|
Author
|
Topic: The Twilight’s Last Gleaming?
|
JohnL
Advanced Member
Member # 462
|
posted
hi homeschooler:
That was a dramatic in-depth view of “the twilight’s last gleaming.” If there’s ever going to be a workable solution, the “ultimately we will continue to forsake God” has to be reversed, to start any kind of unravelling of the economic dilemma. Either that, or eventually submit to the mark and worship of the beast (OWG).
you wrote:
quote:
Economically.. I think that there are things that we could do to prolong the inevitable.... but even then in the end, I dont think that the end of the twighlight's last gleaming will come because of our own economic faux paus but because ultimately we will continue to forsake God from within and from without Islam will continue to seek the anihilation of all that will not bow to Allah
Aside from those 144,000 (Rev 7:4), there was “a great multitude” (Rev 7:9) who “came out of great tribulation” which might refer to “the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years” (Rev 20:4). “Beheaded” seems like a muslim practice. So that goes along with what you said “from without, Islam will continue to seek the annihilation of all that will not bow to Allah.”
My hope against hope is that No. America might be a refuge from the “great tribulation” spoken of in Revelations, a kind of church of Philadelphia (Rev 3:7), or at least christian refuges within the land.
A revival starts with true repentance in the name of Jesus, but deceptive counterfeits (false flags), if not outright newage and agnostic humanism, seem to be impossible impediments. The half-truth of accommodating diverse cultural and ethnic differences for humanitarian reasons, helps immeasurably to hide the need for eternal salvation in the name of Jesus only.
You expressed the problem well:
quote:
Jefferson was against anything that even remotely looked like a state mandated religion. He and many of the forefathers were very much against what England had done with the "church of England" and did everything in their power to assure that this would not be repeated here. They did not however anticipate this country becoming the multinational melting pot that it is. They did not , I dont think anticipate what would happen here if the majority ever became non Bible reading and believing people or followers of Islam or Bhudists or Hindu or whatever pagan thing you could think of.
I believe that diverse ethnic groups can be treated with greater humanity based on the christian faith, rather than nebulous ideas like democracy and equality, which are empty promises without the christian foundation of God’s mercy and justice in Christ Jesus. The ACLU is a prime example of what went completely wrong with acceptance without morals, or with man-made justifications for sin, such as h---s-------- and p---graphy. All that does is allow infiltration of occult powers (Ephesians 6:12) using the arrogant false cover of protecting the rights of diverse life styles and diverse ethnic religious practices.
In a way it’s almost like Tennyson’s “Charge of the Light Brigade.” Anglo-christians have charged against the unseen enemy, but without Christ’s guidance, not realizing they were charging right into their trap.
John
Posts: 119 | From: Portland, OR | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged | 
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
Hi John: you have made some interesting points here, some of which I totally agree with. But first let me say that the article that opened this thread was not mine. It is written by Chuck Missler. I dont agree with him on some things but he is very interesting. His background before coming to Christ and before preaching was one of Military, business, and economics. He is very sharp. I posted the article not for it to be my thoughts, but for the sake of discussion.
you said:
quote:
My thought is that the US and Canada are basically anglo-christian countries, pre-destined to be blessed of God, from which christian missionaries could be sent to the whole world to preach a fairly valid message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, so that others could learn of the hope of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives.
I agree that the US was predestined to be the place with the $ and the freedom to get the Gospel of Christ round the world.
I dont however believe that we have ever been a Christian Nation or that we were supposed to be. I do not for example see people like Jefferson as Christians.. Jefferson was a diest... not an athiest as someone else in this tread stated, and Jefferson believed himself to be a True Christian, but for him that meant that he was a follower of Christ's teachings, but not a believer in Christ's diety. Jefferson was against anything that even remotely looked like a state mandated religion. He and many of the forefathers were very much against what England had done with the "church of England" and did everything in their power to assure that this would not be repeated here. They did not however anticipate this country becoming the multinational melting pot that it is. They did not , I dont think anticipate what would happen here if the majority ever became non Bible reading and believing people or followers of Islam or Bhudists or Hindu or whatever pagan thing you could think of.
