Western leaders issued the threat of international intervention to set up "humanitarian corridors" in Syria after the UN warned that President Bashar al-Assad's regime was failing to honor the terms of a ceasefire. As foreign ministers gathered in Paris to discuss the crisis, Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, compared the situation in Syria to that of Libya before the fall of Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi, and said the time had come to set up safe corridors for the provision of aid to allow refugees to escape the fighting. The Pentagon also warned for the first time that "all options" were on the table to resolve the conflict, following a dire assessment from Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations secretary-general. In a briefing to the Security Council ahead of last night't Paris summit, Mr Ban said the situation on the ground in Syria was "highly precarious" and that attacks were on the rise, including the "shelling of civilian areas". He warned of "grave abuses by government forces" and demanded the regime immediately pull its heavy military equipment out of cities in accordance with Kofi Annan's six-point peace plan. Speaking as the meeting opened, Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said the failure of the Annan plan would lead to "civil war". He said "several hundred" international monitors were needed in Syria to police the ceasefire. The UN was on Thursday said to have agreed to a preliminary deal with Damascus for the deployment of more peace monitors, however it was unclear what access or support they would be given. The UN is believed to want at least 300 on the ground.
US defense secretary Leon Panetta defended the use of drones to kill terror suspects amid reports that the CIA is seeking permission to expand strikes in Yemen, a move that renewed debate about the legality of the strategy. Panetta told a congressional hearing that such drone strikes were precise, and targeted only terrorists planning attacks on the US. But an international legal expert countered that such strikes were unlawful, executing suspects without a trial. Such a strategy was questionable enough when employed in Afghanistan but was doubly so in Yemen, given that the US is not at war there, she said. The Washington Post reported that the CIA was seeking a wider definition of targets in Yemen, given so it can launch drones against individuals engaged in behavior deemed suspicious, such as unloading explosives or gathering at suspected al-Qaida compounds. The White House has not yet made a decision. The US has been using drones against suspected militants since 2002 in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and around the Horn of Africa. The use of drones in Yemen has been increasing, with Washington fearful about the threat posed to the Yemeni government from insurgents. There have been about eight drone strikes in Yemen this year, with innocent civilians among the casualties. Insurgents from a group allegedly linked to al-Qaida claimed three of its members were killed by a drone. The Yemeni government claims it was a rocket.
Did you see the reaction of the "press" to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's report on the fact thatBarack Obama's birth certificate is a crude forgery? Did the media assembled in Phoenix gasp in shock at the carefully presented findings? Did the reporters run out of the room to file Page 1 stories explaining that the first law-enforcement investigation of the document found overwhelming and compelling evidence of criminal fraud? Did the shocking report lead the news on ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and CNN? No! Let me tell you why I think it's important and why I am personally making a donation to this cause. Instead, the media questioned Arpaio's motives for presenting the facts. And they filed stories characterizing the report as conspiracy-mongering. Or, they ignored the press conference and the report altogether. What a shameful and disgraceful exhibition by my colleagues! No wonder most people are afraid to speak out publicly about this important constitutional issue. I know how reluctant the investigators were to take an honest look at the evidence. I know they would have preferred to debunk the conclusions of Jerome Corsi and others who had investigated before them. I know there were no predetermined conclusions and a strong inclination toward validating the document if only it were possible. But honest and independent law-enforcement people don't do that. I have immense respect for Sheriff Arpaio, who showed a great deal of courage and integrity. The press, for the most part, demonstrated no integrity. Unable to dispute the facts, they attempted to smear the messenger.
