The Balfour Agreement, the major decline of the British Empire, British Petroleum (BP), Valdez, Horizon and their Israel connections - Bill Koenig
The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, the Balfour Agreement and the British Empire
The Anglo-Persian oil company, that became British Petroleum in 1954, pressured the British government and the League of Nations to back off their commitment to the Balfour agreement; thus, Israel received approximately twelve percent of the land intended for them.
At the time of the Balfour Agreement (1917), at the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous territories.
The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom, that had originated with the overseas colonies and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power. By 1922, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, one-quarter of the world's population at the time, and covered more than 13,000,000 square miles (33,670,000 km2): approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area. As a result, its political, linguistic and cultural legacy is widespread. (Reference Wikipedia)
On September 11, 1922, the British government presented a memorandum to the League of Nations stating that Transjordan would be excluded from all provisions of dealing with the Jewish settlement. From that point forward, Britain recognized the land west of the Jordan as Palestine (which was 23 percent of the entire territory), and the land of east of the Jordan River as Transjordan (constituting 73 percent of the mandated territories). In 1923 Britain transferred a part of the Golan Heights to the French Mandate of Syria, in exchange for the Metula region.
Important to many Jews was the permission to settle in the British-controlled Mandate of Palestine.In order to try to maintain peace between the Jewish and Arab populations, especially after the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine of the 1930s, Britain strictly limited immigration. This limitation became nearly absolute after the White Paper of 1939 all but stopped legal immigration. During the War, Zionists organized an illegal immigration effort, conducted by "Hamossad Le'aliyah Bet" (the precursor of the Mossad) that rescued tens of thousands of European Jews from the Nazis by shipping them to Palestine in rickety boats. Many of these boats were intercepted and some sank with great loss of life. The efforts began in 1939, and the last immigrant boat to try to enter Palestine before the end of the war was the Struma, torpedoed in the Black Sea by a Soviet submarine in February 1942. The boat sank with the loss of nearly 800 lives. (Reference Wikipedia)
The British Empire's days were numbered, and on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were available to transfer power to, in contrast to other European powers like France or Portugal, which waged costly and ultimately unsuccessful wars to keep their empires intact. Between 1945 and 1965, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong. (Reference Wikipedia)
The Exxon Valdez and the Israel connection
The Exxon Valdez accident happened less than 48 hours after President George H.W. Bush and Secretary of State James Baker's staff opened talks with the Palestinians on March 22, 1989. The Valdez problem began to develop late in the night of March 23 with the first spill at 12:05 a.m. on March 24.
On March 21, 1989: U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker concludes that Israel may have to negotiate directly with the PLO
Secretary of State James A. Baker III, attempting to soften the impact of his conclusion that Israel eventually may have to negotiate directly with the Palestine Liberation Organization, Tuesday reaffirmed the Bush Administration's opposition to the creation of an independent Palestinian state.
"It is the policy of the United States that we do not support an independent Palestinian state," Baker told a House panel. His statement was intended to reassure Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who has vowed that his government will never relinquish control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip territories that Israel occupied during the Arab-Israeli war of 1967. (Los Angeles Times)
March 22, 1989: Palestine Liberation Organization today rejected a halt in the violent
After its first formal contact with the Bush Administration, the Palestine Liberation Organization today rejected a halt in the violent uprising in the Israeli-occupied territories to encourage peace negotiations.
The move was a rebuff to the approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict outlined by Secretary of State James A. Baker 3d, who has sought to encourage a reduction of violence and tension and bring about direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. (Reuters)
March 23, 1989: Arafat said that the second formal meeting between U.S. and PLO representatives was positive
Yasser Arafat said today that the second formal meeting between U.S. and PLO representatives was positive and reflected the desire of both sides to make the dialogue a success.
To a reporter who asked the smiling chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization whether Wednesday's meeting was responsible for his good mood, Arafat replied: "Yes, exactly."
He described the content of the meeting between U.S. Ambassador Robert H. Pelletreau and Yasser Abed-Rabbo of the PLO Executive Committee as "positive and serious," but gave few details of the discussion.
"There is a mutual interest and intention to lead this dialogue to success," Arafat said. (Associated Press)
Pelletreau and Abed-Rabbo met for 4 1/2 hours at the Tunisian government's Dar el Maghreibia guest house, with two senior advisers present on each side. The ambassador would not talk about the meeting and referred all inquiries to the State Department. (New York Times)
March 23, 1989: Jewish Leaders Avoid Comment on Peace Talks:
Jewish leaders from around the world issued a general statement of support for Israel on Wednesday but skirted the increasingly contentious issue of the shape of future Middle East peace talks.
The final proclamation, the fruit of a three-day solidarity conference here attended by about 1,500 delegates, kept to tried and true themes.
March 23-24, 1989: Exxon Valdez Accident
Exxon Valdez left the Valdez oil terminal in Alaska at 9:13 pm on March 23, 1989 bound for Long Beach, California. A harbor pilot guided the ship through the Valdez Narrows before leaving the ship and returning control to Joseph Jeffrey Hazelwood, the ship's master. The ship maneuvered out of the shipping lane to avoid icebergs. Following the maneuver and sometime after 11 pm, he left Third Mate Gregory Cousins in charge of the wheel house and Able Seaman Robert Kagan at the helm, both of whom had not been given their mandatory 6 hours off duty before their 12-hour duty began. The ship was on autopilot, using the navigation system installed by the company that constructed the ship. The outbound shipping lane was covered with icebergs so the ship's captain, Hazelwood, got permission from the Coast Guard to go out through the inbound lane. The ship struck Bligh Reef at around 12:04 am March 24, 1989.
Beginning three days after the vessel grounded (March 27), a storm pushed large quantities of fresh oil on to the rocky shores of many of the beaches in the Knight Island chain.
The result was the largest oil spill in US history: 11 million gallons covering 11,000 square miles, including 1,300 miles of pristine shoreline. The spill devastated the local economy as well as the environment. Estimated losses in the sport fishing industry alone were almost $600 million over the two years following the accident. Within days an estimated 250,000 seabirds perished, along with thousands of otters and seals. Despite billions of dollars in cleanup, the environmental effects of the spill still linger. Much of the oil seeped below the surface of affected beaches, decaying at a rate of about three to four percent per year. Animals that dig in the sand for their food continue to be contaminated. (Wikipedia)
British Petroleum's (BP) Horizon Oil Spill Began on April 20
BP's Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico began on April 20 — at the very time Obama's team was pressuring Israel to restart talks. BP and the U.S. are still working to contain the oil spill, which is expected to be larger in size than Exxon Valdez.
The two largest oil spills in U.S. history corresponded to U.S. actions on Israel's covenant land and talks with the Palestinians. The spills have and will cause America to forgo more offshore exploration and become even more reliant on rogue nations for oil.
from Worldwatchdaily
This was send to me from a friend of mine. Just as I mentioned before what my thoughts are on the Gulf Oil Spill, this confirms it quite nicely. If not only abandon but conspire against G-d's "apple of his eye" you will seek the Almighty's wrath. Now for some this may be too simple minded and can be explained away with a number of reasons. But remember, as valid as these reasons are they haven't caused a problem all these years. But just a Katrina formed as a tropical storm, not 24 hours later after the last Jewish settler got kicked out of Gaza and Samaria, this also followed straight on the heel of Obama's pressure to restart talks between Israel and the Arabs. Sorry, I'm disinclined to use the term Palestinian since there is no such people group.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a very long read but it's worthwhile. I even brought this up to my pastor and a person he was talking with. When they talked about not understanding why things are the way they are, I said that it's done by device. We teach our kids "multiculturalism" and "political correctness" to the point where they do not know right from wrong and are puzzled if we takel issues like "same sex marriage" or euthanasia, abortion and many other issues that are based on Judeo-Christian principle. Our children are taught to be "global citizens," not to excel in order to become whatever they dream off. It is way easier to control mindless people than those that have moral convictions.