There is no doubt about it that One Nation under God meant under the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, but Christian? No. I am sorry I cant go that far. Not by my defintion of Christianity.
I think that today however, we have come to a place where pluralism and humanism have taken the lead and the majority in this nation and because of it, where we have opnce been blessed, we are now on the verge of judgement and possibly destruction and it might be better that we drop the one nation under God than to continue to claim that all the while spitting in the face of God. I think that as our blessing has been great because of our claim of being One Nation Under God.. so will our cursing be because we claim this and reject all that is of GOD or based on God's word.
I also think that you are correct about the US dependenece on foreign oil. We could do much to turn the economy around by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But, I have to agree with Andy in that few have considered the reliance of this country on foreign trade overall.
The other day, my husband and I were discussing this... what if we simply returned to our shores and cut off our foreign aide and our imports? What if we relied only on what America could produce? Hah! What a joke. We couldnt do it if we tried. The fact that our money is not backed by gold is just one way that we have made for ourselves and economy that is not based in reality! Just look around your home at the consumer goods in it and see what is not from China or Japan or indonesia! When we moved from an industrial society to an information or technological society with it moved our ability to be independent of foreign goods. The infrastructure that would be needed immediately for America to cease imports from China and the rest of the east and meet the consumer needs of Americans, if it could even be accomplished logistically, and I dont believe it could be, but if it could it would put us in bankruptcy as a nation and the cost of those goods to the American public would put us in bankrupcy individually.
In other words... I think we have long passed the point of no return.
Economically.. I think that there are things that we could do to prolong the inevitable.... but even then in the end, I dont think that the end of the twighlight's last gleaming will come because of our own economic faux paus but because ultimately we will continue to forsake God from within and from without Islam will continue to seek the anihilation of all that will not bow to Allah.
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
JohnL
Advanced Member
Member # 462
|
posted
Thanks for responding, Ahar. I'm not well-received in the christian community, their thinking that my ideas are best discussed with Ho Chi Minh, Fu Manchu, Dracula, and the woman sitting on the scarlet beast, -- and then they probably have better things to do with their time.
quote:
I'm always wary of trying to mix theology with economics - the two are not easy bedfellows.
Based on some of the current evangelical ideas of biblical prophecy which tends to absolve them from national economic responsibility, I'd have to agree that mixing current church ideas with economic specialists could be very hazardous. However, HHS's ideas (HelpforHomeSchoolers) definitely showed an accurate analysis of the dire economic situation. Her analysis showed that there was an imminent crisis due to the extremely monumental international deficit.
This huge deficit might be manageable with adequate oil resources, but the US is highly dependent on foreign oil, especially from the middle-east (also Venezuela, Mexico and BP's Northshore). Aggravating the problem are the surging oil needs of third world countries that have industrialized to such an extent that they need to horde oil from the same suppliers that the US depends on.
The main problem is that Iran, representing anti-western muslim powers, wants to control middle-east oil, which would probably result in drastically higher oil prices. The goal of the western powers might be to internationalize middle east oil, but Iran wants to centralize ME oil under muslim control. Russia and mainland China are both supporting Iran with economic and military assistance. The current western strategy might be to get to Iran by using Israel to fight the Hezbollah muslims in Lebanon, drawing Syria into the conflict, and consequently Syria's ally, Iran. But then if the western powers try to hit Iran, R and C might get involved, with the danger of nuclear warfare. Russia and Iran might come from the north to hit Israel and mainland China might come from the east (as prophesied in Revelations). So theology and economics might get mixed, regardless.
I agree with much of what you've said about outsourcing and insourcing (basically cheaper labor from 2nd and 3rd world countries), resulting in cheaper prices for manufactured goods and groceries. However, this has led to massive illegal immigration, loss of manufacturing jobs, farm ownership and maintenance, racial conflicts, and many other problems that Ross Perot was the last politician to talk about. And I agree with you that the international market has greatly benefited the US economy. But in so doing, not only is the sovereignty of the US in jeopardy to a OWG, but the evil morals and witchcraft practices of foreign cults and religions can more easily be integrated into a formerly strong christian nation.
