Tags, 상세검색
응답: PJ#026, COUNTERFEIT BLESSINGS THE ANTI-CHRIST
PJ 26CHAPTER 1REC #1 HATONNWEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1991 9:07 A.M. YEAR 4, DAY 202In the pickle pot, in a dilemma, in a mess, in confusion and muddling through the first skirmish of the "Mother of all Wars"! You are in a deflationary depression regardless of what your Earth brother broker will tell you. No? Oh I see, your "inflationary" EXPERTS say it has to be inflationary? Why? Undoubtedly the prices of some things will continue to climb for a while--but you must look to the banking/Federal Reserve wisp for your clues.
WHERE ARE WE?
The Fed must initially make reserves available to the banking system. The Fed does this mostly by buying government paper assets--treasury bills, notes, and bonds from the banking system and crediting their accounts accordingly. Then, in your fractional reserve system, the banks can make new loans and create new deposits for their customers up to several times their new reserves. It is, in reality, a legalized confidence game (scam). As long as the banks are willing to make loans, the Fed can expand deposits and currency and, hence, debt, and also the purchasing (spending) rate. The Fed has nightmares, however; what if the banks run out of "credit-worthy" borrowers and refuse to use the reserves that the Fed makes available to them to make new loans?
The Fed is locked into this continuing credit expansion. It cannot stop. If ever bank lending slows, then the game is over and a scramble for liquidity begins. Banks and thrifts and other creditors will rush to salvage what they can from their nonperforming loan portfolios. Remember, if debts are not repaid by the borrowers, the creditors will rush to salvage what they can from their nonperforming loan portfolios.
This is debunked by the "inflationists" by saying that the Fed can always create more and more and more money--and I have told you that they can do this, as well as telling you that there is ONLY credit--no MONEY. So far, then, the argument holds up--BUT they somehow fail to understand the essential second step in the credit expansion process, namely that the banks must use the reserves created by the Fed to make new loans. If they don't, then the Fed is merely pushing on a string--a wet one at that--and is helpless to continue the expansion. The Fed found itself in this precise mess in the 1930's. Banks had huge excess reserves but refused to use them to make loans. The banks were scared to death to make new loans. After all, you lost some 40%--some 10,000 of your 25,000 banks! This was between 1930 and the "bank closings" under Roosevelt in 1933. The banks were petrified they were so scared. The economic climate of the 1930's was highly uncertain. You still had some 9 million people out of work by 1939 and your population ratio had a much more pronounced percentage of unemployed--that was about 17-18 percent of the work force. Therefore, it required over a decade to pull you out of the depression and required a war, in addition. World War II saved the "bacon" by allowing banks to have enough confidence to make loans related to war materiel. These, further, were secured by government spending--it is a spiral that eventually gets totally out of control.
DEMISE OF GOLD STANDARDYou must remember, as we discuss this situation of then vs. now, that the BIG difference was the demise of the gold standard. The main constraint on credit expansion in today's circumstance is high interest rates. You are going to see the credit expansion stretched to the outer limits of this interest constraint and, as with a rubber-band, it will reach its capacity to stretch and snap.
Don't be misled by the prattling or the little perturbations and ups and downs as things fluctuate. Remember that all existing commercial loans and now over 50% of home mortgages have VARIABLE interest rates. As rates rise, many companies and individuals will simply not be able to meet the increases because their profits and salaries will not keep pace with the rising burden. This, in turn is referred to as a liquidity squeeze.
Two items should be watched with the microscope and be prepared to move rapidly. One is called Total Fed Credit and the other is Total Reserves.
Total Fed Credit is essentially the Fed's total assets on paper. These are mostly securities purchased by the Fed and are an accurate measure of Fed Credit Expansion. The total now is somewhere around $263 Billion. That is a mammoth number. The Fed is locked into creating even MORE reserves for the banking system.
Are the banks using these reserves to make new loans? Well now, you have to turn and look at the total reserves, which are liabilities of the Fed. Total reserves are mostly deposits at the Fed that banks are required to keep against their standing loan levels. If total reserves are rising, then bank loans are expanding. There was a sharp rise in total reserves beginning back in February of 1985, for instance, just at the point where the dollar turned WEAK AND GOLD BEGAN TO RISE. Then in 1987, total reserves leveled off at around $60 Billion and have remained at about that level since. This is evidence, friends, that bank loans are NO LONGER EXPANDING, AND THE CREDIT EXPANSION PROCESS HAS PEAKED.
IS THE FED ALL-POWERFUL?Pretty nearly--but as with all things--there are flaws and holes. The Fed can control its assets but not its liabilities. It can buy all the government securities it wants, to create reserves for the banks, but it can not control either the demand for currency in circulation or bank loans. People decide on how many reserve bank notes they want to carry around, and banks themselves decide on whether or not to make new loans. So when you hear people say "the government will never permit another deflationary depression", they simply don't recognize the facts nor how important those constraints are on the power of the Fed. In short, without other intervention of some kind from the Powers that Be, the Fed would be powerless to stop a deflationary collapse once it starts the snowball course.
Once a "run on the dollar" begins, people of the world over will scramble to get rid of dollars and return to their own currency. You know that foreigners hold hundreds of billions of dollar assets in the U.S. A drop in the stock, bond, or real estate markets would easily trigger a flight from these assets--AND IT NOW UNDER WAY!!
PULLING OUTWhile you have been distracted by contracted manipulations in Desert
Shield/Storm, flag waving and killing, another storm with greater "lone-term" consequence rages out of control within our own borders--unspoken of on the controlled media and the hype goes on a nauseam.
Money funds are Pulling out of CD's and dumping bank commercial paper. Foreign investors are letting their U.S. CD's expire. Depositors with multiple accounts of $100,000 fear they will soon be limited to a total of $100,000 in insurance at best. So they are beginning to pull their money out.
The mass withdrawals from the Bank of New England, the largest in recent memory, left the authorities so shocked that they decided to do something they had hoped would NEVER BE NEEDED AGAIN--PAY OFF ALL UNINSURED DEPOSITORS IN FULL--you see, they had some "very important" investors. Further, this was supposed to inspire confidence in the banking system--but it has continued its slump anyhow and, like a landslide, it will zip downward.
What you may not realize however, is that when they say that the recession will be over by mid-year, they may very well mean it--again, to suck you in for they can print enough new money to stall this thing until the Elite are safely into gold--(OUT OF THE NATION). Surprise: the reason the Bush son is set up in Bahrain is to receive and stash gold bought without going through the banking system and keep the dealings out of the U.S. as far as public "eye" is concerned. This is a rigged deal set up and orchestrated with private contracts between George Bush and the "Royal" Sabahs of Kuwait.
