Paul Craig Roberts / Infowars
March 31, 2009

Obama and his public relations team have made it appear that his trillion dollars in higher taxes will fall only on “the rich.” Obama stresses that his tax increase is only for the richest 5 percent of Americans while the other 95 percent receive a tax cut.

The fact of the matter is that the income differences within the top 5% are far wider than the differences between the lower tax brackets and the “rich” American in the 96th percentile.

For Obama, being “rich” begins with $250,000 in annual income, the bottom rung of the top 5 percent. Compare this “rich” income to that of, for example, Hank Paulson, President George W. Bush’s Treasury Secretary when he was the head of Goldman Sachs.

In 2005 Paulson was paid $38.3 million in salary, stock and options. That is 153 times the annual income of the “rich” $250,000 person.

Despite his massive income, Paulson himself was not among the super rich of that year, when a dozen hedge fund operators made $1,000 million. The hedge fund honchos incomes were 26 times greater than Paulson’s and 4,000 times greater than the “rich” man’s or family’s $250,000.

For most Americans, a $250,000 income would be a godsend, but envy can make us blind. A $250,000 income is not one that will support a rich lifestyle. Moreover, many people prefer lesser incomes to the years of education, long work hours and stress of personal liability that are associated with many $250,000 incomes. In truth, those with $250,000 gross incomes have more in common with those at the lower end of the income distribution than with the rich. A $250,000 income is ten times greater than a $25,000 income, not hundreds or thousands of times greater. On an after-tax basis, the difference shrinks to about 6 times.

The American tax code taxes the $250,000 income at the same rate as it taxes a $100,000,000 or higher income. On an after tax basis, after the federal government grabs 30% in income taxes and state government grabs 6%, the “rich” man or woman or family earning $250,000 has $160,000. In New York City, where there is a city income tax in addition to state and federal, this sum diminishes further. State sales taxes take another 6 or more percent of most consumption expenditures.

When all is said and done, the after-tax value of a $250,000 income in New York City is about $140,000.

Is this rich? It might be in a small town in Alabama, but not in New York City. The “rich” person or family won’t be purchasing a Manhattan apartment, much less a brownstone. They won’t be driving a luxury car. Indeed, they won’t be able to afford a parking garage for an economy car. If they fly anywhere, it won’t be in a first class seat.

For the most part, $250,000 incomes are located in large cities where the cost of living is high. For example, a husband and wife who are associates at major law firms, each of whom works 60 hour weeks and has no job security, earn $125,000 each. They might both have student loans to pay down. For the Obama administration to lump these people in with Hank Paulson or billionaire hedge fund operators is propagandistic.

What is the difference between the $250,000 “rich” income and the $245,000 “non-rich” income? After Obama’s tax scheme goes into effect, the $245,000 income will benefit from a tax cut, and the $250,000 will have a tax increase. Will people in the 96th percentile ask for pay cuts that will drop them into the 95th percentile?

In America, the truly rich are those in the top 0.5% of the income distribution. These are the people with yachts, private airplanes, and who are still rich after they lose half their wealth in a stock market collapse caused by government policy that accommodated financial gangsters.

“Oh well, I was worth $600,000,000 last year and only $300,000,000 this year. Perhaps we should stop drinking $1,000 bottles of rare vintages and move down to $100 a bottle wines. Probably shouldn’t buy that new yacht or that villa in the south of France.”

The upper middle class with $250,000 gross incomes are major losers of the financial collapse. Many of the people in this income class are leveraged to the hilt in order to maintain appearances and can be swept away as easily as the very poor. But those who were frugal and invested for their future have lost 50% of their savings. These wiped out people are the ones who will bear the brunt of Obama’s tax increase.

Click here to read entire article...

Press TV
March 31, 2009

Japan, South Korea and the US move warships into offensive positions as tensions rise over North Korean plans to test a ballistic missile.

The US, South Korea and Japan warn that North Korea will face UN sanctions under a 2006 Security Council resolution banning the country from any ballistic activity.

"This provocative action, in violation of the United Nations mandate, will not go unnoticed and there will be consequences," said US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during a recent visit to Mexico.

Clinton warned that Washington would itself put the issue before the UN Security Council for punitive measures.

The Japanese parliament has also taken an aggressive stance on the issue and passed a resolution on Tuesday, urging North Korea to abandon its planned launch. According to Japan, the launch could "damage peace and stability, not only in Japan but also in north-east Asia".

