his budget is nearly depleted, and who wants to look good to his or her superiors, will be sorely tempted to reason this way:  “At 76, old Joe has had a long life.  His country has been good to him for many years.  It’s time for Joe to pay the system back.  It’s time for Joe to cash in his chips.  That way, his own physical suffering is ended; my personal and professional burdens are eased; and others can move one step forward in the waiting line.  If old Joe dies, it’ll be better for everybody, including me and Joe.”

If you think I am making this up, I absolutely am not.  I have seen it with my own eyes and heard it with my own ears directly from government bureaucrats themselves. I kid you not.

When government bureaucrats invade health care, the inevitable result is something much like veterinary medicine:  If your dog is sick and you take it to the vet, the vet examines it and says, “Spot has a problem, and it will cost $300 to fix it.  What would you like to do?”  The vet asks you, not Spot, because you are paying the bills. If you don’t have the money to pay for the necessary procedures, it’s bad news for Spot.  Spot might die.  When the government is in charge of paying the health care bills, and the bureaucrat in charge of your case doesn’t have the money, you’re Spot.

Count on it; plan for it.

What’s the Biblical View on Health Care?

Podcast: Download (8.6MB)

The United States is currently in the midst of a debate on health care.  The Obama administration and the political and Religious Left are pushing for a tax-payer funded, government-directed health care system that would be available for every American.  They believe it’s a moral, even Christian, imperative that no one is left without access to health care.

Political conservatives say almost the opposite: government taking over health care would lead to a worse system and fundamentally depress the country economically.  They believe a more free-market, competitive health care system with less government intervention would be more efficient and allow more people to have access to health care.

So what’s a Christian to think about this health care debate?  Does the Bible say anything about government providing health care for all?  Is government-given health care coverage more moral than our current system?

We’ll discuss the Biblical view on health care and take your phone calls in Hour 1 of The Christian Worldview this Saturday.

What To Watch For During The Iranian Elections Friday

President Obama has launched five major initiatives to reach out to Muslims in general and Iranians in particular since taking office. But disturbing new evidence suggests the President’s strategy is not working. Indeed, a new poll finds America’s favorable ratings among Iranians has actually gone down significantly since Obama took office. “Just 29 percent of Iranians said they have favorable views of the United States in the latest poll, which was conducted last month,” reports the Associated Press. “In a similar survey in February 2008 — nearly a year before Barack Obama became president — 34 percent had positive opinions about the U.S.” What’s more, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, responded to the President’s speech in Cairo last week by noting that Muslims hate the  U.S. from the bottoms of their hearts.

What’s happening? Why were we more popular in Iran when George W. Bush was in office? Because President Bush told the truth. He didn’t kowtow to the Radicals in Tehran. He accurately described them as members of the “axis of evil.” President Obama, by contrast, keeps apologizing about American shortcomings — real and perceived — and keeps beseeching Iran’s Radicals to please, please come to the table and talk to us. Iranians by and large hate their government for lying to them and enslaving them and destroying their economy and their children’s future. They don’t respect Western leaders who legitimize the tyrants who oppress them, plain and simple.

That said, keep your eye on Khamenei this week. When Iranians go to the polls on Friday, the big question will be whether the Supreme Leader believes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has outlived his usefulness to the regime. Both men share a Radical, apocalptic, genocidal, Shia Muslim world view. Both believe the end of the world is at hand, the Islamic Messiah’s arrival on earth is “imminent,” and that annihilating the U.S. and Israel are central objectives to hastening the Mahdi’s arrival. Up until now, Khamenei has supported Ahmadinejad as the face and voice of such views. Does he still? We’re about to find out. The elections on June 12th are rigged. If Ahmadinejad is reelected, that will be seen as an affirmation that the Persian Hitler known as Ahmadinejad is still the valued “front man” for the Supreme Leader. If someone else wins, we’ll have to watch closely to see if that presages a mere p.r. face lift — Apocalypse Lite — or suggests an actual, fundamental shift away from Radical Shia eschatology. Right now,  I’m expecting Ahmadinejad to win. But I really don’t know how this will play out. Anything is possible. Should be an interesting few days for everyone in the epicenter. Keep praying.

Christians and Muslims: Connection or Collision?

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

LISTEN NOW:

President Obama gave a major speech to the Muslim world in Egypt on Thursday where he spoke of the shared values and principles of Islam and America.  A professing Christian, Obama referred to the Muslim religious text as the “Holy Koran” and cited his own extensive personal background with Islam.