Now are you really surprised to learn that the agreements were drawn, orchestrated and the outcome set prior to this little fiasco in the Middle East? Sic, Sic. Even I told you over and over again. Moreover, look at the oil wells burning--isn't that just a real sight? Don't you just drool in horror at all that black smoke and pollution? They tell you "5-6 years to get those oil fires out!" That is the biggest lie thus far--they set at least half those fires and, yes, Saddam's group set the rest. However, just as they started them with napalm--they can as quickly extinguish them with one air/fuel explosion at each site--through "smart weapons". You see, it requires oxygen to allow burning. Fuel/air explosives use all the oxygen and when the explosion is over so would be the fire.
SO WHAT DO WE DO?Well if you are a personal friend of the Sabah's or George Bush, I would suggest you put your millions into "underground", unreported gold and get it into something of security placement in Bahrain. If you don't know them or don't have enough assets to do such--then you need to be awfully careful. If you horde gold in bullion or extensive stashes in banks it will simply be confiscated--and the foreigners know it. However, "...you scratch my back, George, and I'll set you up, friend"--says Mr. Sabah.
I can only give you information about that which IS and that which is planned--and they plan to get all the assets; that is the plan for world domination, my brothers. There is a big brick wall at the end of every maze tunnel.
Then you say, "I'll just get a lot of cash, then and bury it!" Good idea, except it will be worthless--that, too, is well planned.
They may or may not pull $50's and $100's prior to exchange of currency--but it looks more and more like probably NOT. Why? Because the ones they have set up to pretend to trap are now predominantly utilizing $20's and $10's. You can be prepared within the week for Mr. Bush to again turn his attention to the major drug problem and increase in crime and murders--and make a play for the guns. All the while he will have his henchmen arranging for his assets to be turned into gold and moved out of the country--along with all those other Elite Cartel "advisors" and "buddies".
The next few serious moves along those lines will have to be subtle indeed, for Clifford Clark's and the Arab's bank, Bank of Credit and Commerce International, is now found to be the world's major money laundering facility and is in direct working relationship, with Clark's bank, First American....etc. That will hit the public eye so maneuvers must be very, very subtle here for a while while banks are being absorbed into other banks and then into the Central Bank--where none of the Elite want their assets to be captured. This is a REAL game of charades where the "little guy" is "had".
Let me give you a hint, if you think you can stash a little gold privately--get circulated coins and pay the premium--not that this is necessarily a great way to go--BUT IT IS THE WAY THE MAJOR FEDERAL RESERVE BOARD MEMBERS ARE DOING IT!! Of course, they have inside pull in the ability to cash them in LATER. The other way they are covering assets is to use gold as collateral and take money which they then put into private projects, etc, hoping the collateral will Hold Safe. And with "them" using the tool, it will last as long or longer than any other approach.
Depending on how much you have to lose or invest--get adequate corporations set up in Nevada and get diversified and the money, gold and everything OUT of your personal name.
You ones want the magic of perfection so you win, win and make money. Well, this way there is the possibility. Setting firmly atop your stack of money either in paper or notes will surely cost you the assets. You either move with the security of the paths the Elite take or your assets will fall to them for this plan has been laid against this day for eons.
To get your verification just look at the banks and what they are doing; let me spell out a bit of it for you. Let us move on from Bank of New England and the Harlem Bank where they DID NOT bail it out as with the Bank of New England, and look at another situation or two for relative evaluation.
You know now about bank holidays, etc., as in Rhode Island. The banking collapse in New Hampshire is underway and the large majority of the money-center banks, including Chase, Chemical and even Morgan Guaranty, have less than five percent (5%) in capital per dollar of assets. Another decline of 1 percentage point in this key indicator will cause them to fall below the bare bones capital levels needed to survive a more severe recession--and that is exactly the way it is planned--so that all assets of property and credit eventually end up in the ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT--ONE WORLD CURRENCY/BANKING CARTEL. These major banks are all working to ether to make sure this happens--it is not an accident, brothers.
But watch the events of the great front page item, the most shocking of all to depositors and regulators alike--the crisis at Citicorp. Although Citicorp is not necessarily the weakest of the New York banks, it is certainly the largest among those which are in grave danger of total disaster. Citicorp is laying off a big bunch of employees and depositors are starting to tremble.
Citibank is Citicorp's main subsidiary and it has significantly more capital, as a percent of assets, than Bank of New England had in its final months: some 4.8% vs. 0.8%. It is NOT enough to survive more than a very slight recession. Citicorp is already buried in spoiled, worthless real estate loans.
Here is where you get your clue as to the intent vs. the "accidentally being caught" picture. Once it became obvious that real estate values were collapsing, you would think Citicorp would have cut back sharply, especially in the high-risk areas. Instead, in 1990, the bank lent over $12 billion to developers for commercial real estate projects--more than six times the amount loaned in 1980--and the highest for the past decade. Rotten apples somewhere in the barrel, perhaps?
The vacancy rates zoomed upward, loan payments to Citicorp became indeed sparse. Property values dropped, sinking below the amount that the holding company, as well as other banks, lent to developers.
However, the pain and agony does not stop there. Citicorp carries a delinquency rate on residential mortgages five times as high as the national average. They have other problems, too, as other customer loan delinquencies are also HUGE. Until recently, Citicorp management--from Wriston to Reed--thought that it could protect the bank from the ravages of big loan defaults by leaning heavily toward the consumer loan business. "Safety in numbers" was their motto, based on the assumption that large numbers of small consumers would not default. They were WRONG. Their loan defaults are mind-blowing and surging. There is no way to stop the thing--there is only knowing that it IS coming and gauge your activities accordingly.
Look at that which you have in just this ONE bank: There is no other bank large enough to buy Citibank; the resources for a government bailout, which were abundantly available in the mid-1980's, are now gone; the economy, rather than enjoying a prolonged boom, is now plunging, and, most important, even if money could be created on the "printing presses", the resulting bulge in the federal deficits would torpedo the bond market, dragging down the government itself right along with it.
Some think the FDIC can pull a trick off--forget it. Others believe the Treasury Department will come on the white horse. That is what happened in December when the Bank of New England went under and it was decided to cover all losses. At that time the Treasury made a $1 BILLION cash injection directly but it was simply a gamble that has proven to have failed. The extra $1 BILLION didn't stop the run. It did not prevent the failure. All it did was increase the size of the federal deficit (for you-the-people). If the Treasury tried to do the same for all large banks in trouble, the surging federal deficit would sink the bond markets.
