April 1st 2009 - 2:41 am UTC

Imagine Falklands and Gibraltar naval facilities under EU control and flag

Britain’s naval bases around the world should be put under the control of the European Union, according to a report commissioned by the Brussels Parliament and which was leaked to the British press this week.

The study states that UK military facilities in the Falkland Islands (MPA), Gibraltar and Cyprus should become part of an EU 'forward presence' spanning the globe, to help safeguard Europe's trade routes in an uncertain future.

The proposals would also see Europe's other major naval power, France, forced to put its military bases in Africa and South America under the control of Brussels as part of a process of “Europeanization”.

The latest example of the ambitious European defense agenda being pursued within the EU goes so far as to suggest that two new giant aircraft carriers being built for the Royal Navy should become an EU 'capability'.

The idea of the EU flag flying over Falklands, Gibraltar and Cyprus drew a horrified response from opposition critics in the UK, and a firm rebuttal from the Ministry of Defense which insisted British facilities would remain under British control.

The study was commissioned by the European Parliament's security and defense committee, as part of inquiries into how the EU should respond to emerging military powers in Asia.

It concludes that: 'The EU Member States’ military installations - mainly French and British - would provide a formidable asset for the geographical and functional expansion of EU Grand Strategy.'

As the world power balance becomes more complex and uncertain, the report adds, 'there is a growing and compelling need for Europeans to take responsibility for the Sea Lines of Communication that link them to the farthest corners of the world, particularly those most vital to European trade and security.'

Sea lanes can only be secured with a costly network of forward bases, the study argues, and the answer is 'further EU co-operation to ‘Europeanize’ the Anglo-French forward presence and under-gird EU maritime security more effectively.'

The report calls for 'institutional reforms' within the EU, adding: 'One of these may be for Britain and France to transfer the maintenance and upkeep of their military installations to a central institution, funded by all of the Member States.'

To oversee the changes, the EU must appoint a new 'Special Representative for Geo-strategy'.

Referring to Britain's two new giant aircraft carriers, the report adds: 'The sheer size and capability of these vessels will provide the Royal Navy - and potentially, the EU - with a greatly enhanced expeditionary and maritime power projection capability.'

Enthusiasts for European Defense want to see a common EU foreign policy backed by centrally-controlled EU military forces.

France has championed the cause for years and Nicolas Sarkozy is using France's six-month EU presidency to push proposals for a new EU military headquarters in Brussels and more EU Rapid Reaction Forces, each made up of 1,500 troops from member states. But opponents fear an EU Army will become a building block for a future European super-state.

Britain's Defense Secretary John Hutton fuelled concerns on taking office last year when he dismissed opposition to closer EU military ties as 'pathetic'.

Shadow Defense Secretary Dr Liam Fox warned today: 'Talk of a Grand Strategy betrays the real intentions of the European Commission".

'The idea that we might turn our military bases over to the EU, for projects the British people have never given their assent to, is a twisted fantasy.'

Geoffrey Van Orden, Conservative defence spokesman in Brussels, said: 'These are among the most hubristic proposals the EU has yet produced in support of its defense policies.

'This has nothing to do with a genuine contribution to European security and everything to do with EU promotion of its own misplaced military ambitions.'

A MoD spokesman played down the proposals, saying use of British bases was a decision for the UK Government. He added: 'The UK's policy remains that there will be no standing European army, navy or air force. We have just one set of military forces and they don't belong to either NATO or the EU - they belong to us.

http://en.mercopress.com/2009/04/01/imagine-falklands-and-gibraltar-naval-facilities-under-eu-control-and-flag/

This was my response.

When Mr Brady MP asked this question (18.89.2006) “What is on
the applicability of EU policy and legislation to the territorial waters of the overseas territories on member states” Mr McCartney MP answered, “ The EC Treaty, other than Part IV on the Association of overseas Countries and territories, does not apply to the Overseas territories of the United Kingdom, except to Gibraltar to which it applies by virtue of Article 299 (4) EC Treaty. As the legal base for any legislation
arising out of the Maritime Green Paper would be likely to be under Article 175 (1), an environmental legal base, it would not apply to the majority of the United Kingdom’s overseas Territories. However, the Government and the Governments of the other Overseas Territories would want to consider whether it would be appropriate and feasible to apply similar measures based on EC Legislation through the
Territories domestic legislation”. I rather suspect that if the EU Constitution (Now Lisbon) had gone through, circumstances would change to the advantage of the EU and isadvantage of Nation States.

“A European Maritime policy needs a general framework, as set out in this document, but its implementation will need to take account of the realities of Europe’s geographical situation. For example, EU Member States’ overseas territories give a worldwide dimension to European Maritime Policy". European Neighborhood Policy 124 comprises a regular dialogue with partner countries, including maritime
issues”. Britain has 14 overseas territories spread throughout the world. So, I think we can take it as a ‘yes’ that many will be the EU’s Motorways in the seas and many will be the nautical miles it will cover if this dreadful legislation was to go through.