In Hour 2 of The Christian Worldview this Saturday, we’ll interpret some of the key passages of Obama’s speech and ask the question: Should a professing Christian commend another religion in an effort to foster national and personal peace and cooperation?  In an effort to evangelize Muslims, should Christians try to find common ground or point out key differences?  And, is there such thing as a “Christian Muslim”?

Finding “Common Ground” on Abortion?

Podcast: Download (7.9MB)

LISTEN NOW:

The hot button issue of abortion has been in the news recently with our pro-abortion President Barack Obama being invited to give the commencement address at Notre Dame, a Catholic university with a historically anti-abortion stance.

In Hour 2 this Saturday of The Christian Worldview, we’ll discuss the changing conviction in America on abortion, what the Bible says about the unborn, how euphemistic language is used to support it, and whether and how Christians should address it in the public and private realm.

Two Hours At The White House: Was progress made?

> UPDATE: On Monday, I’m scheduled to be on Janet Parshall’s nationally syndicated radio show from 3pm to 3:45pm to discuss the Netanyahu visit. I’m also scheduled to be on Glenn Beck’s TV show on Fox to discuss the Obama-Netanyahu meeting at 5:30pm eastern.

> To join nearly 100,000 people receiving Joel’s email alerts on events in Israel and the Islamic world — and Joshua Fund project and prayer updates — please click here

UPDATE AT 2:30pm eastern: President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu just completed two hours of meetings at the White House. The major topics, as expected, were Iran’s nuclear threat to Israel and the Western world, and the future of the peace process with the Palestinians.

The President unsuccessfully pressed Netanyahu to commit to a “two state solution.” Netanyahu reiterated that Israel does not want to govern the Palestinians but would not commit to agreeing that they have full sovereignty, something that would allow the Palestinians to build strategic military alliances with Iran, Syria and other dangerous regimes, as well as build an air force and navy, all of which would endanger the Jewish States.

The President did not commit to putting to put a time limit on diplomacy with Iran. He did say he wants to see a positive response from Iran by the end of the year, but did not define what progress would look like. “Obama said he expects a positive response from his diplomatic outreach to Iran on stopping its nuclear program by the end of the year,” reported the Associated Press. “The president said the United States wanted to bring Iran into the world community, but declared ‘we’re not going to have talks forever.’”

Reuters is also reporting that “Obama said after the meeting he saw no reasons to set an artificial deadline for diplomacy with Iran, but the United States would like to see progress with Tehran by the end of the year.”

“The two were intended to meet in private for an hour and then be joined by their advisors, though the tête-à-tête was extended by half an hour,” reported the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz. “Afterwards Netanyahu was joined by top aide Ron Dermer and his National Security Advisor, Uzi Arad. Obama was joined by the US National Security Advisor, James Jones.” It was General Jones who publicly criticized Israels’ “preoccuption” with the Iranian nuclear threat and recently told European diplomats that “we’re not going to throw Israel in front of a bus, but…” — but we’re going to pressure Israel to accept American dictates on Middle East policy vis-a-vis Iran and the Palestinians.

ORIGINAL POST: Please carve time out of your schedules today to pray that the God of Israel would bless the meetings today, tomorrow and Wednesday between  Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Defense Secretary Gates, and Congressional leaders. Given the high stakes in the epicenter, please pray that the Lord’s will would be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

Yes, it appears a diplomatic train wreck is coming between the U.S. and Israel in the not-too-distant future given that Netanyahu understands Iran’s leaders are part of an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult and believe it is their God-given mission to annihilate Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it, and the American President and his team clearly do not. [Example: Gen. James Jones, President Obama's national security advisor -- appearing on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" last week -- referred to "Israel's preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat." That's a curious choice of words to the rise of a Nazi-esque regime in Iran.] That disconnect, of course, could change. Change is the mantra, after all. The Lord in His grace and power could change the hearts and minds of our government leaders so that they would: 1) understand the evil nature of the Iranian regime and be united with Israel in doing everything possible to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons; and 2) stop pressuring Israel to make unwise concessions to their enemies. The question I’m asking is not whether the Lord can change the hearts of our leaders, but whether He will choose to do so.

