The weak dollar has spurred foreign investment in the US, highlighting the United States' increasing dependence on foreign capital. The increase in foreign direct investment has also prompted concerns over the sale of key US businesses and other critical infrastructure such as ports, power plants, and telecommunications networks.

The sale of several high profile properties, to investors from Europe and the Middle East, have made headlines in recent weeks. The Abu Dhabi Investment Council, a sovereign wealth fund based in the United Arab Emirates, is in negotiations to buy a 75 percent stake in Manhattan's Chrysler Building. The deal is estimated to be worth about 800 million dollars. It follows last month's sale of the GM Building and three other properties for approximately 4 billion dollars to a group of investors from Kuwait and Qatar. Also, a European firm has acquired a majority share in New York's famous Flatiron Building, the historic structure known for its triangular shape.

Foreign buyers poured almost 55 billion dollars into US commercial real estate last year - that's about double the amount of 2006. High profile investments, such as the sale of the Chrysler Building, have brought attention to the rise in foreign investment. Direct foreign investment in US businesses reached about 280 billion dollars last year – making 2007 the second highest year on record.

In recent years the value of the US dollar has dropped significantly, inflation has increased, consumer debt has reached an all-time high, and the US housing bubble has burst. Thus opening the door for foreign investors to snatch up US interests at bargain prices. Foreign investors from Europe, China, and oil-producing nations in the Middle East are taking advantage of the United States financial woes. However the influx of foreign capital has raised some red flags.

According to World Net Daily, "the US Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Affairs has announced that it will stop publishing a key report tracking foreign investment data... The BEA's decision comes at a time when public and congressional concerns have increased over the acquisition of US assets by foreign investors... Sovereign wealth funds in six Persian Gulf countries, including Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, have now amassed 1.7 trillion dollars, positioning them for attempts to control major banks and securities firms in the United States... Already Middle Eastern investors have acquired 19.9 percent of Nasdaq, the second largest stock exchange in the United States."

For many, the Nasdaq deal seemed eerily reminiscent of the politically disastrous Dubai ports deal. You may recall, in 2006, controversy erupted over the proposed sale of six US seaports to Dubai Ports World, which is controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates. If it had been allowed to go through, the sale would have placed US ports in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia under the control of an Arab nation, a nation that could be linked to Islamic terrorism.

US Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson recently raised eyebrows when he met with leaders from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. Paulson's visit to the Middle East was meant to encourage foreign investment in the US. Paulson told Arab investors that US government regulations and safeguards shouldn't discourage investment and that the Treasury Department had no intention of taking a heavy handed approach when reviewing such deals. Paulson said that, "As we seek to open new markets abroad, America will keep our markets open at home to investment from private firms and from sovereign wealth funds. We reject measures that would isolate us from the world economy…" Paulson's comments come at a time when many would like to see us disentangle ourselves from the Middle East and end our dependence on foreign oil. Yet in the past two years the number of acquisitions by Middle Eastern investors rose by more than 100 percent.

The acquisition of US interests by sovereign wealth funds has become something of a hot topic in recent years. Sovereign wealth funds are essentially investment funds controlled by governments that have a surplus of cash. Nations such as the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Singapore, China and Russia have invested about 3 trillion dollars in sovereign wealth funds. Some economists estimate that amount will reach 12 trillion dollars within 10 years.

Earlier this year the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority invested 7.5 billion dollars in Citigroup, the nation's largest bank. The Abu Dhabi Investment Authority is the world's single largest sovereign wealth fund. It has been described by the New York Times as "secretive" and "publicity-shy" but in recent years it has taken "steps to leverage its size and influence."

Some lawmakers and economists fear that sovereign wealth funds lack transparency and may compromise national security by buying into strategic firms or sectors. Some members of congress have demanded closer scrutiny of these firms. They are concerned that, by purchasing strategic assets, the governments that control these funds could exert political leverage on Western companies and governments. For example, a Chinese investment firm with close ties to China's communist government recently attempted to purchase a stake in 3Com, a firm that makes computer network security software for the Pentagon. The bid raised security concerns, especially in light of recent accusations that the Chinese government hacked into the computers of two US congressmen.

The rise of sovereign wealth funds is just one example of how the global economy is changing. The balance of power is shifting from the West to up-and-coming nations like China, India, and the oil-rich Middle East. It is also a sign of the further globalization of the world economy. To learn more about this topic, click on the links below.