My thought is that the US and Canada are basically anglo-christian countries, pre-destined to be blessed of God, from which christian missionaries could be sent to the whole world to preach a fairly valid message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, so that others could learn of the hope of eternal life through faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior of their lives. With an internationalized mixture, as could happen if the US loses its sovereignty over huge deficits and oil supply, -- the validity of the christian message could be irreparably damaged to a great extent.
John
Posts: 119 | From: Portland, OR | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
ahar
Advanced Member
Member # 5810
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by JohnL:
There might be another alternative to submitting to a OWG, if americans return to true faith in their christian heritage. Return to a domestic-only, non-international policy. The huge reserves of oil shales in Colorado and the oil sands in Alberta, Canada can be extracted. Meanwhile Gulf oil, Alaskan oil, offshore oil, 85% ethanol running on flex engines, etc. could supply oil needs while extraction facilities for Colorado and Alberta oil are being built.
And instead of outsourcing manufacturing jobs, re-establish manufacturing facilities domestically.
Then if countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Taiwan, Nigeria, European countries are jeopardized by insurgents, the american military can be used to defend them in exchange for lowering the US international deficit.
My thought is that much of the international deficit has resulted from the US trying to help other countries establish a viable infrastructure, mainly through technical assistance and education. Now that most countries have sound technical knowledge to sustain their infrastructures, it seems that the US should re-trench and solve domestic resource problems, -- and not fall into the trap of giving up national sovereignty to a OWG.
John [/QB]
I'm always wary of trying to mix theology with economics - the two are not easy bedfellows
I think your underestimating how much the US economy relies on the international markets. It's not really possible any more to just pull up the drawbridge and 'entrench' as you put it without causing severe economic damage. If the US were to 'insource' everything, the prices would rise dramatically. The whole reason for outsourcing is to drive down cost - although this causes short term unemployment the US workforce is (compared to most other nations) very well educated and can easily adapt to obtain other jobs. The 'wealth' of the US relies on the prices of basic necessities being low compared to average income, allow didposable income to be spent on other non-essential goods and service - in effect America is taking advantage of the fact that living standards are lower in other countires to boost its living standard. This is beneficial to not just the US but also to the country that has the oursourced work as more jobs means higher living standards. To 'insource' would cause an economic shock to the country where the work is performed - likely a country where the workforce is not enabled to easily change jobs, thus giving rise to possibly large falls in living standards.
Nopt an expert on how the US has spent the money that it has borrowed, so I don't know if, as you suggest, much of it has gone on foreign aid. However, I do know that in very many cases it has not been through altruism that the US has helped countries build their infrastructure - the investment always pays off with the increased business possible for US countries thanks to the improved infrastructure. Take Iraq for example - the US has spent billions on reconstruction and but for a few notable exceptions (mainly British companies), it has been US companies that have been the recipients of that money. The Government is in effect stimulating domestic demand using public money. Wheteher or not this is a good thing depends on whether you subscribed to the Keynesian view of macroeconomics.
--------------------
Cheers
Andy
Posts: 290 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
|
|
JohnL
Advanced Member
Member # 462
|
posted
This is a link to the possibility of having $4.5 trillion dollars returned to the US treasury, but the Fed is trying to block its return.
http://www.rense.com/general72/wan.htm
[excerpt]
quote:
An agreement was reached June 12 between U.S. authorities and Wanta, the legal trustor of more than 27.5 trillion in lost or stolen U.S. assets from the Cold War era, to return 4.5 trillion of the looted money ..., less money for taxes and other related expenses.
However, the Arctic Beacon, one of the only news outlets in the country covering the hush-hush story, has learned the Federal Reserve Board has acknowledged the Wanta settlement and is now without sufficient public justification, blocking the return of the money which could turn the bewildered American economy around overnight.
[[comment:]]
The Fed, an internationally linked organization, is trying to keep the $4.5 trillion dollars from going back to the US Treasury. I assume the reason is that it would postpone the economic bankruptcy of the US economy for at least a few years, keeping the United Nations and international bankers from taking away US sovereignty and then try to control the US through UN (international) sovereignty and jurisdiction.