Perhaps, the Lord is going to allow the U.S. to abandon Israel at this moment in history. The Obama administration is  certainly doing everything it can to curry favor with the Muslim world and clearly views Israel as the problem in the region, not our best strategic ally in the epicenter. Only 31% of Israelis now see President Obama as “pro-Israel,” down from more than 80% of Israelis who saw President George W. Bush that way. Perhaps the season of American love and steadfast support for the Jewish State is coming to a close. I hope not. I pray not. But we must realize that Scripturally we know that the entire world will eventually turn against Israel in the “last days.” The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob won’t abandon Israel. Indeed, the Lord will use the nations turning against Israel to show His unconditional love and unwavering support for the Jews. That He is their only friend. Their only hope. God is jealous for the Jewish people. He wants to draw them to Himself, to protect them, to care for them, to save them. He does not want them to trust in anyone or anything but Him. Perhaps the Lord is beginning to show His people that He is the only one they can truly trust to love them and care for them.

The good news is that the Bible gives us hope — that the God of Israel can change the situation dramatically if He so chooses; and He can and will bless Israel even if the United States does not, because He loves the Jewish people and has a great plan for their lives. Consider the following verses as  you pray for U.S. and Israeli leaders today:

• “Nothing is impossible with God.” (Luke 1:37).
• “The king’s heart is like channels of water in the and of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes.” (Proverbs 21:1)
• “Behold, He who keeps Israel will  neither slumber nor sleep.” (Psalm 121:4)
• “O Israel, trust in the Lord; He is their help and their shield….The Lord has been mindful of us; He will bless us; He will bless the house of Israel.” (Psalm 115:9,12)
• “Those who trust in the Lord are as Mount Zion, which cannot be moved but abides forever. As the mountains surround Jerusalem, so the Lord surrounds His people from this time forth and forever.” (Psalm 125:1-2)
• “For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation. ‘This is My resting place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it. I will abundantly bless her  provision; I will satisfy her needy with bread. Her priests also I will clothe with salvation, and her godly ones will sing aloud for joy.” (Psalm 132:13-16)
• “I know that You [Lord] can do all things, and that no purpose of Yours can be thwarted.” (Job 42:2)

So let us pray, but not be worried. God has everything in His control, and we need to put our full trust in Him, especially as the return of Jesus Christ approaches. As Jesus told us in John 14:1-3, “Let your heart not be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I go to prepare a place for you. If I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also.”

Talking About Talking About Abortion

President Barack Obama delivered his commencement address at the University of Notre Dame on Sunday, and he appeared to dive right into the very issue that made his visit to the Catholic university so controversial — abortion.

The President’s appearance at Notre Dame came even as seventy Catholic bishops denounced the university’s invitation.  Protests and debates roiled the world of American Catholicism and a major media event was assured.

The President began his address with a call for common ground, noting that the generation represented by the young Notre Dame graduates would face daunting challenges.  “Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone,” said Mr. Obama.  “Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.”

Yet, even as he called for common ground, he also warned:  “We’re not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes.”   Everyone knew that the President was referring to abortion.  Once again, he called for common ground.  “That’s when we begin to say, ‘Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions.’”

In virtually every way imaginable, the Notre Dame speech represents the quintessential Obama.  By now, Americans should understand that this President is going to take positions and shape policies that are at odds with the sanctity of human life.  He has already done this with respect to federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research and, as a candidate he pledged to do far more — even to sign the Freedom of Choice Act if passed by Congress.

At the same time, the President wants to claim common ground and respect for those who differ with him on these issues.  He calls for others to do the same:

I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.  Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it — indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory — the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable.  Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.  But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Mr. Obama went on to call for “Open hearts.  Open minds. Fair-minded words.”  In the end, the President’s comments were entirely about how Americans should discuss or debate abortion.  There was no serious consideration of abortion itself.  President Obama merely talked about talking about abortion.

This was a moral evasion and an insult to the importance of the issue.  If the President had actually addressed the issue of abortion — if he had actually even offered a defense or rationale for his own position — he would have dignified the issue.  Instead, Mr. Obama issued what amounted to a call for civility.

When the President called for Americans to agree that, while differing on abortion, “we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually,” he failed to make clear why this is so.  If the unborn baby is not a person who possesses an intrinsic right to life, why is the decision to abort so “heart-wrenching?”  If the fetus is just a collection of cells, why the angst?  Furthermore, does the fact that a decision is “heart-wrenching” make it right or rational?

When the President acknowledged that, in the end, the two positions on abortion are irreconcilable, he was on more solid ground.  Both sides frame the issue as a question of rights — specifically a woman’s “right” to control her reproductive destiny by any means, including abortion vs. the unborn child’s right to live.  The weakness of the pro-abortion (or “pro-choice”) position becomes evident at this point.  The claimed right of control over reproduction is not commensurate with another person’s right to live, and not to be killed in the womb.