Dozens of gay and lesbian couples were married in California Monday evening, starting at 5:01pm when same-sex marriages officially became legal in the state.  Some of those who rushed to sign up for marriage licenses were from out-of-state; unlike Massachusetts, California has no law requiring residency to obtain a marriage license.  All of the new unions may yet be nullified, though.  California voters can go to the polls in November to overturn the state Supreme Court’s ruling, and reinstate the state ban on same-sex marriages.

The promotion of gay marriage pulls from two basic assumptions, that:
1) homosexual attraction is inborn and genetic;  
2) homosexual attraction, though found in a relatively small portion of the population, is still normal and harmless. 

If people believe that homosexuals are normal and are truly “born that way”, then it is easy to argue that gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to marry just as other minorities are allowed to marry.  These consider discrimination against same-sex couples as a cruel denial of basic human rights.

The gay and lesbian political machine has been working hard for decades to promote those two assumptions. Neither, however, is close to having been proven.   While a significant number of gays and lesbians truly feel that they were “different” from birth, there is little to prove that same-sex attraction is purely genetic.  Homosexuality flies in the face of basic laws of procreation, and cannot therefore be considered “normal”, and there is plenty of evidence that the lifestyles of gay men tend to be anything other than harmless.

In July, 1993, the magazine Science announced the existence of the “gay gene.”  Of course, what the research actually determined was more like, “There could possibly be maybe a chance that this particular gene could conceivably have an influence on being gay. Sort of.”  Unfortunately, many people in the public assumed an actual gay gene had been found, and the idea that people are “born gay” took off. 

In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from the list of psychiatric illnesses. According to a survey reported in the journal Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality in 1977, though, 69 percent of psychiatrists still considered homosexuality a disorder. 

The fact is that the “experts” don’t know exactly what causes homosexual attraction.  The APA does see it as a combination of nature and nurture. Certain trends pop up, though.  Sensitive personalities, poor relationships with fathers, forceful mothers, trauma in childhood, early sexual activity and/or molestation, early rejection by peers – things that leave small children longing for love or acceptance, or that create an extreme sense of inadequacy – are the sorts of things in the backgrounds of many unwilling homosexuals.  Then there is the spiritual aspect, which is even harder to nail down in politically correct America.

Ex-Gays

Perhaps the biggest arguments against the “born that way” mantra are the many men and women who have changed.  The process is often difficult and takes a long time and careful, loving therapy.  When the foundational causes of the same-sex attraction are addressed and dealt with, however, significant numbers of once-homosexuals have become heterosexual.  They have been freed from something that was a chain around their necks and hearts, and have rejoiced in becoming whole.

Former lesbian Debbie Thurman says, “I can count myself among the growing numbers of men and women who have overcome a significant struggle with same-sex attraction. While our stories and the degree to which we have found wholeness may be different, the central themes are often similar. Frequently, you will find we came from broken homes, were alienated from one or both parents, were sexually abused as children, are sensitive by temperament, and suffered from depression.

"…Sticky problems arise when a number of those who have 'always felt' homosexual begin moving along the continuum of feeling less so, and at the same time, actually begin feeling better about themselves. How dare we forsake the gay cause célebrè? Like crabs trying to escape from a bucket, gay activists begin dragging us down.

“Detractors insist that measurable results must be quick, and that change 'isn't change' if it requires a long process. These same people generally see life as a continual 'journey' in all other respects. But if someone gives up during the long process, that is somehow 'proof' that change is a sham. Never mind that overeaters, alcoholics or drug addicts fall off the wagon every day. The standard for sexual identity change remains 'all or nothing'!

“So where are the mental health professionals who will stand up and challenge these untruths? Why do they allow the APA to hijack the truth?”

Regardless of what the politically-charged APA accepts, the Bible consistently condemns same-sex sexual intercourse as wrong.  At the same time, Jesus Christ specifically came to save those who were lost. That’s all of us. He loves us. He died for our sins, and through the power of the Holy Spirit working in our lives, we can all be freed from the various chains that hang around our necks.  According to Paul in Romans 1:18-32, homosexuality has a root cause in a culture’s turning away from God the Creator. It’s easy to attack people lost in same-sex attraction, but we are all responsible as a culture to truly put Christ first in our lives, and to love our neighbors as ourselves. If we do that, maybe we will have fewer young people falling prey to the lie of homosexuality.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.  And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God." - 1 Cor 6:9-11 (NKJV)

Related Links: