Strategic London Metal Exchange to Be Sold

Strategic London Metal Exchange to Be Sold

Shaun Curry/AFP/Getty Images

What are politicians thinking letting China buy this strategic company?

One of Britain’s last great independent companies has agreed to sell itself to China.

The 137-year-old London Metal Exchange (lme) has agreed to a $2.19 billion takeover from the Chinese state-controlled Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing (HKEx).

If the deal goes through, the London Metal Exchange’s largest shareholders—JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs and Barclays—will reap big profits. But once sold, Britain will never again recoup the world’s most strategic metals exchange.

Although the lme was officially founded in 1877, its actual origins can be traced all the way back to 1571 during the reign of Queen Elizabeth i. Back then, traders bought and sold physical metal for the domestic market. But as Britain grew in global importance and rich metal deposits of tin and copper were found, it soon became both a major importer and exporter of industrial metals.

By the 1800s, with Britain’s empire fueling large portions of the global trade in metals, the lme became the global market place, not only matching buyers with sellers, but setting the price for virtually all major non-ferrous metals. Whether you were a Frenchman in need of tin, a Russian trying to sell zinc, or a Malaysian looking for a copper market, you probably went to London to do business.

Even today, lme handles approximately 80 percent of all non-ferrous metals contracts. All told, it manages $11.6 trillion worth of trade annually.

The lme was considered the crown jewel of the metals market because it sets global benchmark prices for the six major base metals. Its vast distribution network with storage facilities around the world plays a pivotal role in global trade.

lme board member Michael Overlander was in the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing House when the deal was announced. “I’m here in the reception and it’s buzzing in there, people are congratulating each other and slapping each other on the back,” he told Reuters by phone. “They really think they have got themselves a jewel in the crown.”

Overlander is right. China has captured a one-of-a-kind crown jewel. The lme was one of those companies that helped Britain punch above its geopolitical weight class.

Some analysts claim that the Anglo owners were justified in their sale. The new Chinese owners vastly overpaid. The lme made only $12 million in profit last year. That implies an astronomical price-to-earnings ratio of 183. The new Chinese owners will need 183 years’ worth of profits to make their money back.

But there is a reason the Chinese government was willing to pay so much. It wasn’t out of the goodness of its heart that it decided to lavish billions on lme’s previous owners.

China consumes approximately 42 percent of the world’s non-ferrous base metal production. Lead, zinc, copper, tin, aluminum, nickel—more than 4 out of every 10 tons goes to China. You can be sure the Chinese government will know exactly how to exploit lme’s gold mine of data.

The Chinese government will soon know exactly who is purchasing what from whom. It will know how much is being paid. It will be able to determine who has pricing power—who will need to come to the market and when to make purchases. There are literally thousands of ways the Chinese government will be able to rig the market in favor of its many state-owned metal importers, merchant banks and investment funds.

And China has shown that it is willing to manipulate markets. It is well documented that it regularly manipulates its virtual monopoly of rare earth minerals for political and economic gain.

China knows the geopolitical value of strategic enterprises. Britain will never be able to buy the exchange back even if it wanted to. Foreigners are not allowed to buy more than a 5 percent interest in Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing without the government’s consent. Fat chance of that happening. Three years ago, the lme tried to open a branch office in China—but Beijing banned it. Yet Britain is willing to stand idly by and let one of its last great companies be sold to China.

“We are handing over strategically crucial assets that are part of global trade’s infrastructure, and once they’re gone, they’re gone forever—there’s no way Hong Kong or Beijing will allow them to be surrendered again,” writes the Telegraph’s Damian Reece. Britain’s “short-term gain on a financial level is also a long-term loss at a more profound level,” he says.

Like a lamb being led to slaughter, London has surrendered the Metal Exchange. Reece continues:

The lme’s success took London 135 years to create. But its control has now gone to a place from where it can never be recovered because a different set of state-sponsored rules apply that would never be tolerated here.If we’re willing to let lme go under such lop-sided conditions, what’s next?

Sadly, there are not too many strategic assets left that Britain still owns that are worth much. And that may be why China is being allowed to purchase this incredibly strategic asset. Except for its financial sector (which was severely weakened in the 2008 Wall Street meltdown) and the London Bullion exchange, its last vestiges of global empire, Britain’s cupboards are empty.

You don’t allow another nation to buy this kind of asset, especially a nation like China, unless there is something else going on behind the scenes.

Britain’s extremely weak economic condition has made it very vulnerable. It relies on China and other foreign nations to finance much of its government spending. More dangerously, it relies on these same foreigners to continuously roll over its debt. China is probably exploiting this leverage to pick up the remaining pieces of England’s once vast economic empire.

There is no reason for British regulators to let this deal go through, except for some form of geopolitical/economic blackmail. And that in itself shows how weak Britain is.

The forfeiture of lme is the latest sign in the decline of a nation that was once the head of the greatest empire the world has ever seen.

But unlike the other great imperial nations of history, the British never lost their empire to any conquering power. They gave it away! This has never happened in all of human history.

And now, not content with having given away its vast land possessions, a whole slice of global geography upon which “the sun never set,” it seems the British nation is on a headlong rush to give up every last vestige of capital investment in British-owned businesses.

This is all the more remarkable when one considers that the rest of the world once rode on the coattails of the Industrial Revolution spawned on British soil, with British inventiveness underwritten by British capital. The reality is that Britain—which once ruled the waves, controlling every key sea and land gate in the world, the envy of the world for the sheer massiveness and opulence of its globe-girdling empire—this Britain, which under the leadership of Winston Churchill stood alone just 65 years ago against a tyranny that could have swept the world into its cruel grasp—is now in the process of selling off what remains of its once vast national business assets.

And, in large part, these gems of British ingenuity are being sold to nations that traditionally regarded Britain as, if not an enemy, then certainly a competitor during the former colonial era.

The fact is that, since World War ii, Britain has embraced a foreign policy that has steadily changed it from the greatest imperial nation in man’s history to one that is opening itself up to becoming a vassal of the greatest current colonizing power of this age, the European Union!

To deliberately choose to place strategic national assets in the hands of enemy nations surely represents the most extreme perversity of government policy operating directly against Britain’s own national interest. Britain will yet rue the day that it literally sold off the jewels of its own, homegrown national industries!

President Obama Appeases Immigrants by Sidestepping Congress

President Obama Appeases Immigrants by Sidestepping Congress

Getty Images

Once again, the Constitution is trampled.

“Now I know some people want me to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own,” President Barack Obama said during a speech last July. His crowd, a conference of Hispanic activists, interjected, “Yes you can! Yes you can!”

“That’s not how our democracy functions,” the president answered back. “That’s not how our Constitution is written.”

Then he quipped, “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you.”

The president felt strongly about offering amnesty to illegal immigrants, and he certainly had a sympathetic crowd—one apparently more concerned about their special interest than about the Constitution of the United States of America. Yet he still pointed out that he “swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books.”

As a candidate in 2007, Senator Obama often touted his constitutional credentials. “I was a constitutional law professor,” he said at one fundraiser, “which means, unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution.”

That means that when Americans elected Barack Obama to be the 44th president of the United States, they were getting a man who would uphold the Constitution, using his executive power to enforce the law, but also honoring the checks and balances of legislative and judicial power. Right?

Last Friday, the president stood in the White House Rose Garden and said, in effect, Since Congress hasn’t given me the immigration law I want, I’m just going to enforce my own immigration policy.

“Using his executive powers to go where Congress would not, President Obama … ordered his administration to stop deporting illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children, a shift that could affect more than 1 million people,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

Now, a two-year renewable reprieve on deportation is available to undocumented immigrants who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years, who are younger than 31 years, who crossed the border before they were 16 years old, who have no criminal record, and who are students or graduates or have served in the military. Without documentation, it seems much of this would be hard to prove. But no matter. These people, President Obama said, are “Americans in their hearts.”