"Sanctions, "New York Times" reporter Rick Gladstone writes, have subjected "ordinary Iranians" to "increased deprivations" in order to "punish Iran for enriching uranium that the West suspects is a cover for developing the ability to make nuclear weapons." In other words, Iran is suspected of having a secret nuclear weapons program, and so must be sanctioned to force it to abandon it. Contrary to Gladstone, the West doesn't really believe that Tehran has a secret weapons program, yet even if we accept it does believe this, the position is indefensible. Why should Iranians be punished for developing a capability that have imposed sanctions already have? The reason why, it will be said, is because Iranians are bent on developing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Didn't Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map"? Regurgitated regularly by US hawks and Israeli politicians to mobilize support for the bombing of Iran, the claim is demagogic rubbish. Ahmadinejad predicted that Israel as a Zionist state would someday disappear much as South Africa as an apartheid state did. He didn't threaten the physical destruction of Israel and expressed only the wish that historic Palestine would become a multinational democratic state of Arabs and Jews who trace their descent from antecedents who arrived in Palestine before the arrival of Zionist settlers, i.e., that it would someday become a more humane alternative to what it is today. No less damaging to the argument that Iranians aspire to take Israel out in a hail of nuclear missiles is the reality that it would take decades for Iran to match Israel's already formidable nuclear arsenal.
Contradicting a recent report in the UK's authoritative Sunday Times, America's Time Magazine, quoting unnamed Israeli intelligence officials suggests that Israel's Secret Service - the Mossad has, in recent months, been cutting back on covert operations inside Iran, including the conduct of targeted assassinations. Ironically, the Times and TIME contradict one another. The Sunday Times, in its March 25 issue, stated that Israeli intelligence services had increased their covert activity at the Iranian Parchin military base, allegedly were carried out while Tehran was negotiating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA had pressured the Iranians to authorize a visit at that very specific military base, allegedly looking for evidence to the effect that Iran was building a nuclear weapon. These Israeli intelligence operations were carried out while Tehran was negotiating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The IAEA had pressured the Iranians to authorize a visit at that very specific military base. (Julie Levesque, "Fabricating a Smoking Gun" To Attack Iran? Israeli Spies Disguised as Iranian Soldiers on Mission Inside Iran. Global Research, March 27, 2012) Another article called US steps up intelligence, sabotage missions in Iran, published by The Hill on April 9 seems to corroborate the information revealed by The Sunday Times. The Hill points to an increase of covert operations in the Islamic Republic by the CIA and its allies in the region. Since the closest US ally in the region is Israel, one can assume that Mossad was participating in those sabotage missions.
The Taliban began their spring campaign as a British lord put a price on Bush's scalp. Kabul was cast into chaos Sunday as the Taliban began their spring offensive with attacks on US, British, German and Russian embassies. NATO headquarters, Camp Eggers, a hotel, President Karzai's palace compound and parliament. "These are coordinated attacks that went just as we planned," Taliban spokesman Qari Talha told The Daily Beast. "This is only the start of what's in store this year and next for the Americans and Karzai." Targets across the country included Vice-President Mohammad Karim Khalili, airfields and police stations in three eastern provinces. About 20 insurgents were killed in the attacks, which injured at least 15 police officers and nine civilians. US ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker dismissed the Taliban's claim of responsibility: "Frankly, I don't think the Taliban is good enough," leaving unsaid who is. Crocker commended the NATO-trained Afghan forces, whose capability was "proven today by their professional and highly effective response in restoring order". A warning came from New Delhi's institute of Peace and Conflict Studies Director Dipankar Banerjee: "We"re only going to see an increase in these attacks. It helps the militants ensure political dominance in the new order as they slowly take over" Talha said that Sunday's strikes were just a preview of the fighting season to come. "We want to engage smaller numbers of well-trained fighters to make attacks on significant government, American and NATO targets." He said the mastermind of the operation was Hajji Lala, the insurgency's shadow governor of Kabul and its eastern-front military chief.
You've heard of the epic movie "The Ten Commandments" starring Charlton Heston as Moses. It's been one of the bestselling faith movies since it came out in DVD last year, and is currently No. 1 on Amazon. Do you know what No. 2 is? It's not a Cecil B. De Mille production. It's a JosephFarah/WND Films production called "The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment" a sensational documentary that provides seeing-is-believing evidence that America is under God's judgment right now, just the way ancient Israel was before the fall. In fact, it has eclipsed "The Ten Commandments multiple times since it was released last month to nationwide acclaim: It's a powerful two-hour two-DVD documentary about the parallels between ancient Israel's fall and America since 9/11. It also ranked as one of the top documentaries in the nation at Amazon and one of the bestselling movies or TV shows of any kind. "If you haven't seen this movie yet, I urge you to get it, screen it with your family, show it to your friends and arrange church viewings," said Farah. "This is the most important project I have been involved in through my 35-year media career. This is a message, I believe, God directed me to undertake for a time such as this." Farah said he is immensely pleased with the documentary treatment of the message found in the best-selling book "The Harbinger" by Jonathan Cahn, which remains the No. 1 Christian book in America this year. In January, "The Harbinger," by Cahn, a messianic rabbi from New Jersey, exploded onto the publishing scene, immediately becoming a surprise New York Times bestseller, already read by hundreds of thousands nationwide.