Japan has deployed its own missile boats in its bases in the Sea of Japan while more US-made Patriot missiles arrived in Japan Monday to be transferred to the region.

Meanwhile, Pyongyang says the test-launch -- scheduled for sometime between April 4 and 8 -- is a "satellite test" allowed by international law.

A US Navy spokesman has nevertheless announced that two US destroyers had left the Sasebo port in the southwest of South Korea after holding military exercises with the South Korean Navy.

The spokesman did not mention the warships destination but there is every indication that they have departed for waters near North Korea to intervene in case a rocket is launched.

Pyongyang sees any intervention as an act of war.

Click here for original source...

Associated Press
March 31, 2009

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan — The commander of the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility Tuesday for a deadly assault on a Pakistani police academy and said the group was planning a terrorist attack on the White House that would "amaze" the world.

Baitullah Mehsud, who has a $5 million bounty on his head from the U.S., said Monday's attack on the outskirts of the eastern city of Lahore was retaliation for U.S. missile strikes against militants along the Afghan border.

"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone. He provided no details.

Mehsud has never been directly linked to any attacks outside Pakistan, but attacks blamed on his network of fighters have widened in scope and ambition in recent years. The threat comes days after President Barack Obama warned that Al Qaeda is actively planning attacks on the United States from secret havens in Pakistan.

Pakistan's former government and the CIA named Mehsud as the prime suspect behind the December 2007 killing of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. Pakistani officials accuse him of harboring foreign fighters, including Central Asians linked to Al Qaeda, and of training suicide bombers.

Click here to read entire article...

Daniel Taylor / Old-Thinker News
March 31, 2009

The Council on Foreign Relations, often described as the "real state department", has launched an initiative to promote and implement a system of effective world governance.

The program, titled " The International Institutions and Global Governance Program," utilizes the resources of the "…David Rockefeller Studies Program to assess existing regional and global governance mechanisms…" The initial funding for the program came with a $6 million grant from the Robina Foundation, which claims that the grant is "…one of the largest operating grants ever received in Council history."

The IIGG program, launched on May 1st, 2008, is the latest manifestation of an agenda that has existed since and before the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations. Former CFR member, Rear Admiral Chester Ward, stated regarding the group,

"The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common - they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government."

The International Institutions and Global Governance Program identifies several "global issues" that require a system of world governance. Environmental issues, terrorism, the global economy and energy are all mentioned. The project then states that a system of "universal membership" could be pursued, or alternatively a regional organization, such as the European Union model.

"In each of these spheres, the program will consider whether the most promising framework for governance is a formal organization with universal membership (e.g., the United Nations); a regional or sub-regional organization; a narrower, informal coalition of like-minded countries; or some combination of all three."

The programcalls for the "Re-conceptualizing" of national sovereignty, citing the European Union’s "pooling" of sovereignty as a model. The CFR project recognizes that historically, the United States has been resistant to the ideals of global governance. The project states, "Among the most important factors determining the future of global governance will be the attitude of the United States…"

The IIGG program continues, "…few countries have been as sensitive as the United States to restrictions on their freedom of action or as jealous in guarding their sovereign prerogatives." The program then states that the separation of powers as stated in the Constitution, along with the U.S. Congress, stand in the way of the United States assuming "new international obligations." As stated,

"…the country’s longstanding tradition of liberal “exceptionalism” inspires U.S. vigilance in protecting the domestic sovereignty and institutions from the perceived incursions of international bodies. Finally, the separation of powers enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress a critical voice in the ratification of treaties and endorsement of global institutions, complicates U.S. assumptions of new international obligations."

The actions of the Military Industrial Complex under the Bush Administration have served globalist interests well. "Global structures" are now presented as the mechanism to prevent such atrocities. America’s demonization is central to building a system of world governance. Patrick M. Stewart, who is currently the director of the CFR IIGG program, is anticipating the Obama administration "…to seek to turn the page on what many perceived to be ‘cowboy unilateralism’ of the Bush years, by embracing multilateral cooperation, re-kindling U.S. alliances and partnerships, and engaging in sustained diplomacy within the UN framework," as reported by Xinhua. The IIGG project itself stated in May of 2008 that, "Regardless of whether the administration that takes office in January 2009 is Democratic or Republican, the thrust of U.S. foreign policy is likely to be multilateral to a significant degree."