The president called the order a “temporary, stop-gap measure” that was necessary only because Congress hadn’t passed the comprehensive immigration reform he was looking for.

Immigration is a serious and complicated issue. There are persuasive arguments for the order the president made, and many people expressed joy and gratitude at seeing it enacted. But there is another side to the debate. Illegal immigration is connected to economic problems, violent crime, drug trafficking and national security risks. True, those who benefit from this presidential order probably do not contribute to these problems. Even still, critics point to concerns that these immigrants will squeeze out the educational and career aspirations of legal American citizens who are already finding it hard to get a good education or a good job.

The point is, there is a process in American government by which such debate gets aired en route to the formation of public policy. In this case, it is through Congress, America’s lawmaking body.

The federal legislature has not ignored the raging argument over illegal immigration. In fact, Congress debated the issue in what is known as the dream Act. That bill would have put many illegal immigrants on the track to full legal residency. But it was defeated. According to the constitutional principle of representative government, that decision reflected the will of the American people. Obviously, defeating that legislation did not solve the problem or end the debate. That is still wide open.

It is not as though Congress has done nothing. It just hasn’t done what President Obama wanted.

Where Congress has the power to make laws, the president and the executive branch have the power to enforce them. Now the president is choosing to enforce his own policy instead of the actual law. You can make the law, he basically said, but I’ll enforce what I want.

This comes less than a year after the president emphasized to Hispanics that the law of the land must be upheld no matter what. This is the same president who “swore an oath to uphold the laws on the books.”

Serious problems are emerging from America’s lax approach to illegal immigration. But what is of even graver concern is the president’s dangerous approach to the Constitution.

Candidate Obama often criticized then President George W. Bush for expanding presidential powers. “These last few years we’ve seen an unacceptable abuse of power at home,” he said in October 2007. “We’ve paid a heavy price for having a president whose priority is expanding his own power.” Yet the Obama administration has issued even more executive orders than its predecessor.

Obama has acted unilaterally to abandon the Defense of Marriage Act, which is still a law, but which the executive branch is ordered not to defend. He declared that Congress was in recess in order to avoid having to seek its approval for a controversial executive appointment. He again bypassed Congress in order to join the nato mission in Libya. Other executive measures include orders for a summer jobs program, new rules for mortgage lenders, and minimum-wage protections for certain workers.

And these executive orders don’t begin to include the federal government’s growing control over the private sector through a series of bank and corporate bailouts, or its foray into health-care mandates.

Even though President Obama has enjoyed Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress and still enjoys a majority in the Senate, he has still ignored the legislative branch and at times acted against it outright in order to get what he wants.

In this case, the president is clearly pushing aside “how our democracy functions” and “how our Constitution is written” in order to prioritize his own reelection. Giving a million Hispanics a form of amnesty is a surefire way to boost popularity among the increasingly powerful Hispanic vote, just shortly before November’s election. According to polls, it has already worked. Hispanics who were not as enthusiastic about Obama as they were in 2008 are getting fired up again.

America’s founders fought and died in order to build a nation on godly principles and to prevent a tyrant from ruling over them. The Constitution was expressly written to safeguard those principles and protect the future of the nation.

The present leaders have repeatedly shown light regard for that foundational document—casting it aside for the mere possibility of political gain. The rule of law is being rapidly eroded—replaced by the rule of men, acting however they see fit.

What else might they do in order to hold on to power? Stay tuned. “Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting, I promise you.”

For more information, read our April cover story, “The Obama Administration vs. the American Constitution,” and Chapter Two of Gerald Flurry’s booklet No Freedom Without Law.

Refugees in South Sudan Need Water

Refugees in South Sudan Need Water

Hannah McNeish/AFP/Getty Images

Tens of thousands of refugees fleeing conflict in Sudan are struggling to find sufficient water for their drinking and cooking needs, leading to an unknown number of deaths from dehydration and diarrhea, officials reported Monday.