Let the president be duly warned. Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr. R-N.C has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, "it is the sense of Congress" that such an act would be "an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor." Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama's authorization of military force in Libya. In an exclusive WND column, former US Rep Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. "This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta's declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations," Tancredo writes. "This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N,C. introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta's policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution." In response to questions from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., over who determines the proper and legal use of the US military, Panetta said, "Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would come to Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress - I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here."
"Sanctions, "New York Times"reporter Rick Gladstone writes, have subjected "ordinary Iranians" to "increased deprivations" in order to "punish Iran for enriching uranium that the West suspects is a cover for developing the ability to make nuclear weapons" In other words, Iran is suspected of having a secret nuclear weapons program, and so must be sanctions to force it to abandon it. Contrary to Gladstone, the West doesn't really believe that Tehran has a secret nuclear weapons program, yet even if we accept it does believe this, the position is indefensible. Why should Iranians be punished for developing a capability that the countries that have imposed sanctions already have? The reason why, it will be said, is because Iranians are bent on developing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. Didn't Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threaten to "wipe Israel off the map"? Regurgitated regularly by US hawks and Israeli politicians to mobilize support for the bombing of Iran, the claim is demagogic rubbish. Ahmadinejad predicted that Israel as a Zionist state would someday disappear much as South Africa as an apartheid state did. He didn't threaten the physical destruction of Israel ad expressed only the wish that historic Palestine would become a multinational democratic state of Arabs and of Jews, who trace their descent from antecedents who arrived in Palestine before the arrival of Zionist settlers, i.e, that it would someday become a more humane alternative to what it is today. No less damaging to the argument that Iranians aspire to take Israel out in a hail of nuclear missiles is the reality that it would take decades for Iran to match Israel's already formidable nuclear arsenal, if indeed it ever aspires to.
From 2012 onwards, the world is on the brink of a Third World War. All sane and peace-loving men and women would pray and strive that it is averted. For the horoscope of the times point towards a global catastrophe in the making. The guns of August 1914, 1st World War paled in front of the Panzer Blitzkrieg of September 1939's Second World War. The Third World War during Cold War was averted between NATO and Warsaw Pact Forces. If there is war, it will most likely spread to be global plus nuclear, and without method in the madness. This apocalyptic scenario may yet come to pass, unless it is stopped in its tracks. US globalists may lead NATO to dominate the world, despite their disaster in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not only that the Western World's global dominance stands unchallenged, but the march of history may be reversed. From the 1500's, scientific discoveries, industrialization, political revolutions, colonialism, and technology ascendency, the world has been controlled by western powers: The British Empire, Napoleon's France, Hitler's Germany and more recently the USA have been part of the Western world's bid for global hegemony or control. Now the west is really in decline. USA, the great power, land of mass production, faces economic stagnation, if not full decline. USA, the great power, land of mass production, faces economic stagnation, if not full decline. EU faces its own economic predicament. Some Europeans and Americans find the idea of a powerful Germany leading Europe as unacceptable so far: Two World Wars were fought among other reasons, to prevent Germany from its rightful place under the sun.