If President Obama had actually spoken of abortion itself, rather than addressing abortion only as an issue of controversy, he would have found himself defending the indefensible, which explains why he avoids this discussion at all costs.  Yet, now that he is President, he cannot get by with claiming that this question is “above my pay grade.”

The President also called for a certain humility on contested issues.  “And this doubt should not push us away our faith,” argued the President.  “But it should humble us.  It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness.”  In itself, this is a good and responsible warning.  But, as President Abraham Lincoln made clear in his second inaugural address, avoiding arrogance and self-righteousness does not mean failing to take a clear and costly stand.

This President is entirely predictable on the issue of abortion and related issues of human life, such as embryonic stem cell research.  He is framing policies that are completely consistent with what he said and promised during his campaign.  It is embarrassing to see some evangelicals who claim to be pro-life running public relations for the Obama Administration’s policies and positions.  It is not uncivil to protest the President’s positions as subversive of human dignity and the sanctity of human life.

At the University of Notre Dame President Barack Obama talked about talking about abortion.  One day, he will have to talk about abortion itself.  He will put that day off as long as possible.

Thoughts on Netanyahu’s Visit to DC

… And on the Pope’s trip to the epicenter

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is expected to arrive in Washington on Sunday for several days of high-level meetings with American officials, including a critical one with President Obama on Monday or Tuesday.  I was interviewed by CBN News yesterday about what to expect. I’ll let you know when that interview will air, but here is is a summary of what I said:

• Netanyahu understands the Iranian threat. He understands that the current Iranian leadership — not the people, but the leaders — are members of apocalyptic, genocidal death cult who believe it is their Allah-given mission to destroy Israel and the U.S. and end Judeo-Christian civilization as we know it.
  
• Clearly, Obama, Clinton and the senior U.S. foreign policy team do not understand this. Thus, they do not understand the gravity of the situation and the urgency of the moment.
• Netanyahu’s task is two-fold: 1) to build a personal relationship with the President of the United States and his team and establish trust; and 2) to help Washington understand who these Iranian leaders really are at their core, why direct negotiations are unlikely to produce the hoped for results, and why the Iran nuclear issue is far more important to address effectively right now than striking a “peace” deal with a Palestinian leadership that is weak, ineffective, and increasingly dominated by Hamas terrorists. This is not going to be an easy task, to say the least.
  
• (By the way, Netanyahu has a third mission as well, though I didn’t mention this in the interview. He needs to reach out to the American people through as many media interviews as possible. He needs to talk directly about the common threat we face from Iran and Radical Islamic terrorist states and organizations acquiring nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them. He needs to mobilize tens of millions of Americans to pressure Congress and the White House to maintain a close relationship with Israel, to stop pressuring Israel to make a bad deal with the Palestinians, and to support Israel if the Jewish State has to go to war with Iran. The Obama team is sensitive to public opinion, and I believe Americans generally “get it” with regard to Iran and the Radicals more than Washington does at the moment.)
• Netanyahu is coming to Washington straight from three high-level meetings in the epicenter where he has been working hard to build a regional alliance against Iran.
  
• The first stop was Egypt where Netanyahu met with President Hosni Mubarak. Mubarak gets it. He doesn’t love Israel, but frankly he hates Iran and is determined to stop Iran from getting The Bomb and dominating the region.
• The second stop was a surprise visit the other day to Amman where Netanyahu had private meetings with Jordanian King Abdullah II. The King also gets it. He sees the seriousness of the Iran threat and does not want to see Shia Radicals get The Bomb and take over the region. But he also has rising Radical sentiments inside his own kingdom and has to be very careful. The King is warning Netanyahu that unless there’s a peace deal with the Palestinians, there will be another major war in the region in the next 12 to 18 months. Let’s pray he’s wrong, but he very well may be right.
• The third key meeting was with Pope Benedict. Netanyahu appealed to the Pope to understand the enemies Israel is facing and to speak out against the genocidal, apocalyptic threats emanating from Iran. He also appealed to Benedict to support Jerusalem remaining an undivided city. We’ll see where this goes. I told CBN that I have respect for the Pope, but I was disappointed to see him make a political statement in support of a Palestinian state. The Pope should stick to teaching the Bible and preaching the gospel as the only way of eternal salvation and spiritual freedom for all mankind, Jews and Gentiles, not wade into a geopolitical conflict like this. Especially when the Bible teaches that God has given the Holy Land to the Jewish people to be their homeland, as well as to be a blessing to their neighbors and help them to be a light to the nations.
• I am praying that the Netanyahu-Obama meeting goes well and that the Lord changes the President’s heart to start truly supporting and defending the Jewish State. But I’m not sure the Lord’s answer will be “yes.” I anticipate several days of diplomatic niceties in D.C. next week, but the truth is a train wreck is most likely coming between the U.S. and Israel over the Iran issue and the so-called “peace process.” The Obama administration is applying enormous pressure on Israel to not strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, and instead to focus on allowing the creation of a sovereign Palestinian state that could endanger the very existence of the State of Israel.
  