In the past month, over 35,000 people have fled ground fighting and bombing in Sudan for South Sudan. The war is between Sudan’s military and a rebel group linked to South Sudan. Most of the refugees are women, children and the elderly, as the men generally stay behind to fight. Many of the new arrivals walked two to three weeks to reach the border with South Sudan, and around 40,000 more are believed to be en route to South Sudan. Over the past week, thousands of the new arrivals had to walk 13 miles to find water, and the shortages are becoming more severe.

Tara Newell, an emergency coordinator with Doctors Without Borders, said that water is among the highest priorities in the crisis. “It’s very sad that with this number of refugees that simply having something to drink is our biggest challenge.”

To understand why global weather conditions are increasingly harsh, read Why ‘Natural’ Disasters?

No Male Teachers Equals No Future Men

No Male Teachers Equals No Future Men

Index Open

Let’s do the math. What happens when you remove the men?

My favorite teacher was Mr. Cobbledick—and he wasn’t even really my teacher. He was the grade 8 teacher when I was in grade 3. But Mr. Cobbledick was also the wrestling coach, and he let me be on the team even though few other schools had wrestlers in light enough weight categories to wrestle me. He let me “wrestle up” anyway. He was one tough teacher. When he spoke, kids listened. But he made wrestling so much fun that I wrestled all through elementary school and high school, and then during my university years I became a wrestling coach for children at a local club.

Many of my favorite elementary school teachers were men. I had many good female teachers too, but the ones who impacted me the most were the men who helped shape what I would become.

That really should not be a shock. Being male, I would and should naturally look up to, identify with, and imitate older males. What boy has not wanted to become like King David and slay giants, or like Gideon and heroically defeat a huge army? Or—be just like Dad?

What is a shock is that many students today go all the way through primary school without having one male teacher! Something doesn’t add up.

According to a 2009 report, more than a quarter of English children do not have even a single male teacher at their school. For many children, that means they have greatly reduced contact during the day with an adult man until age 11 when they go to secondary school. Children who don’t have a father in the home may not have any regular contact with a male role model until they go to secondary school.

The situation is similar in America, and Canada, and Australia—where between 70 to 75 percent of teachers are female.

Why is society robbing young boys of the masculine role models they need?

The lack of male leaders in schools is all the more hurtful considering the fact that most of the children going to school come from broken families or families that will one day experience divorce. America has more than 13 million single parents raising more than 21 million children. More than four out of five of those custodial parents are mothers.

That means more than 16.8 million children, boys and girls, don’t have a proper father figure to look up to at home—the foundation of education.

Many educators, especially feminist teachers, claim that a teacher’s gender makes no difference in how students learn. But even this claim is false.

According to a Swarthmore College study by Thomas S. Dee, published in the fall 2006 edition of Education Next, teacher gender does affect student grades. Dee claims that students taught by teachers of the opposite sex had test scores approximately 4 percent of a standard deviation lower.

When a teacher is female, Dee found that boys had a higher chance of being labeled as disruptive, whereas girls were less likely to be seen as troublemaking or inattentive. When the teacher was male, more girls reported that they did not look forward to certain subjects, or that they were afraid to ask questions. “Simply put, girls have better educational outcomes when taught by women and boys are better off when taught by men,” said Dee.

In the Bible, concerning education, God instructs, “And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up” (Deuteronomy 6:7). This continual teaching was to be conducted by both parents.

Why? Because children need both male and female role models.

God instructs both parents to be educators because children are “hardwired” to mimic both their parents—or, if they lack a parent, an older role model of the same sex. Whether you are a feminist teacher or not, you have to admit that children mimic the adults they are around. It is the way children work.

But remove same-sex role models—or worse, break up the family—and that biological hardwiring starts to short. Is it any wonder that so much crime is committed by males, that our prisons are filled with boys who come from broken homes? With no man around to teach boys to become real men, many boys remain boys—and worse.