Globalist forces are hard at work in the economic and political realms in an attempt to shape the future of the world, furthering the dominance of the global elite. Calls for a global currency in response to the economic crisis are regularly occurring, drawing the tacit support of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, speaking to the CFR.

Henry Kissinger, a CFR member, anticipates that President Obama will, "…give new impetus to American foreign policy partly because the reception of him is so extraordinary around the world. I think his task will be to develop an overall strategy for America in this period when, really, a new world order can be created. It’s a great opportunity, it isn’t just a crisis."

The Council on Foreign Relations global governance program will undoubtedly be pursued under the Obama administration, which is filled with CFR members. President of the CFR, Richard Haass, is serving as a top adviser to the Obama administration. As the IIGG program admits, regardless of who sits in the White House, the globalist agenda moves forward full speed ahead.

Click here for original source...

Paul Joseph Watson / Prison Planet
March 31, 2009

The staggering spectacle of a sitting President effectively firing the CEO of a private company heralds the beginning of a new phase in the government takeover of free enterprise, according to shocked economic observers.

Obama’s decision to send GM CEO Rick Wagoner packing on Sunday afternoon stunned a previously buoyant stock market into a 250 point drop on Monday as traders struggled to digest the unprecedented move.

This is just the latest expansion of Obama and his administration’s power grab, using the economic crisis created by the central bankers that pull their strings as an excuse to pose as the saviors while completely sinking any chances of a real recovery by not allowing incompetent banks and corporations to fail.

“Remember, as bad as Wagoner’s performance has been over the years, it was the federal government — not shareholders or the board of directors — that threw him under the bus,” points out CNBC’s Larry Kudlow.

Sen. Bob Corker, who argued in favor of a government bailout of GM, called the Wagoner firing “a major power-grab by the White House on the heels of another power-grab from Secretary Geithner, who asked last week for the freedom to decide on his own which companies are ‘systemically’ important to our country and worthy of taxpayer investment, and which are not.”

He added that the move represents “a marked departure from the past,” “truly breathtaking,” and something that “should send a chill through all Americans who believe in free enterprise.”

Financial blogger Jeff Schreiber was similarly flabbergasted at the move, noting that the Democrats have taken the Republican’s murder of the economy and turned it into a “killing spree”.

“Today, the CEO of General Motors was fired. Tomorrow, will it be Chrysler? Will it be a bank? A retailer? A small business? Even worse, what of the effects upon individual workers who now find themselves, albeit unwillingly, under the government umbrella?” he writes.

Kudlow highlights the fact that the bailout has everything to do with regulation and centralizing control, and little to do with actually laying the foundation for an economic recovery.

“The big bankers say they are profitable. And with an upward-sloping Treasury yield curve and some market-to-market accounting reform coming from the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB), the outlook for banks should be getting better, not worse,” he writes. “So why is the Treasury jamming more TARP money down bankers’ throats, especially after announcing a new plan to use private capital to clean up bank balance sheets and solve the toxic-asset problem?”

“It kinda sounds like the Treasury doesn’t want to let go of its new uber-regulator status,” he concludes.

As we have exhaustively reiterated - the bailouts have nothing to do with providing the means for real economic recovery - they are simply the avenue by which the state is seizing complete control over private enterprise. That is why the Obama administration is demanding banks and companies accept more TARP money even if they don’t need or want it.

The Democrats have mimicked the Bush administration’s fearmongering about the war on terror and applied it to the economic crisis, making dire apocalyptic proclamations and guaranteeing they will happen if Congress and the American people don’t support every instance of government intervention.

In league with Bernanke, Geithner, and Paulson before him, they have also used intimidation and bullying tactics, threatening that martial law will be introduced in the U.S. unless lawmakers get with the program and fast-track every power-grabbing measure.

Meanwhile, every single government action has either had no effect or made the situation worse. Before the recent bounce, which is already losing steam, the Dow Jones had lost over 1600 points from the time of Obama’s inauguration to its low on March 9.

In reality, as Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and numerous others have stressed, the only thing that will turn the crisis around is if the government gets its nose out of the business of private enterprise, stops using taxpayer money to prop up zombie organizations, and allows competent banks and companies to pick up the pieces and set an example for a true and sustained recovery.

Click here for original source...