That leaves only one group to pay for the big losses at the banks--the depositors! No matter how shocking this may be, it is an event that is dead ahead. It is going to be a total financial shock. Brothers, check it out and if your deposits are in a sick bank that cannot be restored to financial health, you will lose: Direct access to your funds before and after a bank holiday; all or most of the interest income over the next several years and, at minimum, as much as 50% of your principal at the very best.
Remember that Rhode Island "bank holiday" the Governor ordered? The order closed the state-charted banks and credit unions--on January 2. There were over 300,000 accounts involved. BUT, BUT, BUT--with all but 14 institutions open again for business, there are still 300,000 accounts frozen! What happened was that the original estimate was grossly understated--as with all bad news as it hits you the public--slow poison so you don't know right off that you are dead.
Two months later--these depositors are still locked out of their money. Under the current "proposal" from the governor's office, the best they can hope for is non-interest bearing script which will mature in four years.
What if you are one of the ones stuck in such a situation--in any state, for it is coming to ALL--with all this "funny" non-money. All you can do is do without or hope you can find someone who will take it off your hands and a good estimate of exchange value would be a HIGH of 15-20 cents per dollar.
Hold your breath now, for you are going to be able to evaluate how bad it might be for you in similar circumstances if you do not reside in Rhode Island. The private Rhode Island insurance fund had MORE BACKING PER $100 OF INSURED DEPOSITS THAN THE FDIC! And, it is true that the FDIC has the backing of the Treasury--however, the Treasury Department itself will run out of funds because of the declining investors. The Treasury's only option will come to be to abandon the banks and abort any on-going rescue operations. There is nothing I can do for you, friends, except lay it before you and possibly urge you, again, to find out about both investments using gold as collateral and utilize corporations properly. I do not have time to go through this again and again--if you have interest in sonic measure of protection--see if you can get help through America West. I simply have no "human" means to tend each of your investments nor plan of salvation.
WHAT ABOUT THAT MONEY EXCHANGE?The Fort Worth branch of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing has been printing up a storm. They printed up all the exchange currency for the Soviets and are now working around the clock on "anti-counterfeiting" notes with all this microprinting, etc. Be prepared, for when they "introduce" this mess of confusion upon you it can go in a myriad directions but you can be sure you will lose in the deal.
It will be sudden and, just as with the Soviets, there will be LOW--HIGH-LIMITS. There will probably be a 10 for one ratio in exchange. You will have piles of papers to fill out and if you try to exchange too much cash beyond that which you would have from, say, three pay periods--you will forfeit a bunch. If you have big bills you will be held responsible and if "THEY" decide you might have garnered the funds illicitly--they will confiscate it. You will definitely be asked to come up with documentation of WHY you hold cash in large amounts--and yet, if you fail to exchange it, the old will be like the confederate money--WORTHLESS. IT IS ALREADY WORTHLESS FOR A BILL REPRESENTS ONLY A CREDIT NOTE AND NOT MONEY AT ALL.
You think it can't happen? Yugoslavia is having a 10,000 to one currency devaluation effective 1991. France will replace the 20 franc note (about $4 U.S.) with a new coin in 1992. The British Royal Mint has been minting Iraq's circulating coins for several years, including 1990.
And watch out because the IRS has acknowledged that electronically transmitted returns are NOT PROCESSED THROUGH IRS'S NORMAL PROCESSING PIPELINE, WHICH INCLUDES GRADING AND SCORING FOR AUDIT POTENTIAL--INSTANTLY. In fact, you only have nine states where you can file electronically with returns that have "balances due" this year. All taxpayers that are due a refund, however, can file electronically, regardless of his/her state. Good luck!
THE ORDER!I am going to leave this subject as such and turn to "THE ORDER". You just experienced how the "ORDER" creates war and revolution. Now it is important that you listen to me for this is important to your confirmation of fact.
President George Bush is a high-ranking member of the Skull and Bones ("The Order"). The Cheney family (Richard Cheney, Sec. Def.) is also prominent in Skull & Bones and involved, all through and about, is Danny Quayle's family. Cheney's family were active in "The Order" even before the first Bush member, Prescott).
As the attack on Iraq happened so did the shoe drop in the Soviet Union. The Leninists moved one step back and glasnost and perestroika were brought to an instant halt as the troops moved on the Baltic States. Gorbachev claimed "no knowledge", etc., but we all know it was not so.
However, perhaps you missed the fact that of the ONE BILLION dollar credits granted to the Soviet Union by your Congress and the Administration (and then supposedly held up because of the nasty behavior of the Soviet troops)--"9""0"-- 90 (NINETY) PERCENT had already been drawn down!--the cargo holds were already fully loaded with your grain before the police move was made.
Now, in the madness and distraction--after the troops began to move out and now that you had all "that help" from the Soviets with Iraq--the Soviets now get an additional credit line which YOU THINK was the original $1 billion amount. Ah, the hand is surely quicker than the eye when the eyes are wrapped in rose colored paper and the visions--shown as with a movie scenario--exactly that which they want to show you.
You still think this was a little war? Ask the families of the over 100,000 (70,000 of which were but children) slain Iraqis in Baghdad. Ask about the additional 30,000 to 50,000 slain persons on the roads back to Iraq. Ask the families of the over 2 million slain Iraqis who were bombed in their homes all over Iraq--civilians! It was a total bloodbath and as your own pilots giggled and strutted and told you, regarding the roadway massacre--"...it was just like shooting fish in a barrel!"
ARMAGEDDON? WORLD WAR III?This was not the start of that touted great battle of battles at Armageddon--but the beginning of the set-up for same. The handwriting is there on the wall, brothers--in pure and simple English--you just don't know the definitions of the words.
Where all of your seer-projectioneers are off, is that they still sit twiddling
while believing that "Israel" is that new place in Palestine--when God comes for HIS PEOPLE, He is coming for His "i"sraelites. His chosen. The big ANTI‑CHRIST has moved in and occupies that little portion called Israel as self-proclaimed by some men in the United Nations in concert with the Khazar Zionists who are so-called, self-styled "Jews"--the term "Jew", remember, only appeared FOR THE FIRST TIME IN RELATIONSHIP TO THESE NON-JUDEANS, IN THE 1700's.