Breakup Of U.S. Is Inevitable
By Chuck Baldwin
May 19, 2010
This column is archived at
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=1592
People all over America are discussing freedom's future. In short, they are worried. In fact, many are actually talking about State secession. In coffee shops and cafes, and around dining room tables, millions of people are speaking favorably of states breaking away from the union. Not since the turn of the twentieth century have this many people thought (and spoken) this favorably about the prospect of a State (or group of states) exiting the union. In my mind, this is a good thing.
Even many of those who oppose the prospect of secession understand the increasing tyrannical nature of the current central government in Washington, D.C., and that something must be done about it.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines tyranny as "1: oppressive power . . . 2: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler . . . 3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force . . . 4: a tyrannical act."
Even a casual observer would have to conclude that most of the actions proceeding forth from DC today match at least Webster's 1st and 3rd definitions of tyranny. Besides, who would argue the advantage of the tyranny of an oligarchy over the tyranny of a monarchy? A tyranny of many cannot be distinguished from a tyranny of one in most cases--especially not by those poor souls who are at the point of the spear of Government's cruelties.
The fact is, there is collusion between Big Government and Big Business (as each feeds and profits off the other) to strip the American people of their God-given liberties. Without a shadow of a doubt, had America's Founding Fathers not sagaciously cemented the Second Amendment into the US Constitution, the Jackboots would have marched over us years ago.
That freedom-loving people are reaching a point of frustration--and even fury--is quite understandable. And State secession is, very properly, the last best option for freedomists to maintain fidelity to the principles of liberty. All of America's founders understood this--all of them! And millions of modern-day American patriots are just now beginning to become reacquainted with this great, historic doctrine.
However, whether one subscribes to the doctrine of secession or not is quite immaterial. The breakup of the US is inevitable! Short of another Great Awakening, nothing can stop it. And given the spiritual deadness of most American churches these days, the prospect of a modern-day national revival seems remote at best.
It is a historical fact that no empire can sustain itself. And America is more and more becoming a global empire. For the sake of simplicity, I ask readers to ponder this question: How can one sustain a global economy without global government to manage and control it? Answer: One can't.
This is why elitists in politics, economics, and the military have been calling for global government for decades. People such as George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Walter Cronkite, Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Gideon Rachman, Warren Christopher, Walt Rostow, Richard Gardner, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Pastor, et al. Furthermore, organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), the Bilderbergers, and the Trilateral Commission are constantly promoting regional or global unification. Moreover, institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and, of course, the United Nations (UN) all contribute to the escalation of globalism.
I have written two previous columns outlining much relevant information on this very real promotion of globalism. See them at:
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=84
http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?p=86
Therefore, it is safe to say that, for the most part, America's foreign policy is (and has been) controlled and manipulated by globalists.
Accordingly, America's armed forces are used more and more as international policemen to patrol the streets of the world on behalf of this international cabal of merchants and politicians. The cover for this is the mantra of fighting an international "war on terrorism." But the real agenda is, keeping our troops fighting in perpetual war so that they might be available to the globalists at the UN and US State Department (not to mention countless "off the books" operations being run by the CIA and a host of other agencies) for the purpose of maintaining the "global economy" (and only God knows how many illegal enterprises).
Perpetual war also allows the Machiavellians who desire to turn America into a police state to increasingly encroach upon constitutionally protected liberties by keeping the populace in a perpetual state of fear. After all, as long as our troops are "over there" fighting (and making) enemies, we will always need Big Brother to keep us safe "over here." And the only way he can do that is by putting us all in cages; but hey, it's for our own good, right?
And, of course, this new "global force for good" must itself be reshaped into an image compatible with the political correctness of the New World Order. Hence, more and more women are being placed in combat units. In fact, females are now the fastest growing group of enlistees within the US armed forces. And for the first time in US history, women are now approved to serve aboard submarines. (I am sure submariners' wives are thrilled about
this!)
"How does flooding the US military with women fit into the scheme of the globalists?" you ask. Simple. By reducing the overall efficiency and effectiveness of our military forces, it requires them to be part of a "coalition" force. Come on, folks, figure it out: our troops are always part of some sort of global "coalition" army. They always serve in concert with NATO, or the UN, or at the behest of some other global entity.
And please, I don't need readers to write me with great indignation, calling me "sexist." Get real! If women can serve in combat equally with men, why not have an all-female combat infantry division? How about an all-female tank division? Let's have an all-female Navy warship! What about an all-female Navy SEAL team or Army Special Forces team? If, then, women are inefficient in combat as a unit, they are equally inefficient in combat individually. Wise up, people! It is critical to the globalists controlling Washington politics that our military be integrated with foreign entities.
Allowing the weaker vessels to dilute the warrior-strength of our combat units helps to accomplish this in spades!
Folks, this new American empire is not sustainable. Mark it down: the American empire will follow every other notable empire of antiquity and collapse under its own weight. The signs are already ubiquitous.
In its attempt to entice illegal aliens (a necessary component to the globalization of America) by providing them with almost complete and universal welfare benefits, the Empire has saddled the states with a monstrous debt and has planted the seeds for its own fragmentation.
The American Southwest is a boiling caldron. Revolutionaries, violent criminal gangs, agitators, drug runners, human traffickers, and agent provocateurs--all loyal to Mexico--have been allowed to freely unleash their anti-American vitriol to the point that, in desperation, the State of Arizona is now trying to fight back. It is probably too little too late, however. Both the central government in Washington, D.C., and the national news media are sympathetic to the cause of La Raza. Look at how those brave legislators and governor in Arizona have been lampooned by the national press corps.
The call for the "reconquista" of America's great Southwest will continue to escalate. It is all part of the globalists' plan to regionalize the United States. The template is already in place. CFR's Robert Pastor has already done the legwork. The North American Community (or Union) is past the drawing table stage; it is now being implemented. The NAFTA superhighway is being built and La Raza has been unleashed on the frontier. It's only a matter of time.
Furthermore, take a look at the staggering debt that this government in Washington, D.C., has burdened the American people with. To talk numbers is
meaningless: they total more than we can possibly begin to fathom. These numbers shock sensibilities and strain comprehension. In this regard, toss away all notions of partisan politics. Both major parties in DC have forever plunged our children and grandchildren's future into a chasm of indebtedness so deep that it can never be recovered. Never!
Yet again, perpetual war has accomplished its purpose: unmitigated debt has allowed international bankers to print and loan vast sums of paper money that can be used to further their dreams of a global economy, complete with a mutually palatable system of burgeoning global governance.
I say again, the American empire is not sustainable; the breakup of the United States is inevitable. It is only a matter of time. The real question is not IF the US will breakup, but WHEN and HOW?
Globalists are already planning America's breakup. Indeed, their plans for the future global economy DEMAND that America fracture. So, all of those who want to parade around and pontificate about the "unconstitutionality" and "impracticality" of secession can do so to their hearts' content. It changes nothing. The breakup is coming.
What is yet to be seen, of course, is if there will be enough states (the last vanguards of liberty) with the foresight to recognize the rise of tyranny and globalism as it approaches, and muster the courage and fortitude to do what principled patriots and lovers of liberty have always done: draw their line in the sand for freedom. Call it what you will; debate the definitions and language all you like; it all comes down to the same thing:
either men fight for freedom and independence or they allow themselves and their children to be sold into slavery. At some point in the future (how far in the future, no one knows), we Americans will, once again, have to face that decision.
In the meantime, keep talking about freedom around your coffee tables; keep writing about freedom in your books and columns; keep praying about freedom in your churches and closets; keep dreaming about freedom in your hearts and minds. Real freedom--where a man can be left alone; where a man can keep what he earns; where a man can make his own choices; where a man's property is his own; where harassing agents of an oppressive central government are nowhere to be found; where a man doesn't have to sell his soul in order to sell his wares; where a man's worship of God is not subject to political correctness (or the IRS); and where a man can actually exchange commerce and correspondence without the prying eyes of Big Brother--is worth any price.
ANY PRICE!
As Barry Goldwater said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."
Amen! And if the pursuit of freedom requires the extremism of secession, I say, LET IT COME!
No comments:
Post a Comment