3 Anne (#) Apr. 1, 2009 - 4:00 pm

There maybe no EU STANDING Army, and there maybe no EU STANDING Navy but the EU navy has already set sail and is on duty re Somalia for twelve months.

Just how much longer do the full compliment of British politicians presently sit on those green benches think they can continue to pick up full time pay when the EU instigates approx 80% of our laws? We simply cannot afford you and the EU Regions as announced today. 

This is an insider's view of what really goes on at summits - 
economic ones especially.  He should know - he was there!

It has the ring of absolute authenticity - and is quite hilarious too 
in places.

So enjoy it  - it's great to read!

xxxxxxxxxx cs
========================
TELEGRAPH   1.4.09
All in a spin at the G20 summit
The leaders gathering in London are in for an experience that ranges 
from the soul-crushing to the bizarre, says Christopher Meyer.

By Christopher Meyer

I have in my scrapbook a photograph of a slumbering British 
delegation as it listened to a speech by the then German Chancellor, 
Helmut Kohl. This was at a 1985 meeting in Bonn of the G7 group of 
nations (this week it is the G20, showing that grade inflation is as 
big a problem in international diplomacy as it is in British 
education). The photo does not, of course, capture Margaret Thatcher 
herself - who didn't like sleeping, even at night - but the senior 
officials in her delegation, plus me, a small cog in a powerful 
machine. We are all smitten, not just by Kohl's soporific rumble, but 
by the effort needed to keep awake during the tedium of an economic 
summit. There is something about "multilateral" diplomacy, as the 
professionals call it, that crushes the soul. At a vast jamboree held 
in Budapest in the Eighties a chandelier crashed on to the conference 
table. The Hungarian foreign minister leant over to Britain's 
Geoffrey - now Lord - Howe and muttered: "My God, that was a near 
thing. It might have woken someone up."

Actually, I was nearly shot dead at the Bonn summit. I happened to 
walk into the conference centre lavatories just as President Reagan 
and a posse of secret servicemen came in from the other end. The 
bodyguards eyed me with intense suspicion. Reagan had already 
survived one assassination attempt. I reached slowly and carefully 
for my fly in the knowledge that one false move could leave me bullet-
ridden in the urinal. Reagan gave me a cheery wave - as ever, 
amiability personified. I made in return a kind of crabbed hand-
gesture, accompanied by a little bow, desperate to avoid any hint I 
was grasping something more threatening than my organ.

This week, there is much excitement at the arrival in Britain of 
another US president, this time the global superstar, Barack Obama. 
There are also, ostensibly, big hopes for what might emerge from the 
meeting of the world's leaders in London's Docklands.

But the truth about diplomatic conferences is that, too often, not a 
lot happens. It is not supposed to. There is a script, which all the 
leaders are expected to follow. For senior advisers there is nothing 
more worrying than an outbreak of spontaneous discussion or, heaven 
forbid, actual negotiation between the Great Men and Women. Even at 
meal times, when you might expect the leaders to ease up a bit, 
advisers - some disguised as interpreters - are lurking either in the 
room or just outside, ready to race in to whisper the "line to take", 
should the need arise. There are exceptions to the rule. In my time 
as a diplomat, they characteristically involved Margaret Thatcher, 
when she went into battle with European leaders in defence of British 
interests. This sometimes involved meetings from which advisers were 
ejected, so that the real political bargaining could begin. John 
Kerr, Britain's then ambassador in Brussels, got round this by hiding 
under the conference table from where he whispered advice to Thatcher.

But for the most part, international leaders are expected to turn up 
and bless the communiqué. This will have been negotiated weeks, even 
months, beforehand by officials - the so-called Sherpas. If the 
process has gone well, there will be nothing in the documents for the 
leaders to resolve. Occasionally, passages will be in square 
brackets, denoting where it has not been possible to reach agreement. 
It will then be up to the leaders to sort things out. This, in my 
experience, tends to irritate them. They don't like doing detail. The 
late President Mitterrand of France seemed to make it a point of 
honour to have only the vaguest acquaintance with the agenda, just as 
he always contrived to arrive last at summit sessions, especially if 
the American president were in attendance.

With, so we are told, only about a quarter-of-an-hour's speaking time 
at the Docklands summit for each of the 20 or so delegations, the 
scope for serious debate will be almost non-existent. Most of the 
leaders will instead take the opportunity to make grandstanding 
speeches to seize the headlines back home. Some may sneak out of the 
meeting to take personal charge of briefing the press. The more 
brazen will flounce out theatrically in what they hope will be seen 
at home as muscular diplomacy. Reports from France suggest that 
President Sarkozy is already threatening this time-honoured 
manoeuvre. I heard over the weekend from French sources that he had 
put in an early bid for one of the press briefing rooms.