"Thirty-four percent hold a favorable opinion of Romney, the lowest for any leading presidential candidate in ABC/Post polls in primary seasons since 1984. His unfavorable score is higher than Obama ever has received, it's been exceeded by just one other Republican candidate this year, Newt Gingrich, and by only one top candidate in 28 years, Hillary Clinton in 2008." American voters just don't like the guy. In fact, as previous primary elections have shown, the majority of Republicans would vote for anyone but Romney. Ron Paul isn't just anyone. Indeed, it could be argued that Paul has been the "real target" of the Romney campaign all along. The Paul campaign has something that no other campaign, including Romney's, can claim. They have a legitimate grass roots effort and solid Republican Base. Romney has more money, but, as evidenced by the numbers, Ron Paul can generate at rallies and events, Paul has the support base. The MSM has tried to minimize that influence by moving on to the general election, hoping the voters will do the same. One example is a poll completed by CNN that showed Ron Paul has the highest approval rating among Republicans at present. The Poll was quickly buried and a similar one will never be taken anytime soon. Another example is Ron Paul's new wins in Missouri. In Kansas City, Ron Paul supporters picked the majority of delegates during caucuses in Jackson County and the city of St. Louis as the state's complicated selection process continued. Party officials said Ron Paul supporters picked all 36 of the St. Louis delegates and about two-thirds of Jackson County's 179 delegates. Votes will always triumph over money. Not that Paul can raise small donations at a drop of the hat. One example is today's fundraiser, which has a goal of $250,000 from small donors. It started at 2 Am and will likely reach its goal by Noon!
It seems that scientists find more and more evidence to prove the existence of parallel worlds: Physicists at Stanford University managed to calculate the hypothetical number of universes that were formed as a result of the "Big Bang". According to them, the Big Bang created 101016 universes. It is quite possible, though, that they may exist inside each other, including our planet. Therefore, there is probably another Earth hidden inside planet Earth. The "hollow Earth theory" can be traced back to ancient periods of the history of human civilization. Ancient wise men believed that there was a whole underground world with its underground creatures living inside the planet. It may seem to many that it is only a primeval and naive perception of the structure of the world. In Ancient Greece, there was a myth about Tartar, the ominous underground world. Philosopher Anaxagoras (5th century AD) built a model of creation made of the flat earth surrounded by the air sphere and the cloud of ether. He wrote about the existence of the parallel world with its people, cities and even celestial bodies. If planet Earth is the center of the universe, where do these people live? Do they live under the ground? Hypotheses about the existence of hollow space inside planet Earth appeared later as well. The theory was put forward by Galilei, Franklin and Lichtenberg among others. In 1818, John Cleves Symmes showered the US Congress, universities and prominent scientists with messages, in which he was trying to prove that the Earth was made of several concentric spheres with openings near the poles. Soviet academician V Obruchev put forward a hypothesis about a giant meteorite that rammed into Earth in primeval times. According to him, the meteorite may have broken through the planet's crust and created hollowness inside. US researcher Cyrus Teed said that the surface of the Earth might be the interior shell of a sphere. The theory became known as "concave hollow Earth" hypothesis. According to this theory, we all live on the inner shell of the Earth.
The Chosen People: Israel, 'Christian' Zionism and the Middle East Crisis. There is a saying that goes like this: "Only when there is peace in the Middle East, can there be peace throughout the world." Another oft-repeated saying is the following: "As the Middle East goes, so goes the rest of the planet." There are many other perceptive statements of similar import and deep meaning. Each of them conveys the same weighty observation and geopolitical significance: That the Middle East is but a microcosm of the macrocosm known as planet Earth. And, that the direction of global peace, or war, can be easily judged by what is happening right here in Israel, in Palestine, and among the many neighboring nations. Many have called this area the snake pit of snake pits, the ultimate hornets' nest, as well as the proverbial lion's den. The list of kings and prime ministers, nations and countries, presidents and diplomats is endless where it concerns attempts to intercede in the affairs of the Middle East for the sake of negotiating an enduring peace. But why have so many peace initiatives failed, many of them quite dismally? The answers can only be found by studying the true history of this volatile region of the planet. Understanding the history of all the key players involved is also required if we are to make sense of so much turmoil, confusion and conflict. Zionism - What is it? To start, let's take a trip back in time to August 29, 1897. This date stands out as a critical marker in the development of the pseudo-religious, political, militaristic movement known as Zionism. Just what is Zionism? A Jewish nationalism movement known as The Return of the Jews to their "rightful" historical homeland, as opposed to the end of the Diaspora. The goal of Zionism was to establish a Jewish state in Palestine because a small number of determined wealthy Europeans claimed the anti-Semitism present in the world at the end of the 19th Century would end if a people collectively known as "Jews" had their own state.