What will happen then? Oh, there will be a period of euphoria and a great "go for peace". A total pseudopeace. The world will be whooop-dee-doo and willing to submit to a new kind of world federation. BUT THIS WILL BE EXPLODED IN THE FUTURE WHEN THE COMBINED ARAB ARMIES UNITE AGAIN--AND GO FOR ISRAEL'S THROAT. Now, the leopard will show his spots and the Soviets will end up joined with the Arabs and THAT will be the big beginning of that wondrous battle called Armageddon. Check carefully to see who signs treaty agreements guaranteeing Israel's security.
America is referred to as Israel West already, so guess which losing side you are going to be on, America! After that dandy treaty is signed in Arab blood and the Bushes and accomplices get their assets into offshore gold, etc., there should be some 3 and 1/2 years to square around your choices and see if you can get this reversal off its dime--because you are then on the path to that great war. That next "beginning of Armageddon" war will itself (if not stopped) last another approximately 3 and 1/2 years, WITH RUSSIA ALLIED WITH THE ARAB NATIONS AGAINST ISRAEL, THE WESTERN FEDERATION AND GUESS WHO--CHINA!
It will NOT be like your Bible Evangelists tell you, however, for the Zionists are the Anti-Christ and when GOD COMES TO GET HIS CHOSEN ONES--IT WILL NOT BE FOR THE ZIONIST "JEWS" OF A STATE OF ISRAEL--BUT RATHER FOR HIS "i"SRAELITES (HIS CHOSEN CHILDREN) AND THEY "AIN'T IN PALESTINE (ISRAEL)".
So what are you going to do? It does NOT have to go according to "their" plan but it you do not as a nation and a world, wake up to the probabilities as laid forth. The plan is to have your world in total Rule by the Global One World Government and operable by year 2,000. You don't have much time do you? YOU CAN CHANGE IT IF YOU WANT TO! It is totally up to you. Ours is to bring Truth--assist in any way we can, those who ask and allow and move into the Godly path of Light. When God comes for HIS people, I remind you--there will be no evil brought within the places of the God places. At this point in historical evolution--YOU HAVE DELIVERED YOURSELVES INTO THE HANDS OF THE ADVERSARY OF GOD. IT WAS A MOST REGRETTABLE CHOICE INDEED. ON THE OTHER HAND, YOU WERE THE TARGET OF THE MOST CLEVER TRICKSTER OF THE UNIVERSE AND AS VICTIMS OF A CONTROLLED MIND-CONTROL SYSTEM OF VISION AND LIES--YOU KNOW NOT ELSE.
Some say, "Well, I don't want to know because what I don't know can't hurt me...!" WRONG! IT WILL ENSLAVE YOU! FURTHER THE PRISON IS NOT GOING TO BE EITHER GENTLE NOR COMFORTABLE.
Let us close this, please. If there is additional room on this document--please give forth information for obtaining more detailed information regarding the Kuwait/Sabah/Bush, etc., material and any other that we have to assist our brothers. Dear ones, you have reached the time where "perfection" and "cleaning-up" as they say in the economist's circles is probably not going to happen. The best we can hope for is some measure of safety and ability to hold on to some of your assets while it is turned into projects which can grow and give you return--it is a tight-rope walk at best. You are very far behind in countering the game so well planned by your adversaries. I stand ready to help for it is all I can offer--knowledge and Truth; but it IS enough! Salu.
PJ 26CHAPTER 2REC #1 HATONN
THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1991 8:26 A.M. YEAR 4, DAY 203TODAY'S WATCHInstead of bantering about with the non-news this day, we are going to get down to nitty-gritty discussion regarding the Middle East War/Kuwait/Sabah-Family/Bush connection, etc. Chelas, this is hard medicine to swallow but you MUST come into acknowledgement that I am not simply feeding you "far-side" information. You can go check this out from documentation from many sources but I suggest you begin proving-up in easy-to-understand sequence.
I am going to ask Dharma to print herein, a brief summary of the secret underground regarding things like the Global Regime of Interdependence--the REAL name for Bush's New World Order. Then, I suggest you get the "White Papers" which will be given reference from KC&associates, 13510-A Aurora Ave. North, Seattle, WA 98133.
This will deal with "why Bush had to have a war" and I am most grateful to one who has put it succinctly into focus. You will find nothing new from that which I have given you but I find that if you glean information as backup from Earth source--you tend to come into believing. I honor Craig B. Hulet of KC&associates for this valuable research and presentation. What I will give you is not comprehensive for it is taken from a radio interview of limited time allowance--so please, follow up. America West is getting information so that if you call them, they can either supply you with the "papers" or tell you where to obtain them--should you prefer to contact A.W. Thank you.
Dharma, just roughly transcribe the tape, please. I will monitor and make comments, if deemed necessary, but mostly I simply want you citizens to hear it from "ground 0". I also request that our "Editors" not try too hard to turn the conversational English into perfect prose.
TRANSCRIPTIONCraig B. Hulet:
This is a brief discussion of the orchestration of the entire event (Iraq/Kuwait/U.S. war) for political reasons that have been completely unknown to the American people. They were laid out long before August 2nd (1990) as a political objective.
The objectives we were given throughout the period between August 2nd and somewhere around the first of January (1991) where COMPLETE MYTHS WITH NO BASIS WHATSOEVER--things like Saddam Hussein's military strength being a "million-man" army was a complete fabrication for he only had 475 thousand well-trained troops, 7,500 Reservists and the remainder are a "People's Army"--some as young as 11-years and as old as 80-years--so can hardly be considered as part of his military.
In each stage of the war after August second, George Bush gave us a different political objective upon which to focus, like "defending Saudi Arabia", when the facts were that Hussein never had the industrial capacity nor the offensive capability of going any further than Kuwait, and everybody in the Pentagon and the White House knew that. However, they had to convince the American people of some reason to send the initial 200,000 troops over there and so they told us it was to defend Saudi Arabia.
We were also told that Hussein was about to take over and control 20-50% of all of the oil in the region, which was and is an utter myth. He couldn't have controlled the oil and he couldn't even have threatened control of the oil during the month of August because the nations that were aligned against him on August 2nd, the Arab states, were Saudi Arabia, Syria, Israel, and of course, Iran on the East and Turkey on the North, so it is totally absurd to believe that one little country such as Iraq could have dictated, through military power, to the combined forces in the Middle East, including Egypt, which outnumbered him at least 10 to 1 in every single category of military capability.(Hatonn: Now take this information as absolute minimum for Craig is giving you that which was "known" and documented where he and his researchers could ferret out the information. It is understated, brothers--for Soviets (and you) had supplied Saddam with heinous weapons--but YOU had the same weapons with the exception of Bull's cannons, etc. Please wait until you have read all of this before you stop and start comparisons to disprove one or the other of us. Please stop the nit-picking for you are in serious circumstances if you could remove even nine-tenths of the facts.)