For spin will be king of the Docklands summit. It used to be a 
convention at these affairs that nobody held a press conference until 
the chairman - in this case, Gordon Brown - had finished his. How 
many, I wonder, will jump the gun? There may be other dirty tricks. A 
draft of the communiqué has already been leaked in Germany, to 
Britain's discomfort. The Germans have form: they once took a British 
paper given to them in confidence and launched it publicly as a 
Franco-German initiative at a European summit.

Make no mistake about two things. First, Barack Obama will be the 
star of the show. He may not be walking on water any more; but, 
unlike any US president in my lifetime, he is probably the most 
popular politician on the planet. Even today, there is something 
about the American President walking into the conference room, which 
no other leader - even the French President, especially when he is 
very small - can rival. It has something to do with the almost 
tangible projection of power. Second, the only encounter that will 
really matter for the future of the world will be outside the 
conference hall. It will be that between Obama and the Chinese 
president Hu Jintao - leaders, respectively, of a mature and of a 
rising superpower. The profound economic interdependence of the US 
and China will be the Special Relationship of the 21st century.

There is always a tension at these meetings between internationalist 
aspiration and domestic politics. In dire economic times, the tension 
becomes almost unbearable. You can have all the solemn declarations 
in the world against protectionism; but if a government's survival 
depends on protecting jobs at home, there are no prizes for guessing 
which argument is going to prevail. That applies almost as much to 
dictatorships as to democracies. The one thing that this motley 
collection of presidents and prime ministers has in common is acute 
vulnerability to how they are seen back home to be helping their 
country weather the economic tempest.

So, there will be an awful lot of flatulent aspiration in the 
communiqué. It will bind no one. The drafters' ingenuity will be 
tested to the limit in the search for words to paste over the 
differences between the two sides of the Atlantic on fiscal stimulus 
and tougher regulation. There will be some nuggets. The betting seems 
to be on beefing up the IMF's capital, doing something to ease export 
credit, and whacking tax havens: useful, maybe, but a universe short 
of a "global new deal" and something that could have been achieved 
without the vast expense of the summit. I pray for some as yet unseen 
rabbit to emerge from the Docklands hat. Otherwise, we are left to 
weep for the once proud reputation of British diplomacy, after the 
return of our Prime Minister from a world tour of serial ambushes and 
crushed expectations.
----------------------

Sir Christopher Meyer was British Ambassador in Washington between 
1997 and 2003

Clinton Advisor: Earth's Population Has Exceeded Limits Scientist calls for reduction in global population

One of most influential scientists in the US government has said that the Earth's population has exceeded the planet's "limits of sustainability".

Dr Nina Fedoroff, the science and technology advisor to the US secretary of state, currently Hillary Clinton, told the BBC's "One Planet" program that "There are probably already too many people on the planet."

"We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people," Fedoroff said.

Fedoroff, a National Medal of Science laureate (America's highest science award) has held the position as government advisor since 2007 and previously worked with Condoleezza Rice.

The professor of molecular biology also advocated the widespread introduction of genetically modified foods, slamming those who have criticized the unknown effects of GM as living in the past.

"We wouldn't think of going to our doctor and saying 'Treat me the way doctors treated people in the 19th Century', and yet that's what we're demanding in food production."

Fedoroff's comments echo those of other prominent scientists who have thrown their weight behind the long term agenda to implement measures to stem the population of the planet. This view is gaining ground with increased pressure on governments to act over climate change as the justification.

California Tent City Residents Required to Wear Wristbands

cryptogon.com
Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Via: Los Angeles Times:

Tent City residents gather as the city of Ontario starts the process of sorting out who may stay and who must leave. The city issued wristbands – blue for Ontario residents, who may stay, orange for people who need to provide more documentation, and white for those who must leave. The aim is to reduce the number of people living there from over 400 to 170.

Officials begin thinning out the encampment, saying the city can provide space only for those who once lived there and can prove it.

Research related articles:

1. California “tent city” for homeless to be closed
2. As Unlawful Arrests Continue, St. Paul Feels Like a City Under Siege for Some Residents
3. The credit crunch tent city which has returned to haunt America
4. G20 rioters to hang banker effigies from lampposts as city staff are told to wear disguises
5. Local councils accused of spying on residents’ sex lives
6. ‘Tent Cities’ Spring Up In The US
7. BBC: Some residents ‘furious’ over NYC terror checks
8. Military May Patrol Bar Zone In Canadian City
9. U.S. Government Mandates HPV Vaccine for New U.S. Residents
10. The speed trap set by your neighbour - police recruit residents in road safety war
11. Israeli troops and Hamas fighters clash in Gaza City
12. Bombs, choppers during military exercises startle residents

Hannity, Morris Agree with “Conspiracy People” About New World Order

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars
March 31, 2009

In the video here, the former Clintonite Dick Morris, who is now a darling of Fox News, tells Sean Hannity the globalists will put the “American economy under international regulation” and “those people who have been yelling, oh, the UN is going to take over… they’ve been crazy, but now they’re right.”