A 2012 study conducted by the University of Connecticut found that fathers have the greatest impact on their child’s personality, even though mothers spend more time with them. “In our 50 years of research in every continent but Antarctica, we have found that nothing has as strong and consistent an effect on personality development as does being rejected by a parent—especially by a father—in childhood,” said Ronald Rohner, co-author of the study.

When dads are missing from their children’s lives, their children have problems with “aggression, independence, positive self-esteem, positive self-adequacy, emotional responsiveness, emotional stability and positive worldview.”

Rohner said that society tends to place too much emphasis on the impact of mothers. “We need to start giving greater acclaim to dads, and put them on an equal footing with moms in terms of their impact on children,” he said.

When children come from broken families, it is doubly important to have strong male role models for them at school.

In March 2008, the Telegraph published the results of a survey that should have infuriated people. The study highlighted, the Telegraph said, “the extent to which men have had to change within one or two generations.” It also revealed how emasculated British males have become.

Over half of the men polled thought that society was turning them into “waxed and coiffed metrosexuals.” Fifty-two percent said they had to live according to women’s rules. Men said they “felt handcuffed” by political correctness, and two thirds openly admitted they felt they could not speak freely and had to conceal their opinions. Four out of 10 men confessed to being frightened of heights and spiders, while a third admitted to being frightened of bossy women.

One of the biggest reasons society is filled with metrosexual, feminized men is because of the absence of masculine men for them to emulate. That is the answer you have to expect when you have an education system that often places boys, during their youngest, most impressionable, information-absorbing years, into an eight-hour-a-day environment that removes them from contact with even one man! And then sends many of them home to another environment void of masculine leadership. Zero male teachers, at home or school, equals zero future men.

The truth is, the lack of male teachers in primary schools is a direct attack against boys and masculinity. There is a conspiracy to de-masculinize boys. But the conspiracy goes far beyond the education system. The lack of male teachers is but one side effect of a giant problem that threatens to destroy the institution of marriage, family and, specifically, the role of the father. Read Conspiracy Against Fatherhood for the answer as to why educators seek to feminize boys, and to see who really is behind the conspiracy.

Vatican Offers Reconciliation Bid to Society of St. Pius X

Vatican Offers Reconciliation Bid to Society of St. Pius X

Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images

This is why Israel should still fear Rome.

On June 14 the Vatican proposed a way to reconcile with the Society of St. Pius X (sspx), the ultra-traditionalist breakaway group founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1969. Special legal status is being offered the group in a continued effort on the part of Pope Benedict xvi to move the Roman Catholic Church to a more conservative position.

The status being offered is called “personal prelature,” which is like a diocese without specific boundaries. This legal status was introduced during the Second Vatican Council and until now has only been given to the conservative Opus Dei movement.

The proposal was made during a meeting between Bishop Bernard Fellay, superior general of the sspx, and Cardinal William J. Levada, the Vatican’s chief doctrinal officer. Also discussed at the meeting were doctrinal elements that the group must accept before reconciliation can be reached. Bishop Fellay promised to respond to the offer.

The society cut ties with Rome over its opposition to the liberalizing reforms of the Second Vatican Council which introduced Mass in the vernacular and revolutionized the church’s relationship with Jews.

In 1988 Pope John Paul ii excommunicated Lefebvre and four bishops that Lefebvre consecrated without the Vatican’s approval.

Benedict has been working for several years to bring the group back under Rome’s wing. reports that the society, which is based in Menzingen, Switzerland, has six seminaries, three universities and 70 primary and secondary schools around the globe. Aside from the four bishops, it boasts more than 550 priests and 200 seminarians.