This is a link to an attempt to nationalize the Fed, so that the internationally controlled Fed is taken over by the US government, the immediate reason being to get the $4.5 trillion, that the Fed refuses to be put back into the US Treasury.
http://www.rense.com/general72/callfor.htm
[excerpt]
quote:
Christopher Story, Editor of International Currency Review, will today call for the Federal Reserve System to be nationalised. He will make this urgent suggestion on a widely-heard radio talk show hosted by Greg Szymanski in the United States this evening. The Fed should be divested of its foreign shareholdings and placed firmly under the control of the United States, so that America is at last independent, which is not currently the case. A country with a 'central bank' that is mainly owned by foreign interests is, by definition, not independent.
This crisis has come to a head because the Federal Reserve is currently sabotaging and blocking the consummation of a long-planned agreement between inter alia the US Treasury and the distinguished US Secret Service/Treasury financial expert and agent, Leo Wanta. Under an accord with the US authorities and Treasury agreed last November and signed in December, $4.5 trillion which were repatriated in May and June 2006 to fund the long-planned refinancing, are available at Bank of America, Richmond, VA, earmarked for Leo Wanta's financial trading organisation, but have not been credited to his company's account. It is understood that the Fed is blocking the deal - thereby thwarting the will of the US Treasury and arrogantly defying the American people.
John
Posts: 119 | From: Portland, OR | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Mephisto
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by helpforhomeschoolers:
Thomas Jefferson expressed the same idea in 1781 when he opined, ''I tremble for my country when I recall that God is just, and His justice will not sleep forever.''
Contrary to popular misbelief, Thomas Jefferson was an atheist. Thomas Jefferson
IP: Logged |
|
|
JohnL
Advanced Member
Member # 462
|
posted
Helpforhomeschooler wrote:
quote:
As nations begin to choose the euro over the dollar, the U.S. Treasury’s ability to finance the U.S. deficit and pay the interest expense on $8 trillion dollars will become increasingly more difficult. We will be forced to make some very hard choices in order to preserve our economy. Among the possibilities are: substantially raising taxes, making major cuts in spending in all areas (including the military), raising interest rates to whatever levels it takes to enable the U.S. Treasury to continue to fund the deficit, or simply by just printing money to fund the deficit, leading to sustained and possible hyperinflation.
……
To move toward a one-world currency, the world leaders would create and empower a world governing body that would have control over the creation, supply, and distribution of money worldwide. When a nation gives up its control over the printing of its money to someone else, it gives up its sovereignty (e.g., to the Fourth Kingdom described in the book of Daniel?).
There might be another alternative to submitting to a OWG, if americans return to true faith in their christian heritage. Return to a domestic-only, non-international policy. The huge reserves of oil shales in Colorado and the oil sands in Alberta, Canada can be extracted. Meanwhile Gulf oil, Alaskan oil, offshore oil, 85% ethanol running on flex engines, etc. could supply oil needs while extraction facilities for Colorado and Alberta oil are being built.
And instead of outsourcing manufacturing jobs, re-establish manufacturing facilities domestically.
Then if countries like Saudi Arabia, Israel, Taiwan, Nigeria, European countries are jeopardized by insurgents, the american military can be used to defend them in exchange for lowering the US international deficit.
My thought is that much of the international deficit has resulted from the US trying to help other countries establish a viable infrastructure, mainly through technical assistance and education. Now that most countries have sound technical knowledge to sustain their infrastructures, it seems that the US should re-trench and solve domestic resource problems, -- and not fall into the trap of giving up national sovereignty to a OWG.
John
Posts: 119 | From: Portland, OR | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
helpforhomeschoolers
Advanced Member
Member # 15
|
posted
The Twilight’s Last Gleaming?
by Chuck Missler
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where Is America in Biblical Prophecy?
The Lord prophesied that before His return a Fourth Kingdom would arise, often referred to as ''the revived Roman Empire,'' that would crush and rule over all the other kingdoms of the earth (Daniel 7:23). In more common terms, this implies a global, one-world government will someday exercise total sovereignty over virtually all of the people and nations of the earth. This suggests that America will eventually surrender its own national sovereignty and submit to the power, authority, and dominion of the coming Fourth Kingdom. Furthermore, there are many who ask, ''Why hasn’t God judged America?''
Billy Graham’s memorable quip several decades ago pointed out, ''If God doesn’t judge America, He will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!''
Thomas Jefferson expressed the same idea in 1781 when he opined, ''I tremble for my country when I recall that God is just, and His justice will not sleep forever.''
There are, at present, at least four emerging challenges to America: 1) Ezekiel 39:6, which hints at a nuclear exchange; 2) Al Qaeda, with its ''American Hiroshima''; 3) Iran, and its EMP threat; and 4) The collapse of the U.S. economy. It is this last one that is not widely understood.
Bretton Woods and Its Betrayal
The U.S. had positioned itself with this in mind before the war because it was known that America would end up supplying its allies with provisions, weapons, and thousands of other items during WW II, with the only acceptable form of payment being gold. Thus, the U.S. had accumulated a significant portion of the world’s gold by the conclusion of the war.
The Bretton Woods agreement worked well until the guns-and-butter policy of the 1960s was instituted and the money supply was expanded as never before to finance the Vietnam War and Lyndon Johnson’s ''Great Society'' programs.
Crisis and Repudiation
A dollar crisis erupted in 1970-1971 when foreign central banks, who had been flooded with dollars funding U.S. deficits, began to demand payment for their dollars in gold according to the Bretton Woods agreement. The U.S. had printed so many dollars and borrowed so much money from foreign banks that U.S. gold reserves were rendered insufficient (by a ratio of over five to one!), making full payment in gold impossible. The crisis required an immediate solution to save America from default and bankruptcy.
The U.S. resorted to immediately severing the link between the dollar and gold, making it abundantly clear to all its creditors that America would never repay any of the billions of dollars it had borrowed with physical gold, so the depreciating paper dollars were then backed by nothing but the ''reputation'' of the U.S. Government.
The act of severing this link was functionally equivalent to an act of bankruptcy by the U.S. Government. However, because of its economic, political, and military power, no government on earth could oppose this action as they had no viable alternative. They were literally forced to continue accepting depreciating dollars in payment for their goods and services sold to America.
In order to ensure that the world had an economic reason to continue holding dollars, America made an agreement with Saudi Arabia wherein the Saudis would accept only U.S. dollars as payment for their oil. With this move the dollar suddenly became backed by the one commodity every nation had to have to survive: OIL! In order to buy oil one would have to own dollars to pay for it. Even though the dollar could no longer be exchanged for gold, it was now exchangeable for Black Gold: oil.
In exchange for accepting only U.S. dollars, America agreed to support the power and position of the House of Saud and to protect them if they were ever attacked by one of their neighbors. This guarantee was fulfilled when Saddam attacked Kuwait and threatened to attack Saudi Arabia in 1991. In the ensuing years world demand for oil continued to increase, and so did the demand for dollars, forcing foreign governments all over the world to accumulate increasing amounts of dollars in order to purchase their oil. Over time, world markets evolved to the point where other commodities such as wheat, corn, soybeans, natural gas, gold, silver, and many others were all traded in dollars. Thus, the position of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency was firmly established, as was the requirement of foreign central banks to accumulate dollars to pay for all these commodities purchased on the world market.
With this system firmly in place the U.S. could then print and borrow as much money as was needed without regard to any budget discipline whatsoever. As long as the dollar was the only acceptable means of payment for oil, its dominant position as the world’s reserve currency was assured, and America could borrow and spend whatever it wanted without fear of flooding the globe with excess dollars. The supremacy of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency ensured that America could dominate the world economically and politically, and could raise the necessary amount of cash through borrowings to fund (among other things) the military, making it the most formidable military power on earth.
U.S. fiscal discipline during the ’80s and ’90s was lax, but it was nothing compared to what was to take place under the current administration, which has embarked on the largest borrowing spree in the nation’s history. America began to experience larger and larger current account deficits as it spent billions more every month on goods and services than it sold abroad. During 2005, the current trade deficit increased to an annualized $800 billion! Total U.S. outstanding debt now exceeds a staggering $8 trillion dollars, of which a large majority is owed to foreigners.
This staggering mountain of debt poses one of the greatest threats to the economic survival of the United States if circumstances were to arise wherein the dollar was not the only currency that nations could use to pay for their oil. If nations suddenly had a choice as to whether to pay for oil in euros rather than dollars, the supremacy of the American dollar would be seriously threatened, along with its economic viability.
The primary risk for America, should this option become available, would manifest itself in reduced demand for dollars on the global foreign exchange markets, as nations would require fewer and fewer dollars to pay for their oil. Reduced demand for any item implies a lower price down the road, and this dynamic would doubtless result in a depreciating dollar relative to other global currencies. Foreign central banks, needing more euros to buy oil, would seek to denominate ever increasing amounts of their foreign currency reserves in non-dollar currencies.
This in turn would mean that America would find it increasingly more difficult to borrow the $3 billion dollars a day it must have to keep the U.S. economy afloat, pay the interest on $8 trillion dollars in debt, as well as continue to fund its enormous continuing deficit.
Why Did America Really Invade Iraq?
The stated reason by the Bush Administration for invading Iraq was that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction and was prepared to use them against Israel, Iraq’s other neighbors, and possibly America.1 There are some that believe that the real reasons why America invaded Iraq are found in events and policy development that happened before the invasion but which were never revealed to the American public. There are two such reasons suggested:
First, to ensure that the dollar remained unchallenged as the world’s reserve currency, so that the U.S. could continue to fund its massive deficits and sustain its economy and its political and military supremacy. What does the dollar have to do with all of this and how does the invasion of Iraq fit into the picture?
It seems that Saddam sealed his fate in September 2000, when he demanded that all Iraqi oil sold under the U.N. Oil for Food Program must be paid for in euros rather than dollars. Saddam’s actions were a direct threat to the supremacy of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency and the ability of the U.S. to continue to fund its massive deficits. This is born out by the fact that two months after the U.S. invaded Iraq, the Oil for Food program was terminated and all of the Iraqi euro accounts were switched back to dollars. No longer did the world have the option of buying oil from Iraq and paying for it in euros.
Forcing the Iraqi accounts to convert from euros to dollars cost the Iraqis a great deal of money because the dollar had fallen in value relative to the Euro by some 13%! Not surprisingly, this detail has never been prominently mentioned by the five U.S. major media conglomerates who control 90% of information flow in the U.S., but confirmation of this vital fact provides insight into one of the crucial - yet overlooked - rationales for the 2003 Iraq war.
The second possible reason for the Iraq war is hinted at in a 1999 speech given by Dick Cheney while he was still CEO of Halliburton:
By some estimates, there will be an average of two-percent annual growth in global oil demand over the years ahead, along with, conservatively, a three-percent natural decline in production from existing reserves. That means by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional 50 million barrels a day.2
If the Vice President of the United States truly believed, as he stated before becoming Vice President, that world oil production was about to peak and go into decline, would this be sufficient motivation for the U.S. to ensure its economic survival by sending its military to Iraq in order to secure control over the second-largest oil and gas reserves on earth?
Who Opposed the War and Why?
The nations who vehemently opposed the war in Iraq were Russia, Germany, France, and China. The real underlying reason was never spoken of by the press or by the Administration. The reason all these nations opposed the war was because they all had contracts to purchase and develop Iraq’s vast oil and gas reserves. American and British oil giants were excluded by Saddam and left out in the cold. It is significant that, after the U.S. conquered Iraq, most of these contracts and agreements with France, Germany, Russia, and China were cancelled and given to U.S. and British Oil companies. To the victor go the spoils.
Saddam had begun the process of excluding American and British oil and gas corporations from acquiring stakes in Iraq’s bountiful hydrocarbons in the spring of 1997. Relief to Iraqis and restored confidence in the durability of the Saddam regime by the international community had already begun to occur after the UN’s Oil for Food scheme was introduced the previous December.
A consortium of Russian companies, led by the state-owned Lukoil, took a 75 percent share (with the state-owned Iraq National Oil Company taking 25 percent) in a joint corporation to develop the West Qurna oil field in southern Iraq. This oil field holds 11 billion barrels of oil - a third of the total U.S. oil reserves. Then, China National Petroleum Corporation entered the scene and entered into an agreement to develop the Adhab oil field.
China’s lead was followed by Total Societe Anonyme of France (now TotalFinaElf), which agreed to develop Nahr Omar oil field in the south - almost as bountiful a field as the West Qurna. Then Ranger Oil of Canada secured a $250 million contract for field development and exploration in the Western Desert, followed by India’s Oil & Natural Gas Corporation and Reliance Petroleum’s signing of a deal to develop the Tuba oil field.3
Without exception, almost all of the above contracts to develop, transport, and purchase Iraq’s oil were cancelled and declared null and void by the Bush Administration after the war was over. These same contracts were then awarded to British and American oil giants. It is readily apparent that securing control over the development, sale, transportation, and distribution of these oil and gas reserves for America and Britain was undoubtedly one of the primary reasons for the war in Iraq. This was undoubtedly grounded in the recognition that world oil production would peak sometime between 2006 and 2010.
In July 2003, two major oil companies agreed to buy 10 million barrels of Iraqi oil under the first long-term contracts to be offered by Iraq since the end of the war. BP, PLC and Royal Dutch/Shell Group of Cos. each had announced that they expected to ship two million barrels of Basra Light crude per month, starting in August and ending in December. They would load the oil on tankers at Iraq’s Persian Gulf export terminal of Mina al-Bakr. This was a reward for British participation in the invasion and conquering of Iraq.
U.S. Executive Order #13303
The veracity of these actions appear confirmed by executive order. In May 2003, President George Bush issued Executive Order #13303, which stated:
Any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void with respect to all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products and interests therein.
With this executive order the President granted American oil companies, or individuals who are involved in the production, transportation, or distribution of Iraqi oil, a lifetime exemption from any kind of legal action against them in the United States.
''In other words, if Exxon-Mobil or Chevron-Texaco touch Iraqi oil, anything they or anyone else does with it is immune from legal proceedings in the U.S.,'' explained Jim Vallette, an analyst with the Sustainable Energy & Economy Network of the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington D.C.
This action made it impossible for any of the nations who had their contracts nullified by the President to sue to reinstate them because the oil companies to whom they were given are immune from any judicial proceeding against them in the United States! ''Effectively, Bush has unilaterally declared Iraqi oil to be the unassailable province of U.S. and British oil corporations,'' Vallette added.
We can more often judge the true motives of nations and leaders not by what they say, but by what they do. Their actions reveal their true motives, not what they say for public consumption.
The Lifeblood of the American Economy
Oil is the lifeblood of the American economy. The U.S. has approximately 5% of the world’s population but consumes over 20% or more of the world’s daily oil production. What will be the consequences if we are rapidly approaching the time when world oil production peaks and the price of oil continues to skyrocket, choking off economic activity and creating massive unemployment?
With nations like China and India growing exponentially, the demand for oil cannot go anywhere but up. Where will the oil production come from to meet the demand of two nations that possess 2.4 billion people, as they seek to purchase new cars, trucks, tractors, and all of the other products that are petroleum based? Continuously increasing oil prices could at some point cause the U.S. economy to shrink to unimaginable levels. Almost everything we use today in our modern life has petroleum as its base: from plastics to fertilizer to gas for your car - they all utilize petroleum as their base. Food production is almost totally dependent upon fuel and fertilizers that are petroleum based.
Is the world really approaching a time when the price of oil will force the price of food to levels unknown in modern history?
And I heard something like a voice in the center of the four living creatures saying, ''A quart of wheat for a denarius (a days wages), and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not damage the oil and the wine.'' - Revelation 6:6
The IOB (Iranian Oil Bourse) could accelerate the already existent global trend of shifting foreign currency reserves from dollars to euros. ''Countries could begin the process of switching to euro reserves from dollar reserves and this could bring down the value of the U.S. currency. Imports would start to cost Americans a lot more. As countries and businesses convert their dollar assets into euro assets, the U.S. property bubble would, without doubt, burst.''4
If oil trades in euros, it is only a matter of time before wheat, soybeans, natural gas, gold, silver, copper, and all of the other major commodities will come to be traded in euros as well. Nations want to protect their own interests, and no nation wants to have its reserves denominated in a currency that is depreciating, but rather in one that is appreciating, or is at least stable.