 

“Those conspiracy people,” Sean Hannity interjects, “had suggested that for years… you’re not wrong.”

It’s the “international regulation of the financial institutions” we have to worry about, warns Dick Morris. It will happen under “IMF control… Remember, the IMF is run by the Europeans and backed by Americans.”

It’s too bad Mr. Morris didn’t give us the rest of the story. The IMF is a loan sharking operation created by the bankers under the Bretton Woods scheme and its primary purpose to date has been to get third world nations into hock so they can be more effectively looted. It is now poised, as Morris eludes, to embark on a far more ambitious bankster scam — to initiate something called “global quantitative easing” by printing billions of dollars worth of a global “super-currency,” deceptively billed as a way to address the economic crisis manufactured by the global elite.

“Alistair Darling and senior figures in the US Treasury have been encouraging the Fund to issue hundreds of billions of dollars worth of so-called Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) in the coming months as part of its campaign to prevent the recession from turning into a global depression,” the Telegraph reported on March 16.

SDRs are now based on four currencies — the US dollar, the Japanese yen, the euro and the British pound. They are used largely as a unit of account by the IMF and other international organizations.

Read between the lines and you get to the bottom of the real reason for the issuance of SDRs — to push for a world currency. Recall a few days ago Zhou Xiaochuan, China’s central bank’s governor, calling for the IMF to forge a new world reserve currency.

World Bank President Admits Agenda For Global Government
Bilderberg elitist Zoellick calls for IMF, WTO & World Bank to regulate national policy

Paul Joseph Watson Propaganda Matrix Wednesday, April 1, 2009

 

World Bank President and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit.

Speaking about the agenda to increase not just funding but power for international organizations on the back of the financial crisis, Zoellick stated, "If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernising multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies."

In other words, give global institutions the power to regulate national policy as part of the creation of global government.

What Zoellick is outlining is essentially the end of national sovereignty and the reclassification of national governments as mere subordinates to a global authority that is completely unaccountable to the voting public of any country.

The more cynical amongst us would call this a global dictatorship. Zoellick couches the plan in flowery rhetoric of helping the poor and alleviating poverty, but as we have documented for years, the global elite's goal of world government has little to do with saving the planet and everything to do with creating a global fascist state.

Zoellick, former Executive Vice President of Fannie Mae and advisor to Goldman Sachs, is a top elitist who was intimately involved in the Enron scandal and the 2000 presidential election debacle. He was also a signatory to the Project For A New American century document that called for invading Iraq as part of implementing a brutal world empire in 1998. He was later a foreign policy advisor to George W. Bush.

As to be expected, Zoellick is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. He also attended the annual invitation-only conferences of the Bilderberg Group in 1991, 2003, 2006 and 2007.

Meanwhile, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will use the G20 summit in London to extend an olive branch to China, offering them a central role in the construction of a new world order and a global government, according to reports.

"Brown will hold talks with Hu Jintao, China's president, following discussions with Barack Obama, amid signs that developing countries see the G20 summit as a chance to impose a new world order and end the era of Anglo-European dominance," reports the Guardian.

Under the proposal, China will vastly increase its IMF funding in return for more voting rights.

A central focus of the G20 summit will be the proposal to supplant the dollar with a new global currency. Both the IMF and the United Nations threw their weight behind the implementation of a new global reserve currency system to replace the dollar, in the same week that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told CFR globalists that he was "open" to the idea.

China and Russia brought the issue to the forefront of this week's G20 when they jointly called for a new global reserve currency a week ago.

Brown has consistently called for global regulation of the financial system as a means towards global governance. Ina speech at St Paul's Cathedral in London yesterday he again called for a new "global society".

Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion (Update1) 

By Mark Pittman and Bob Ivry

March 31 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.

New pledges from the Fed, the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. include $1 trillion for the Public-Private Investment Program, designed to help investors buy distressed loans and other assets from U.S. banks. The money works out to $42,105 for every man, woman and child in the U.S. and 14 times the $899.8 billion of currency in circulation. The nation’s gross domestic product was $14.2 trillion in 2008.

President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner met with the chief executives of the nation’s 12 biggest banks on March 27 at the White House to enlist their support to thaw a 20-month freeze in bank lending.

“The president and Treasury Secretary Geithner have said they will do what it takes,” Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Lloyd Blankfein said after the meeting. “If it is enough, that will be great. If it is not enough, they will have to do more.”

Commitments include a $500 billion line of credit to the FDIC from the government’s coffers that will enable the agency to guarantee as much as $2 trillion worth of debt for participants in the Term Asset-Backed Lending Facility and the Public-Private Investment Program. FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair warned that the insurance fund to protect customer deposits at U.S. banks could dry up because of bank failures.

‘Within an Eyelash’

The combined commitment has increased by 73 percent since November, when Bloomberg first estimated the funding, loans and guarantees at $7.4 trillion.

“The comparison to GDP serves the useful purpose of underscoring how extraordinary the efforts have been to stabilize the credit markets,” said Dana Johnson, chief economist for Comerica Bank in Dallas.

“Everything the Fed, the FDIC and the Treasury do doesn’t always work out right but back in October we came within an eyelash of having a truly horrible collapse of our financial system, said Johnson, a former Fed senior economist. “They used their creativity to help the worst-case scenario from unfolding and I’m awfully glad they did it.”

Federal Reserve officials project the economy will keep shrinking until at least mid-year, which would mark the longest U.S. recession since the Great Depression.

The following table details how the Fed and the government have committed the money on behalf of American taxpayers over the past 20 months, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

===========================================================                                   --- Amounts (Billions)---                                    Limit          Current =========================================================== Total                            $12,798.14     $4,169.71 -----------------------------------------------------------  Federal Reserve Total            $7,765.64     $1,678.71   Primary Credit Discount           $110.74        $61.31   Secondary Credit                    $0.19         $1.00   Primary dealer and others         $147.00        $20.18   ABCP Liquidity                    $152.11         $6.85   AIG Credit                         $60.00        $43.19   Net Portfolio CP Funding        $1,800.00       $241.31   Maiden Lane (Bear Stearns)         $29.50        $28.82   Maiden Lane II  (AIG)              $22.50        $18.54   Maiden Lane III (AIG)              $30.00        $24.04   Term Securities Lending           $250.00        $88.55   Term Auction Facility             $900.00       $468.59   Securities lending overnight       $10.00         $4.41   Term Asset-Backed Loan Facility   $900.00         $4.71   Currency Swaps/Other Assets       $606.00       $377.87   MMIFF                             $540.00         $0.00   GSE Debt Purchases                $600.00        $50.39   GSE Mortgage-Backed Securities  $1,000.00       $236.16   Citigroup Bailout Fed Portion     $220.40         $0.00   Bank of America Bailout            $87.20         $0.00   Commitment to Buy Treasuries      $300.00         $7.50 -----------------------------------------------------------   FDIC Total                      $2,038.50       $357.50    Public-Private Investment*       $500.00          0.00    FDIC Liquidity Guarantees      $1,400.00       $316.50    GE                               $126.00        $41.00    Citigroup Bailout FDIC            $10.00         $0.00    Bank of America Bailout FDIC       $2.50         $0.00 -----------------------------------------------------------  Treasury Total                   $2,694.00     $1,833.50   TARP                              $700.00       $599.50   Tax Break for Banks                $29.00        $29.00   Stimulus Package (Bush)           $168.00       $168.00   Stimulus II (Obama)               $787.00       $787.00   Treasury Exchange Stabilization    $50.00        $50.00   Student Loan Purchases             $60.00         $0.00   Support for Fannie/Freddie        $400.00       $200.00   Line of Credit for FDIC*          $500.00         $0.00 ----------------------------------------------------------- HUD Total                           $300.00       $300.00   Hope for Homeowners FHA           $300.00       $300.00 ----------------------------------------------------------- he FDIC’s commitment to guarantee lending under the Legacy Loan Program and the Legacy Asset Program includes a $500 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury.   To contact the reporters on this story: Mark Pittman in New York at  mpittman@bloomberg.net; Bob Ivry in New York at  bivry@bloomberg.net.   