Saddam simply would not determine that he could be successful in going further than Kuwait in offensive. He did not ever intend nor feel capable of controlling the oil supply of the Middle East--that would be a totally fabricated lie served to we-the-people.
This war was NEVER about oil--it was simply never about any of those things given to you. When George Bush told you that it was "NAKED AGGRESSION", he lied again because if it was seriously about "naked aggression" and we weren't using some selective moral indignation over Saddam Hussein's actions, would we have hardly been aligned with Assad of Syria, who killed thirty thousand of his own people, annexed Northern Lebanon and installed a puppet regime which was responsible for killing a hundred and seventy thousand Lebanese? Yet, we are supposed to believe that, in this instance, naked aggression so offended the U.S. administration that we would send half a million, or more, troops to stop it. That is another of the "great" myths--being a total lie. (Hatonn: You must understand the definition of "myth"--a myth is not necessarily "false" but Craig is using the word as representing "lie".)This is really what I see as the kind of problems that are of such a magnitude that you can safely say that the American government is so out-of-hand that THEY TELL THE TRUTH ALMOST NEVER!--TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. In one instance, where George Bush did tell the truth--nobody even understood what he really MEANT. That is when he said, "The U.N. Security Council would be used to enhance the New World Order"--that IS THE ONLY STATEMENT OF TRUTH GEORGE BUSH HAS SAID SINCE AUGUST 2ND--BUT NOBODY UNDERSTOOD HIM.
Question from Interviewer: "One of the questions that I had is why Hussein allowed the U.S. military forces to build up to the capacity that it has--to a level where he could, apparently, no longer crush it through his military?
Saddam Hussein had no choice, really, but to sit back and watch the build-up because Saddam's military does not have an offensive capability to make a move of that magnitude. He is a "counter-puncher" and he has powerful "defensive" capability. He defeated the country of Iran in the last four months of the war, where he could not defeat Iran offensively throughout the seven and a half years of that war. But when he suckered and brought Iran into Iraqi territory and brought their troops to him, he fought defensively, which is completely and entirely a different tactic. That is where he excels and that is where his greatest ability stands.
The real question, rather than, "Why did Hussein allow our troops to build-up, where I don't believe he had a choice but to sit back, because at that point after August 2nd, he knew that he had been "suckered" into Kuwait. Let me explain what I mean by "suckered-in".
Prior to August 2nd--one week prior--the American Government, the Administration and National Security Council, the CIA--the entire intelligence apparatus, had been informing President Bush and Baker that an invasion was imminent, into Kuwait. Up to seven days prior to August 2nd, the invasion was so imminent that there were serious "red alert" type memos and memoranda. Yet during that exact period of time, April Glaspie, our Ambassador to Iraq, told Saddam Hussein that we did not get involved in "Arab to Arab issues over border disputes". Now, she was attacked for having said that because it gave the green light to Hussein, to his way of thinking, to go into Kuwait. Baker chastised her publicly and said it was a "blunder". But in fact, Baker lied. Undersecretary of State John Kelly told the Senate Subcommittee EXACTLY THE SAME THING A WEEK BEFORE THE INVASION and he went even further as he said, "...we would do NOTHING to defend Kuwait because we have no defense treaty with Kuwait and this is an Arab to Arab issue." Under questioning then, Margaret Tutwiller, a spokeswoman for James Baker's State Department, held a Press Conference and she said exactly the same thing as Undersecretary Kelly--"...we have no defense treaty and it is an Arab to Arab issue". So it was entirely corroborated that the Administration's position on Iraq taking Kuwait was a "green light" for Iraq to take Kuwait. Hussein believed he had the sanction and the approval of our Administration, or at least the auspices that gave what he believed was the right to go in and take Kuwait.
Now then, on August 2nd George Bush screamed that he was surprised and
shocked by this activity and called Hussein a "Hitler" and accused him of "Naked Aggression". Of course, that was totally feigned surprise and "naked
aggression" was a total myth. BUSH KNEW HUSSEIN WAS "GOING IN".
The question is--why would George Bush want Saddam Hussein to take Kuwait?
Question: Wasn't Iraq already in Kuwait, working in the area around the sea?
Well, Saddam Hussein has a perfectly legitimate claim to the Ramalian Oil fields region where the Sabah family has been slant drilling and stealing oil from him. And the Bubyian and Warbyian Islands, which is the area you ask about, is where Saddam Hussein wants a deep-water port. The fact is, that for the past two years he has already been dredging that area and the Kuwaitis have even helped finance the dredging of the area so Iraq could develop that deep-water port. Therefore, it is implied, in Kuwaiti activity, that the area was already considered Iraqi territory. Those are the only two things that he asked to be remaining in his possession--and he agreed to totally pull out of Kuwait as long as those things were left to him--which were already his. Every nation in the world said they would go with that agreement and it was acceptable. The only people who found it unacceptable was President Bush and James Baker.
Question: And why would they find it unacceptable?
Because they have a "political agenda"--a political objective--that goes all the way back to April of 1990, and fully six months prior to that, during a study group session on the Middle East. The original political objective was much, much different than what we have been told. In April of 1990 there was a conference, an internationally led conference, at the White House--George Bush chaired it. Fitzgerald, the former Prime Minister of Ireland, authored the "white paper", the task force report, on the subject of the Middle East that came out of that April, 1990, conference. The political philosophy and the International Community's view of the Middle East was forever changed at that point in history. They thought that, because the Soviet Union was no longer a player in the Middle East, the Western Powers--Germany, England, France, Japan, Canada and the United States (the International Community of Western Powers), thought it was then time for them to move in and politically influence the Middle East in a greater degree than ever before. The first thing on the Agenda, they felt that they should control the region because of its natural resources and would stabilize the region by eliminating the military components of Iraq, Syria and, eventually, even Israel and Libya--eliminating them and totally disarming them militarily--unilaterally, if necessary. That they would use the United Nations Security Council as the means, if necessary, was called for in April of 1990.