As nations begin to choose the euro over the dollar, the U.S. Treasury’s ability to finance the U.S. deficit and pay the interest expense on $8 trillion dollars will become increasingly more difficult. We will be forced to make some very hard choices in order to preserve our economy. Among the possibilities are: substantially raising taxes, making major cuts in spending in all areas (including the military), raising interest rates to whatever levels it takes to enable the U.S. Treasury to continue to fund the deficit, or simply by just printing money to fund the deficit, leading to sustained and possible hyperinflation.
These coming events could portend horrific economic consequences for the U.S. economy and for the lifestyle we have come to know and expect.
If this scenario begins to unfold, individuals who have excessive mortgage and credit card debt, or who have loans - personal or business - that float with the prime rate, will have to pay ever increasing interest rates, which at some point leads to massive defaults and bankruptcies. It appears that there could be substantial economic dislocations in America, probably leading to unemployment levels unknown in modern times, which would undoubtedly bring on severe financial distress for millions of Americans. The lifestyle we have enjoyed and have become accustomed to could change dramatically in the coming years.
The Missing Report Card
There is a new Chairman of the Federal Reserve System - regarded by many as the most powerful non-elected official in the world: Ben Benanke. (Under Greenspan’s 18-year tenure, the U.S. dollar’s value was cut in half.) It will be important to watch how he deals with the forthcoming debt dilemmas.
Until 1971 the Federal Reserve System, also known as ''the Fed,'' defined the money supply as equal to the sum of currency in circulation (excluding bank vault cash) and demand deposits (checking accounts). This definition of the money supply ignored saving accounts and time deposits (accounts that earned interest but could not be withdrawn without penalty until they matured). Monetary authorities and economists became concerned that estimates of monetary growth could be misleading if those estimates ignored savings accounts and time deposits.
In 1971 the Federal Reserve began publishing measures of broader monetary supplies. The monetary aggregates were given the names M1, M2, and M3. M1 was comparable to the original money supply measure - that is, currency in circulation and demand deposits. M2 equaled M1 plus accounts such as savings accounts and small time deposits. M3 was an even broader measure, adding in larger time deposits. M3 is, in effect, a primary report card on the Fed and the control of inflation.
However, effective March 23, 2006, the M3 will now no longer be reported!
It is also significant to note that turnover has been continuing at the top posts of the Federal Reserve: Fed Vice Chairman, Roger Ferguson unexpectedly announced he was stepping down. This on the heels of the resignation of the Philadelphia Fed Regional Bank President Anthony Santomero, which followed resignations of two of the seven Fed Governor spots and six of the twelve Fed Regional Bank President posts over the preceding two years.
What do they see coming?
One World Currency
How could America, and the nations of the world, lose their sovereignty without a shot being fired? Can you imagine the panic that will take place in the markets of the world if the dollar crashes? With 70% of the worlds reserves held in dollars, nations may watch helplessly as their currency reserves evaporate as the value of the dollar plummets. Realize that the U.S. is now the world’s largest debtor. And the Bible cautions us, ''The borrower is servant to the lender.''5
One solution to the forthcoming ''dollar crisis'' could be the creation of a ''one world currency,'' prophesied in the Bible. The leaders of the world will seek to establish a one-world currency. (Already we hear talk, in the hallways of the Bank of International Settlements, of an ''Amero,'' a unified currency for North America.)
To move toward a one-world currency, the world leaders would create and empower a world governing body that would have control over the creation, supply, and distribution of money worldwide. When a nation gives up its control over the printing of its money to someone else, it gives up its sovereignty (e.g., to the Fourth Kingdom described in the book of Daniel?).
The fourth beast shall be the fourth kingdom upon earth, which shall be diverse from all kingdoms, and shall devour the whole earth, and shall tread it down, and break it in pieces. - Daniel 7:23
Posts: 4684 | From: Southern Black Hills of South Dakota | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