Last Updated: March 31, 2009 14:20 EDT 

• Delicious
• Digg
• Facebook
• LinkedIn
• Newsvine
• Propeller
• Yah

Obama's Attack On 
The Middle Class
By Paul Craig Roberts

4-1-9

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.   If the tax rate on a multi-million dollar annual income goes up by 5 percentage points, the cutbacks won't really affect the lifestyle. But for the $250,000 gross income group, it means no prospect of private schools and Ivy League education for the children, who will be attending state colleges with the rest of the non-rich.   Obama is attacking the only income class that has any independence  the upper middle class professionals. The real rich are few in number and seldom present any opposition to government. Recently, the New York Times reported (March 23, 2009) that the 400 richest Americans' "share of the nation's total wealth has nearly doubled to more than 22 percent." The average income of the 400 richest Americans is $263 million annually. That is 1,052 times the income of the "rich" $250,000 income.   What the Obama administration is really doing is taxing ordinary people in order to bail out the super rich. The 95% of Americans who get the tax cut will find that it is offset many times by the depreciation in the dollar and the raging inflation that will result from monetizing the multi-trillion dollar budget deficits made necessary by the bailouts of the banksters.   In the United States, government has become expert at manipulating both left-wing and right-wing ideologies. It keeps those on both ends of the spectrum set at each other's throats in order to ensure the government's continuing independence from accountability. Historically, the definition of a free person is a person who owns his own labor. Serfs were not free, because they owed their feudal lords, the government of that time, a maximum of one-third of their labor. Nineteenth century slaves were not free, because their owners could expropriate 50% of their labor.   Today, no American is a free person. The lowest tax rate, not counting state income, property tax and sales tax, is 15% Social Security tax and 15% federal income tax. The "free American" starts off with a 30% tax rate, the position of a medieval serf.   In medieval Europe, when tax rates reached beyond 30%, serfs rebelled and killed their masters.     Paul Craig Roberts [send him mail] a former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury and former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, has been reporting shocking cases of prosecutorial abuse for two decades. A new edition of his book, The Tyranny of Good Intentions, co-authored with Lawrence Stratton, a documented account of how Americans lost the protection of law, has just been released by Random House.   Copyright © 2009 Creators Syndicate

What John Hancock Tower Sale Implies For CRE

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 1, 2009

What John Hancock Tower Sale Implies For CRE

Posted by Tyler Durden at 9:58 AM

Zero Hedge's feelings about commercial real estate are no secret. Yesterday's sale of the John Hancock Tower to Normandy was an interesting market test, with media reports claiming it implied either nothing much or only good things about CRE and CMBS recoveries. A contrarian (and realistic) analysis on the transaction out of Morgan Stanely implies that based on this deal, not all is good in CRE land. (hat tip to reader David).

****

In a foreclosure auction today, the John Hancock Tower - a marquee building in Boston - traded at $660MM to Normandy Real Estate Partners. That same property was appraised for $1.3BN in 2006 and traded for $935MM in 2003. This is VERY negative for commercial real estate. At face, it looks like even top quality assets are down 50% from their peak, but that forgets the value of the financing that Normandy now gets to assume. There will still be a $640.5MM mortgage on the property at a rate of 5.6%.

What is the value of being able to get a 97% LTV loan at 5.6% these days? Let's say you can get a 60% LTV mortgage ($400MM) at 8%, and the other $240MM in mezz financing (which has no chance of getting done in this market) could hypothetically get done at 15%. That combination produces a weighted average financing cost of almost 11%. A 5.6% mortgage at 11% yield is about a 70 $px, which means the value of assuming the existing financing on the Hancock Tower is close to $190MM. The real clearing level for the top commercial property in Boston was only $470MM - down 65% from 2006 levels and down 50% from 2003 levels. If we assume 2008 NOI numbers are still accurate, this would be a 9.5% cap rate adjusted for the financing. Without adjusting for the value of financing, the purchase price of $660MM looks like a 6.7% cap rate and $383/sqft - rich, relative to 1540 Broadway (NY office vs Boston office) recently clearing at ~$400/sqft.

**The main takeaway: property values are down A LOT more than people think, especially when considering the implied value of financing. Caveat Emptor.**

On the brightside for holders of GG9, the #1 loan now has a better sponsor with a lighter debt load. Unfortunately, not every CMBS loan had a 50% LTV to 2006/2007 levels like John Hancock Tower...Severities will be much higher for the majority of 75+% LTV CMBS loans. Sphere: Related Content

Here is your Crux PM update:

Boston shocker: Commercial real estate much worse than thought
Yesterday's sale of a premier office tower at 50% isn't a sign of a bottom…

If you don't own gold after reading this… you're nuts
Steve Sjuggerud shares an important lesson about gold.

These stocks could soar on a Buffett takeover
This list of companies fits Buffett's takeover criteria.


The world's worst stock market in '09
This major oil producing nation is plunging even though crude has gone up.

Atlas Shrugged begins, Part II… New York taxes bite deeper and deeper
One of our most popular posts gets a sickening follow up…

Barack Obama declares war on poor Southerners
The giant new cigarette tax is basically a tax on poor people.

Country's largest newspaper dealt devastating blow
As if plunging ad revenue and circulation wasn't enough…

The biggest names on Wall Street expect stocks to soar this year
The Wall Street consensus has stocks gaining 20% from here. The consensus is always wrong.