• Vice President Biden last week went to AIPAC and essentially demanded that Israel divide Jerusalem, give away the strategic Jordan Valley, and allow for the creation of a Palestinian state despite the disastrous results for Israel of the “land for peace” formula since 2000. “Israel has to work for a two state-solution,” the VP insisted. “You’re not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement.”
• CIA Director Leon Panetta just made a secret trip to Israel to warn Netanyahu not to even consider launching a preemptive attack on Iran without U.S. notification and approval.
• General Jim Jones, the U.S. national security advisor, is telling European leaders that President Obama will be “forceful” with Israel. In fact, what he really said was even more telling and concerning: “The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question. We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush.”

This weekend, I’m in Syracuse, New York, where I’m addressing three different forums of Central New York pastors, ministry leaders, and evangelical Christian lay leaders about the Iran threat, the vital importance of blessing Israel, and the historic openness in the epicenter — and particularly among Muslims — to the good news of Christ’s love and forgiveness. Next week, I’ll be speaking to about 1,000 pastors and ministry leaders in Maryland on the same issues. I’ll also doing quite a bit of media about the Netanyahu visit, including on Glenn Beck’s TV show and Janet Parshall’s radio show. Will let you know more details soon.

Please be praying for our leaders, for Israel’s leaders, and for the leaders and peoples of the epicenter. Pray for peace. Pray for wisdom and discernment. Pray for courage. And pray that the Lord’s message of hope and forgiveness can truly be advanced during this time of war and rumors of war. Thanks and God bless you.

Creating a Heaven on Earth

What do the following places have in common: Trumbull Phalanx in Ohio, Modern Times in New York, Brook Farm in Massachusetts, New Harmony in Indiana, United Order in Utah, Amana Colonies in Iowa, Oneida Community in New York, a kibbutz in Israel, and the Pilgrim’s Plymouth Plantation?

Each was an attempt to establish a form of heaven on earth, or put another way, to establish through socialism a utopian community by (1) abolishing private property and (2) eradicating self-interested acquisitiveness.

There are basically three forms of socialism: utopian (Robert Owen, Saint-Simon, and Francois Fourier), revolutionary (Marxism-Leninism), and fascism (Fabian, Social Democracy). Continuing attempts such as those listed above to establish some form of utopian socialism reinforce the observation of Alfred North Whitehead—”the European philosophical tradition is…a series of footnotes to Plato.”

Whitehead was himself an influential twentieth century philosopher and mathematician, who saw that Europe and America were enamored with Plato’s “general ideas” scattered throughout his various writings, none more so than the communistic ideas in his Republic.

In fact, the pilgrims came to these shores establishing Plato’s communistic utopia. Plymouth Plantation’s William Bradford mentions him by name, referring to “that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God.” Bradford learned, however, that God is wiser than Plato.

It seems as if the United States failed to learn her lesson from our early Fathers, as we find ourselves once again toying with Plato!

Eric Etheredge of the New York Times refers to President Barack Obama as a “social democrat.” Gene Edward Veith of World magazine (May 9, 2009, p. 56) notes that “social democrat” is code for socialist, using the Merriam-Webster online dictionary to define social democracy as “a political movement advocating a gradual and peaceful transition from capitalism to socialism by democratic means.”

Veith develops the point further by using the Encyclopedia Britannica to show that social democracy is “a political ideology that advocates a peaceful, evolutionary transition of society from capitalism to socialism using established political processes. Based on the 19th-century socialism and the tenets of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, social democracy shares common ideological roots with communism.”

Thus we see that the United States of America is being led into another socialistic experiment to create anew a heaven on earth by its President, his Democratic administration, and the House of Representatives (flush with four socialistic organizations, including the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the Congressional Black Caucus).

Utopian socialism did not work for the pilgrims, who were primarily Christian in orientation, and neither Social Democracy nor the John Maynard Keynes evolutionary variety of socialism will work today for men and women of a vastly different orientation.

« Previous Page — Next Page »