This political objective, that was stated in April of 1990, was corroborated again by a different source and that was Terik Aziz in his press conference after the Baker/Aziz meeting. Aziz stated that Bob Dole, and three or four other senators, paid Hussein a visit in April of 1990 and gave him an ultimatum of a disarmament scenario where Hussein would disarm chemical, biological, conventional weapons and ballistic missiles. To do so he would receive credits and be allowed to be a player in the New World Order.
NO TO NEW WORLD ORDER(Hatonn: Now this is on record that Hussein refused to go along with this New World Order.)
Of course Hussein said emphatically, "No--at least NOT UNTIL ISRAEL RE‑MOVES THEIR CHEMICAL-BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS AND THEIR NUCLEAR WARHEADS FROM THE REGION." So the forced unilateral
diplomatic approach failed and they had to resort to the United Nations Security Council as the means to disarm Iraq and the rest of the Middle East. That is, and always was, the political objective. That explains "why" it was needed for Saddam Hussein to go into Kuwait and take it forcefully, as the provocation necessary to draw the UN Security Council and the U.S. forces into attacking Saddam Hussein.
I have been saying, for over five months in interviews throughout the country, "This isn't about Kuwait--this is about taking out Baghdad and destroying the industrial-military complex of Baghdad." Nobody believed me for five months--everybody said, "No, this is about Kuwait because Hussein invaded Kuwait." Wrong! As soon as the bombing started, where did Bush send the fliers? Straight to Baghdad!
QUESTION: What about the resources, the phosphates and sulfates, that Iraq has? How might that play into any of this scenario?
Well, on August 20, 1988, the London Economist reported that James Baker, in what is known as the "Baker Initiative for the Middle East", paid a visit to Hussein. This was prior to the above mentioned conference of April, 1990. He suggested to Hussein that he would receive "no further credits from the West, from Saudi Arabia or Kuwait"--they had already made that clear--"unless he was prepared" (and he needed these credits to service his debt from the Iran/Iraq War. He had borrowed a tremendous amount of money, including 26 billion dollars from Western banks--Chase, J.P. Morgan--all the six big ones) "he would receive no further credits to service that debt unless he gave up his sulfur, phosphates--his oil and other raw materials--in perpetuity--as collateral." Of course Saddam Hussein is extremely "nationalistic"--he is an Arab Socialist--and he strongly believes in Iraq as a nation-state. He said, "Absolutely no," he wouldn't even consider such a thing. He knew it was giving up his national sovereignty--his people's sovereignty and so he absolutely refused to do such a thing. (Hatonn: Please refer back to the Cartel Plans and HOW they managed to suck all the third-world nations into the banking system through this perpetual resource for collateral sleight-of-hand.)That was the first beginnings of the Middle East being drawn into this so-called New World Order concept, because it is an economic regime and it is about "raw materials and monetary policy". It is being demanded of ALL THIRD-WORLD AND LESSER DEVELOPED COUNTRIES THAT THEY GIVE UP THEIR NATURAL RESOURCES IN MANY DIFFERING WAYS: DEBT TO EQUITY SWAP, ETC. BUT TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, THE WEST, THE INDUSTRIALIZED POWERS, OUR MULTI-NATIONAL CORPORATIONS WHICH ARE, AT LEAST A HUNDRED OR SO OF THEM, ARE DEFENSE CONTRACTORS, AND THE "CORPORATE STATE CORPORATIONS" OF THE SOVIET UNION (POLAND, WEST GERMANY--THEY ARE STATE CORPORATIONS BUT THEY ARE STILL MULTI-NATIONAL) INCLUDING THE KUWAITI REGIME. THE KUWAITI GOVERNMENT IS SIMPLY ONE BIG MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS) OWNED BY THE ROYAL FAMILY OF SABAH. Those countries and companies that "play ball" get to play in the "Global arena". If they don't, they are targeted for elimination.
THIS IS WHY SADDAM HUSSEIN IS BEING ELIMINATED!QUESTION: Now, the Sabah family has a great many holdings in the United States and so does Saudi Arabia, do they not?
That was the key that guaranteed the International Community would line up behind George Bush, and it is a total lie that "he lined up the U.N. votes so quickly because of his tremendous 'ability' on the telephone". "Telephone Diplomacy" we were fed by the press. That is a complete myth (lie), they already knew what the political objective was for Iraq and Kuwait back in April of 1990 at the conference at the White House. They already knew that Iraq was being targeted to be disarmed and if Hussein didn't cooperate diplomatically, he would be dealt with forcibly through the UN Security Council. So when the orchestration took place all the world leaders of the Western countries at the UN Security Council level all already knew exactly what was going on--it was a simple task to line up the votes and get resolutions against Hussein. The "fix" was already in place, to put it bluntly.
The key, however, that made it all "work" and why, when Libya took Chad recently in a sponsored coup in Chad--when Syria took Lebanon and installed their regime--when the Soviets moved into the Baffles and used force, or into Afghanistan, etc., or the Vietnamese went into Cambodia--none of those countries mattered in the least. Nobody gave aid to these people and we certainly didn't send troops to stop the "Naked Aggression" against those legitimate regimes. This was due to one thing and one thing only: the guarantee that the UN and the U.S. and everybody would get in line and we would actually "have this war" to put Sabah back in his "pink palace" in Kuwait--that is the simple fact; that the Sabah family took the petro-dollars profit and invested in U.S. multi-national corporations--hundreds of billions of dollars off-shore and in our banking system with Chase, Morgan Guarantee, Morgan Brothers--$52 BILLION in T-Bills and Bonds (U.S. Gov't) and the interlock is so intense and so incestuous that the Sabah family has actually had a wholly owned corporation in the U.S.--still own it--Kuwait Petroleum owns Sante Fe International out of Los Angeles. They have had on the BOARD of Santa Fe International--of this Kuwaiti owned corporation--FORMER PRESIDENT GERALD FORD, who put George Bush in power as CIA Director, BRENT SCOWCROFT, who was an aide to Gerald Ford and is now the National Security Advisor to President Bush, AND RODERICK HILL, CARLA HILL'S HUSBAND--she is now the Trade Representative of the Bush Administration and she was HUD Secretary under Gerald Ford. So you will note that the Sabah family has used their tremendous petro-dollars to PURCHASE POLITICAL INFLUENCE WITH THIS ADMINISTRATION AND GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE NIXON AND FORD ADMINISTRATIONS. THAT IS THE KIND OF POLITICAL CLOUT THAT GUARANTEED THAT THE UN COALITION WOULD BACK THE USE OF ANY KIND OF FORCE AGAINST IIUSSEIN AFTER IIE WAS BROUGHT INTO KUWAIT TO BEGIN WITH.