Regards,

The Daily Crux
www.thedailycrux.com

Dear Harold, The issue of Iran launching a nuclear warhead over America that would then trigger an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is one we have highlighted in past emails and Brigitte Gabriel discusses in her book They Must Be Stopped. However, numerous actions and overtures by President Obama and his administration that signal weakness and capitulation to the Iranian mullahs and President Ahmadinejad are dramatically elevating the concern we have regarding the likelihood of such an attack. The NewsMax commentary below is sobering reading. Does anyone seriously believe that those Iranian mullahs who are now following in the footsteps of the Ayatollah Khomeini will hesitate to use a nuclear weapon against America, especially one that would create the widespread devastation an EMP would create? Given that many sources now estimate Iran will have enough enriched uranium within a year to make a nuclear weapon, the clock is ticking dangerously close to midnight. In spite of this, the Obama administration is taking various actions demonstrating weakness in the face of this Iranian march to nuclear capability, such as: Obama’s interview with al-Arabiya in which he criticized America for the tensions with the Muslim world. Obama’s recent message to the Iranian mullahs, which was certainly perceived by them as appeasement and capitulation. Administration indications that missile defense capability will be downgraded. “Large, painful” cuts in defense spending, as noted by Senator Carl Levin. Homeland Security director calling Islamist terrorism “man-caused disasters.” The nomination of Harold Koh to be legal counsel to the State Department. Koh’s outrageous views include a statement made in 2007 in which he said “he didn't see any reason why Shariah law would not be applied to govern a case in the United States.” The pattern here is disturbingly clear. We don’t have to speculate as to what the results of this approach to Muslim “outreach” will be – Western Europe and the UK have been employing it for decades, and the result has been more Islamist militancy, more Islamist demands, and an increase in terror threats. But now, as we are staring at the prospect of a nuclear-triggered EMP, the stakes are higher than they have ever been. Newt Gingrich: A Single Nuke Could Destroy America Sunday, March 29, 2009 4:23 PM By: Newt Gingrich and William Forstchen http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/grigrich_emp_weapon/2009/03/29/197257.html A sword of Damocles hangs over our heads. It is a real threat that has been all but ignored. On Feb. 3, Iran launched a “communications satellite” into orbit. At this very moment, North Korea is threatening to do the same. The ability to launch an alleged communications satellite belies a far more frightening truth. A rocket that can carry a satellite into orbit also can drop a nuclear warhead over any location on the planet in less than 45 minutes. Far too many timid or uninformed sources maintain that a single launch of a missile poses no true threat to the United States, given our retaliatory power. A reality check is in order and must be discussed in response to such an absurd claim: In fact, one small nuclear weapon, delivered by an ICBM can destroy the United States by maximizing the effect of the resultant electromagnetic pulse upon detonation. An electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a byproduct of detonating an atomic bomb above the Earth’s atmosphere. When a nuclear weapon is detonated in space, the gamma rays emitted trigger a massive electrical disturbance in the upper atmosphere. Moving at the speed of light, this overload will short out all electrical equipment, power grids and delicate electronics on the Earth’s surface. In fact, it would take only one to three weapons exploding above the continental United States to wipe out our entire grid and transportation network. It might take years to recover from, if ever. This is not science fiction. If you doubt this, spend a short amount of time skimming the Report of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack from April 2008. You will come away sobered. Even as the new administration plans to spend trillions on economic bailouts, it has announced plans to reduce funding and downgrade efforts for missile defense. Furthermore, the United States’ reluctance to invest in a modern and credible traditional nuclear deterrent is a serious concern. What good will a bailout be if there is no longer a nation to bail out? Fifty years ago, it was not Sputnik itself that sent a dire chill of warning around the world; it was the capability of the rocket that launched Sputnik. The rocket that lofted Sputnik into orbit also could have served as an ICBM. Yet for all its rhetoric, the Soviet Union was essentially a rational power that recognized the threat of mutual destruction and thus never stepped to the edge. The world is different today. Intercontinental range missiles tipped with nuclear weapons in the hands of leaders driven by fanaticism, leaders that support global terrorism, leaders that have made repeated threats that they will seek our annihilation . . . can now at last achieve that dream in a matter of minutes. Those who claim that there is little to fear from Iran or North Korea because “at best” they will have only one or two nuclear weapons ignore the catastrophic level of threat we now face from just “a couple” of nuclear weapons. Again: One to three missiles tipped with nuclear weapons and armed to detonate at a high altitude — to achieve the strongest EMP over the greatest area of the United States — would create an EMP “overlay” that triggers a continent-wide collapse of our entire electrical, transportation, and communications infrastructure. Within weeks after such an attack, tens of millions of Americans would perish. The impact has been likened to a nationwide Hurricane Katrina. Some studies estimate that 90 percent of all Americans might very well die in the year after such an attack as our transportation, food distribution, communications, public safety, law enforcement, and medical infrastructures collapse. We most likely would never recover from the blow. Two things need to be done now and without delay: 1. Make clear in the strongest of terms that, if either Iran or North Korea launches a rocket on a trajectory headed toward the territory of the United States, we will shoot it down. The risk of not doing so is beyond acceptable. And if they construe this as an act of war, so be it, for they fired the first shot. The risk of sitting back for 30 minutes and praying it is not an EMP strike is beyond acceptable, beyond rational on our part. 2. Funding for EMP defense must be a top national priority. To downgrade or halt our missile defense program, which at last is becoming viable after 25 years of research, would be an action of criminal negligence. Surely, with such a threat confronting us, a fair and open debate, with full public access and the setting aside of partisan politics, is in order. In the meantime, a policy must be stated today that we will indeed shoot down any missile aimed towards the United States that is fired by Iran or North Korea. America’s survival, your survival, and your family’s survival might very well depend on it. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ACT for America P.O. Box 12765 Pensacola, FL 32591 www.actforamerica.org