The letter below was sent by the Palestinian "President" Mahmoud Abbas to the Prime Minister of the Zionist occupation state of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu. President Abbas, who holds the placebo presidential chair of the PA for a handful of US, European and Arab dollars, recently sent a long letter begging his criminal counterpart, Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu to release some hundreds of Palestinian prisoners. The message caused us headache and disgust because of the unending talk about it in the media, and in the end it did not bring us as Palestinians anything new. It simply was a desperate step by Abbas to justify more begging money from western countries for the PA finances, a couple more millions of dollars which President Abbas has become so used to receive whenever he feigns for a moment that he "thinks" about Palestine and the Palestinians. Everybody thought that Abbas would dissolve the PA after all the lamenting, but such a step would never be taken by a loser accustomed to a life of treason and beggary and living off of others. The message of Abbas to Netanyahu, as published in the Hebrew media, is below: Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, State of Israel. H.E. Prime Minister Netanyahu: In 1993, the Palestine Liberation Organization signed the Declaration of Principles (The Oslo Accords) and exchanged letters of mutual recognition with the Government of Israel. The Declaration of Principles defined its aim as the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, which would begin with a transitional period, and culminate with negotiations on all the final status issues including Jerusalem, borders, settlements, refugees, water, security, relations with neighboring countries, and other matters of mutual interest.
Afghan President Hamid Karzai has accused NATO of failing to prevent the multiple attacks staged by the Taliban insurgents across Afghanistan on Sunday. NATO says the attacks will not affect its long-term exit planning. The Taliban's coordinated attacks that gripped Afghanistan on Sunday lay bare intelligence failures by both NATO and Afghan troops, Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Monday. "The terrorists' infiltration in Kabul and other provinces is an intelligence failure for us and especially for NATO and should be seriously investigated," said Karzai in a statement. But Karzai lauded what he called the "bravery and sacrifice of the security forces who quickly and timely reacted to contain the terrorists." "Afghan security forces proved to the people that they can defend their country successfully," he added. NATO: no changes to the plan. Meanwhile, NATO was adamant that the attacks will not affect the 2014 deadline for the withdrawal of foreign troops. "Clearly we still security challenges," NATO spokeswoman Ona Lungescu said at a news briefing. "This was not the first such attack and I do not expect it to be the last." "But such attacks don't change the transition strategy, they don't change the goal and they don't change the timeline that we all agreed to at the Lisbon summit in November 2o10, she insisted. Ban: strengthen counter-terrorism. The United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon also emphatically decried on Monday the Taliban insurgency, adding that it had exposed the need to beef up the country's security forces. Ban condemned "in the strongest possible terms" the siege, warning: "We need to strengthen the capacity of counter-terrorism efforts and of Afghan security." "These issues will be discussed in detail at the forthcoming NATO summit in May" he told reporters at a press conference in Brussels.
What we have now is total insanity masquerading as "total protection" for every citizen in the middle of a Free-fire Zone where the same people that are supposed to be protecting us are trying to kill us all. On the one hand, we have a government who believes that they must make every single thing that any of us do every minute of every day. In other words, instead of treating us like adults, the government has decided, with no prompting from the public, to step into every decision that we make every day and night. No matter what is the government is there: Telling us what we MUST do, what we CANNOT DO, and fining or charging us for every single unwanted decision which they are trying to force us to accept. This is true for every human need or desire, every decision surrounding food, diet, medicine, education, jobs, reading or entertainment event: And now they insist on government approval for programs or video that we might watch, but only with their permission! Government also wants to control who we speak with, what we talk about and what we may NOT talk about. Sorry that was last year: This year it's what we may be ALLOWED to think as well, because this year we can now commit THOUGHT CRIMES too. And since the government has appointed itself to watch and respond to everything we do NOT do: The only thing left for the government to do to us is to assign each and every one of us "a personal minder." This was used by the Stasi in East Germany, and we know how well that turned out for the East Germans. But this is America and Americans are just too stupid to make any of their own decisions for themselves. So we "NEED" the government; according to the government, just so we don't hurt ourselves psychologically, physically, mentally, or even accidentally?