OUESTION: Would you talk briefly about how Kuwait is so closely tied to the American companies?
The Kuwaiti regime is unique in that it is very much like the Saudi regime, and that's why the Saudis and the Sabah family are working so closely, and always have. Being a Royal Monarchy, they do not operate the way Hussein or Qudafi, Assad or Mubarik, operate in their countries. When they sell oil on the global market--they don't "consume" their own production--they allow the Eastern Europeans to consume and they buy into things, i.e., they own a whole chain of gas stations, they own five percent of Texaco, they own a chain of gas stations in Europe but, more than that, fifty percent of everything that is taken in on those sales goes directly to the Sabah Royal family. The only one that can sign the checks--is Sabah, himself. Fifty percent of the profits goes to the Kuwait government which is also Sabah but is used, in addition, to disburse funds elsewhere and help control the population of Kuwait. The population is only about 600,000 actual citizens and the rest of the population is not made up of "citizens" and they are not allowed to "vote". The first 50% of profits, however, goes directly to Sabah! Kuwait is a total feudalistic, non-militaristic despotic State--according to our own State Department. They have simply been able to wisely invest their money in the West, particularly in the U.S.--because they do have a fear of Islamic Fundamentalism and the Soviet Union.
When you buy this much U.S. Corporate power, for instance, when you own 3, 4, and 5 percent of a Corporation such as General Electric and defense contractors and the people on the Boards of those defense contractors you have real clout. The Board members of those "defense contractors" are also Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State, and Secretary of Defense and boy, you have bought considerable political clout and THEY KNOW IT!. It is purely and simply a protection racket, in a sense, but more than that, it makes them a key player in the new GLOBAL REGIME that George Bush keeps talking about.
QUESTION: Do they not also own some 5% in McDonalds, Penneys, etc.?
Oh yes, there is a long list of holdings that all of the citizens would easily recognize. The ones I focus on, such as IBM, Dow Chemical, Westinghouse, G.E., Atlantic Richfield, General Motors--those are all listed on the one hundred top (dollar amount) defense contractors in the U.S. You could say that they have purchased some stock in almost ALL of our major U.S. corporations. They never buy more than 5% of the class-A voting stock because if they did so it would force disclosure to the S.E.C. as to "who" is buying up America.
DISCLOSURE ISSUE AND INVESTMENT HOLDINGSThey purchase government T-bills and bonds and what they have done is purchase a "deficit"-- a "growing" deficit--of the United States. That gives them very close linkage to the banking industry and the Federal Reserve System which is basically a "private banker's" bank which loans us our medium of exchange called the "federal reserve notes". That is a very powerful thing to purchase if you are looking for strong political clout and influence within the U.S. Government.
Ben Rosenthal of New York found out all of this described and found it extremely disturbing--between 1979 and through 1983. He filed suit to stop the ownership of Santa Fe International by the Kuwaiti Government. However, after his death it fell to the wayside and no one, to this day, has dared to bring it up again because people get dead over such issues. He had also filed a House Bill which would force the disclosure of foreign nationals' holdings in U.S. multi-national corporations and in the banking industry because he felt that they would be buying political influence and could, therefore, influence more affairs of the U.S. Government by having this kind of wealth. That act did pass (The Financial Disclosure Act) in 1982, but pressure was brought to bear through Charles Percy, a senator and whose daughter married into the Rockefeller family, on President Reagan and also Vice President Bush, at the time, to veto that financial disclosure act. The threat was, at that time in 1982, as documented by Ben Rosenthal (and now you might know why Rosenthal died) was that if they were to disclose financial holdings of the Saudi regime and the Sabah family along with Kuwaiti holdings in the U.S. Banking industry--they would shift their assets to Euro-dollars, Yen, Marks, etc. This would cause an immediate banking crisis in New York which would include ALL of the Six Major Banks. The threat held strong and the Financial Disclosure Act was vetoed by President Reagan and to this day it is illegal for the U.S. Government to tell the American people how much financial influence Sabah has in the U.S.
There is a new kind of "disclosure act" in the Senate but it is presupposed that Bush will certainly veto it. The reason Bush is concerned is that Bush is a "global operator". Bush sits on the Boards of Texas Gulf, Eli Lilly, Purolator--and a whole host of other multi-national corporations; but most importantly, the Interstate Bank of London, Dallas and Houston--an international banking family. There is no question that Kuwait has major dollars in that bank. George Bush is a large-scale Global Player. Bush has actually taken a perceived "step down" in his political career by becoming President of the U.S. His real political career had been as a Global Globe-trotter, if you will. It has been entirely a net-work of multi-national corporations who have widespread Global interests. In fact, take Texas Gulf, it is not even a U.S. Corporation and it does not operate in Texas or in the Gulf states--it is a French "holding company" and it mines phosphate and sulfur (coincidentally, Iraq's raw materials that were requested) and turns it into fertilizers. George Bush is definitely a big player in the Global Regime.
This is why he continues to bring up and push the subject of the New World Order, over and over again. That really is the political objective of George Bush by being President. He doesn't care whether or not he is re-elected if this war would go bad--he has stated as much openly and publicly--even in the Los Angeles Times.
You see, all these holdings of Bush can be covered by placing the holdings in a "Blind Trust" and when he became President he did this for the first time in his career. He never did that prior to this--not even when he was CIA Director. He refused to place any of his financial holdings in a "Blind Trust". He has, to some degree, done so now. His blind trust is somewhere around a million dollars which doesn't even represent a drop in the bucket to his assets as of the day he took office as President. All the other holdings are in multi-national, international, etc., corporations where he is covered in secrecy. He does continue to receive what is called deferred compensation from the Zapata Oil which is a completely Bush-owned oil operation for off-shore drilling, where coincidentally, the first oil rig set up offshore--WAS IN KUWAIT! He also sits on the board and still receives "deferred compensation" from this. Deferred compensation is where the check is written but it goes into the "Trust Fund" and he can't spend it until after he is no longer President.
There are a lot of ways to get around that "Conflict of Interest", especially when you are the President. You don't have to get rid of your stock--you just temporarily cease to sit on the active Board of those corporations.
One of the most interesting companies on which he sits, actually he is a Limited Partner, with JAMES A. BAKER, III, in a corporation called Hollywood LPG II. It is a Houston, Texas, based company. The reason that it is so interesting is that in George Bush's "State of the Union" address, he suggested that because of this problem with Kuwait and Iraq with crude oil, that we must start looking, as a nation, to other means and other resources--specifically liquid petroleum gas. (That is what "LPG" stands for--i.e., Hollywood LPG II, is a Liquid Petroleum Gas tanker fleet.)