Breaking News from Moneynews.com Soros: If G20 Fails, Global Depression Ahead If the G20 meeting of world leaders this week results in nothing but more hot air, billionaire George Soros says the global economy will fall into a depression. Even if that's averted, the recession will last a long time, Soros says. Read the Entire Article — Go Here Now.

Failed to fetch full article text, please go « Just another Digs ...
By Jimmy
economic recovery policies and major changes in financial regulation. Yet little more than a day ... calls "Anglo- American capitalism." Meanwhile, most big European Union countries, led by Germany, are opposed to ... an estimated $1 trillion of U.S. Treasury ... The UK and 14 other EU member states have an opt-out from the directive, objecting to the 48-hour limit it sets on the working week. But in December members of the European Parliament voted to scrap the opt-out . ...
Just another Digs News and Info - http://dignewsinfo.wordpress.com/

UN 'Climate Change' Plan = New World Economy

Roberts - Obama's Attack On The Middle Class

The Innocent Do Have Something To Fear

UK Plans To Seize Turks & Caicos Carib Islands

G20 - China Takes On The West

US, UK Fiscal Deficits Cast Long, Dark Shadows

Workers Belfast Sit-In After Car Co Collapses

US Property Prices Down 29% & Dropping Fast

Financial Rescue Nears GDP as Pledges Top $12.8 Trillion
The U.S. government and the Federal Reserve have spent, lent or committed $12.8 trillion, an amount that approaches the value of everything produced in the country last year, to stem the longest recession since the 1930s.

Clinton Advisor: Earth’s Population Has Exceeded Limits
One of most influential scientists in the US government has said that the Earth’s population has exceeded the planet’s “limits of sustainability”.

World Bank President Admits Agenda For Global Government
World Bank President and Bilderberg elitist Robert Zoellick openly admitted the plan to eliminate national sovereignty and impose a global government during a speech on the eve of the G20 summit.

Petraeus Says Israel Might Choose to Attack Iran
Israel might choose to attack Iran to prevent it from developing a nuclear bomb, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East said today. 

• Hamid Karzai signs law ‘legalising rape in marriage’

Monsanto GM-corn harvest fails massively in South Africa
South African farmers suffered millions of dollars in lost income when 82,000 hectares of genetically-manipulated corn (maize) failed to produce hardly any seeds.The plants look lush and healthy from the outside. Monsanto has offered compensation.

Hannity, Morris Agree with “Conspiracy People” About New World Order 
In the video here, the former Clintonite Dick Morris, who is now a darling of Fox News, tells Sean Hannity the globalists will put the “American economy under international regulation” and “those people who have been yelling, oh, the UN is going to take over… they’ve been crazy, but now they’re right.”

Thousands of anti-capitalist protesters converge at Bank of England for G20 riot… with some in an armoured car 
Thousands of protesters gathered in the capital today for a series of demonstrations to coincide with the start of the G20 Summit.

Foreclosure Crisis Hits Warp Speed: 6 Million Families Face Losing Their Homes in the Next Three Years 
A second wave of very distressed families is going to be desperately in need of a social safety net that doesn’t exist. 

Obama admits: Attack on US soil likely
President Barack Obama admits that al-Qaeda network is planning fresh raids on the United States from the militants’ safe havens in Pakistan.

U.S. Spending 100% of GDP on Bailouts and Related Programs 
As I have previously pointed out, Paul Krugman is calling for the U.S. and Europe to spend an amount equal to 4% of their gross domestic products on the financial crisis.

• Destination Collapse 

Nightmare on Wall Street 
The furor over the AIG rescue and the possibility that American banks might be nationalized have turned March into a financial horror film: Zombies on the street, empty vaults, tentacled monsters, and cryptic pronouncements from a parallel universe. It deserves rewinding and deconstruction, episode by episode.

California Tent City Residents Required to Wear Wristbands 
Tent City residents gather as the city of Ontario starts the process of sorting out who may stay and who must leave.