In 2009, Benedict made a move to bring the group back into the fold by removing the excommunications of the four bishops, and he has allowed greater use of the pre-Vatican ii Latin Mass, which they celebrate. Richard Williamson, one of the excommunicated sspx bishops, made headlines that same year when he denied the full extent of the Holocaust in a television interview broadcast on the same day his excommunication was lifted. But Williamson’s views are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. According to the Anti-Defamation League, sspx websites, publications and representatives have charged contemporary Jews with deicide (killing Jesus Christ), have endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (which accuses Jews of harboring a plan for global domination), and have claimed that there is factual basis for the “blood libel” (that Jews murder children to use their blood in rituals).

Members of the Jewish community are watching the result of these talks with intense interest, reports the Jerusalem Post. The Vatican cited the bishop’s remarks as the major roadblock for reconciliation.

The Vatican’s negotiations with sspx are a part of the pope’s larger scheme to move the Church of Rome away from liberalism. In 2007, Benedict personally called for a return to the traditionalists’ Latin Mass, which many liberal bishops resisted.

The reunification with the sspx is a small step on the way to the Catholic Church’s goal of uniting all of Christendom under the papacy. The fact that it wants to reconcile with this radical splinter group shows where the Vatican’s heart truly is, and why Israel should still fear Rome.

Read “The Last Crusade” to see the true intentions of the Catholic Church.

Germany Bans Islamist Group Amid Nationwide Raids

Germany Bans Islamist Group Amid Nationwide Raids

Henning Kaiser/AFP/Getty Images

Radical Islam is pushing against Germany, and Berlin is beginning to react.

German officials launched searches on extreme Islamist groups last Thursday, raiding homes and mosques across the country. The raids resulted in a ban on one Islamist organization, and prompted authorities to open investigations on two others.

Authorities say these groups threaten Germany’s security with their adherence to Islamic sharia law and advocation of violence. “Such an understanding of Islam has no place in Germany,” said German Interior Minister Hans-Peter Friedrich.

The Salafist organization Millatu Ibrahim was outlawed because it calls on Muslims to rise up against Germany’s “constitutional order,” Friedrich said. The Dawaffm and dwr are being investigated to determine whether evidence exists to outlaw them as well.

Friedrich said a “comprehensive collection of evidence” had been seized, including laptops, videos, cellphones and other items. This evidence is to be evaluated over the coming days to determine if the two organizations in question should be banned.

The landmark crackdown is a response to a spate of violent outbreaks last month when German Islamists attacked police and members of the anti-immigrant Pro nrw political group during election campaigns in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Shortly after the attacks, a video was posted online by German-born Yassin Chouka —a known terrorist linked to the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan—calling for German Muslims to kill members of Pro nrw and German media. Chouka urged Salafists to edge away from street violence where the risk of being arrested is great, and to instead target Pro nrw members at their homes and workplaces.

Authorities fear that the message could inspire an attack such as that committed by Arid Uka, an Islamic extremist who killed two U.S. airmen at Frankfurt airport last year after being inspired to action in part by a YouTube video calling for holy war.

The simmering tensions between the German people and Islamic extremists was foretold by the Prophet Daniel more than 2,500 years ago: “And at the time of the end [the present age], shall the king of the south [radical Islam] push at him: and the king of the north [a German-led Europe] shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over” (Daniel 11:40).

Right now, most elements of this conflict are largely confined to the extremities. But rather than remaining on the fringes, this confrontation will expand. Radical Islamists will push against Western nations in a variety of ways—terrorist attacks, aggressive immigration into Europe, economic extortion, defiance of international laws, human rights atrocities and more. The spate of Salifist attacks on German right-wingers, and Chouka’s calls for blood, represent another manifestation of this “push.” Berlin’s decision on Thursday to crack down on the extremist groups within its borders was resolute, but it was only the gentlest foreshadowing of how it will ultimately respond. Radical Islam’s multifaceted push will intensify until Europe—led by Germany with Rome’s unwavering support—reacts “like a whirlwind,” with a decimating blitzkrieg attack.

This clash will be a trigger for the most devastating war the world has ever seen. The unprecedented violence, however, immediately precedes the most hope-filled event in all of history: the return of Jesus Christ.

To understand more, read The King of the South.