FERTILIZER?Bush sits on the board, and owns stock in, Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly is a MAJOR world producer of fertilizers and herbicides. The New World Order, to which "they" refer, isn't something that will enhance the opulence of Third World nations, in fact it will reduce countries like Iraq, Syria, Iran, Jordan, and Libya back to pre-1979 forms of feudalism and poverty. At the same time, you don't want to reduce a population such as those to complete poverty for they need to be fed in some manner--and that means feeding the tremendous numbers of poor in the Third World countries. Just to accomplish this gigantic task will REQUIRE A LOT OF FERTILIZER! George Bush is heavily invested in Texas Gulf which mines sulfur and phosphates which, without them, you cannot make fertilizer. Eli Lilly, which makes fertilizer--and of course, when you are going to constantly fertilize the ground to grow crops like soy beans, you will have problems with the soil--and you have to seek other places and that is where herbicides--also produced by this company--come in.
The interesting thing about this connection of Bush to Eli Lilly is that there was planned--for the Latin America Drug War--a shooting war in Latin America. That is, in part, what took place when we invaded Panama--with setting up an anti-drug force for Latin America to invade Latin American companies. (Hatonn: Yes, indeed, I have told you all this--but you to hear it again so please, just keep reading.)Bolivia and Peru were definitely targeted. Part of the scenario for invading those countries in this so-called Drug War, was to use massive amounts of herbicides on the Coca crops and it was experimented on and the major portion of the experiments just ended in March of 1989-1990. At that point the product was approved for use to destroy the hundreds of thousands of hectares of Coca crops in Latin America. That product is called "Spike" and it comes from a Division of Elanco--a corporation of Eli Lilly. (Hatonn: This herbicide is deadly--remember a while back when it was used on the "Hemp" (marijuana) crops in Mexico, etc., and just happened to kill a bunch of workers and users? Brothers, I remind you--the drug trade is controlled right out of the Bush Administration! We are not talking of New World Order--we are talking about World (Global) total domination!)
I remind you again, that Bush is on the Board of Eli Lilly and owns stock in that company.
NEW WORLD ORDER? NO--GLOBAL REGIME OFThe New World Order is a term that is considered totally passe' by all the Elite and Elite Think-Tanks--and I haven't used the word myself in over a decade in any of my analytical work or research papers, even when I was with the Institute. THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY IS: "THE GLOBAL REGIME OF INTERDEPENDENCE" but if George Bush had used THAT terminology, people would have begun to understand right off that it was "economic" New World Order. It was absolutely necessary that the American people believe that the New World Order, when mentioned, would somehow have only to do with "Peace and Security" throughout the world through the use of the United Nations--or some nebulous attachment to moral rightness. THIS IS A TOTAL LIE IN ITS MOST CONTEMPTIBLE PRESENTATION AND USURPATION OF YOUR TRUST AND FAITH. THE NEW WORLD ORDER HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING ABOUT PEACE AND SECURITY--IT HAS BEEN ABOUT ONE THING AND ONE THING ONLY--IT IS A GLOBAL REGIME. A REGIME WHICH ALREADY EXISTS AND WE ARE IN THE TRANSITION STAGES OF IT--OF INTERDEPENDENCE. INTERDEPENDENCE ISN'T SOMETHING THAT COME ABOUT THROUGH EVOLUTION OF FREE-TRADE LIKE SO MANY LIGHT-WEIGHT UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS--WHO PROJECT IT AS SOMETHING OF A UTOPIAN VISION THAT ALL THE WORLD BEGINS TRADING WITH EACH OTHER AND SOMEHOW ALL WAR WILL CEASE AND PEACE WILL JUST WASH OVER THE GLOBE. It simply is not even a PART OF THE STRATEGY.
INTERDEPENDENCE
Inter-dependence IS A STRATEGY. It was outlined in 1961 by Vincent Rock, a defense analyst of over 20 years, for the beginnings of it. He published a book called THE STRATEGY OF INTERDEPENDENCE which was initially used by the Kennedy Administration, and McNamara in the Johnson Administration. The strategy has been adopted ever since.
The strategy works in every field of endeavor, for instance, South Africa. We are wholly dependent on South Africa for the "platinum group" metals, chromium and commercial grade gold. It is for "strategic" war materials. This is well published and well known--that we are dependent on South Africa; therefore, the Globalist thinkers of the world future society, who are utopian, would say, "See, there is the interdependence," so we can have a lot of influence with South Africa and South Africa will work with us and we can bring about changes. The fact is that we have enough chromite, chromium and platinum-group metals, in the LARGEST DEPOSITS KNOWN ON EARTH. IN THE STILLWATER COMPLEX BETWEEN THE BORDER OF MONTANA AND THE BORDER OF WYOMING. It is a tremendously large complex and there is an almost unlimited supply of these strategic raw materials. Based on the analysis of 1961, however, done by Vincent Rock, the strategy of interdependence is as follows: We shut down the mills and operation of the Stillwaters facilities and since 1963 it hasn't been mined. THEY WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, AND THE AMERICAN CORPORATIONS WILL GO ALONG WITH THIS, BECAUSE THEY PASS THE COSTS ON TO US ANYWAY, IN THEIR PRODUCTION FACILITIES--BUT THEY WANT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO "BELIEVE" THAT WE ARE DEPENDENT UPON SOUTH AFRICA (interdependent or mutually-dependent).
THE REAL REASON IS SO THEY CAN GET CHEAP LABOR FOR THERE ARE NO LABOR UNIONS AND THUS NO LABOR PROBLEMS AND IN FACT, EVEN IF IT COSTS MORE, THE PERCEPTION OF THE "INTERDEPENDENCE" IS A PERCEPTION AS OPPOSED TO A REALITY. THE "PERCEPTION" IS USED TO-MTNIPULATE OUR POPULATION, THE SOUTH AFRICAN POPULATION AND THE GOVERNMENTS ARE WORKING TOGETHER "KNOWING" THAT THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO NEED FOR THE DEPENDENCE.
This is EXACTLY that which is going on in the Middle East right now. They are going to create the PERCEPTION that without Kuwait's oil production and a free Kuwait under the Sabah family, there will be an insurmountable oil crisis. That is WHY we have to go to war and get this awful regime back into Government. We have now been taught, erroneously, to believe that we are totally dependent on Kuwait for oil--a total lie.