The most troubling prerogative of modern government is the ability of the sovereign or head of state to go to war. War means death, debt, and, if the decision is a bad one, the very end of civil society and the prevailing political order. Because war is potentially so terrible, a number of nations have curtailed the ability of the executive authority to make such a decision without first satisfying conditions imposed through constitutional and other political restraints. It is perhaps ironic that the world's oldest republic, the United States, has ignored its own constitution to grant to the president the authority to enter into armed conflict through the simple expedient of not actually declaring war. America has been de facto at war continuously since 2001 and the recent National Defense Authorization Act has codified an unending conflict in which the whole world is a battlefield and everyone in it is a potential enemy combatant subject to no constitutional or legal protection. Many critics of the perennially lopsided relationship that the United States enjoys with Israel have noted a disturbing shift in the relationship during the first three years of the Obama Administration. To be sure, Obama appears to genuinely dislike Israel's arrogant Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a sentiment that is fully reciprocated. But Obama is bound hand and foot into an engagement with Israel in which he lacks leverage over what might or might not take place. Even George W. Bush was able to say no to Israel when it was mooted that Tel Aviv might attack Iran, but Obama has painted himself into a corner where the United States has little influence over what might occur. Whether the Obama reticence is due to the control exercised by his Chicago billionaire patrons, the Crown and Pritzker families, both of which are strong supporters of the Middle East status quo, or whether it is just a more generalized fear about what might happen in the upcoming national elections, the result has been paralysis in Washington.
As the proposed April 10 Syrian ceasefire goes up in smoke, so, too, does the hope for a Syrian-led political process to resolve the crisis. Quite predictably, the US propaganda machine has rushed to lay blame for the abortive ceasefire solely at the feet of the Syrian government. As a New York Times headline averred Monday: "Cease-fire in Doubt as Syria Demands New Conditions." These "new" conditions, the article detailed, include "written guarantees' that rebels would stop fighting before it pulled back its troops under the cease-fire plan." Of course, the six-point peace initiative proposed by joint United Nations and Arab League special envoy Kofi Annan, which has already been agreed upon by the Syrian government, explicitly calls for the "cessation of violence in all its forms by all parties to protect civilians and stabilize the country." In service to propaganda, however, the US media has largely sidestepped such matters in propagating a narrative of one-sided Syrian governmental intransigence. Thus, the maneuvering over the weekend by the armed Syrian opposition to undermine the Tuesday ceasefire, was largely ignored. Yet as Reuters reported Saturday, "Rebel Free Syrian Army commander Colonel Riad al-Asaad said his men would cease fire, provided 'the regime withdraws from the cities and returns to its original barracks." Reuters went on to admit, "Annan's plan does not stipulate a complete army withdrawal to barracks or mention police." Still, the concerted move to undo the Annan peace initiative did not begin this past weekend. Rather, it began a full week prior. Lest one forgets, the armed Syrian opposition, which the self-proclaimed "friends" of the Syrian people so readily laud and seek to now shower with cash, was publicly chided a mere two weeks ago by Human Rights Watch for committing myriad human-rights abuses against the Syrian people.
George Soros says Europe's financial crisis has taken 'a turn for the worse' and outlines a series of measures to solve it. George Soros has warned that the euro-zone has entered a "more lethal phase" and outlined a series of measures to solve the crisis, including an idea that all countries should be able to refinance their debt at the same interest rate. Soros, known as the man who broke the Bank of England by betting that the UK would be forced to devalue the pound during the 1992 currency crisis, said that "far from abating, the euro crisis has recently taken a turn for a worse". Soros, who is chairman of Soros Fund Management, which in 2011 stopped managing money for outside investors, warned that Europe was facing "a long period of economic stagnation or worse" whether or not the euro endures. He also warned that while countries in Latin America suffered a lost decade after their economic crisis in 1982, the European Union would not survive such an economic malaise. "The deflationary debt trap threatens to destroy a still incomplete political union," he said in an article published in the Financial Times. While the European Central Bank's injections of large sums of cheap funding into the financial markets through its long-term financing operation (LTRO) helped to prevent a credit crunch, it failed to solve the underlying problems of the eaurozone where the gap between the richer countries such as Germany is widening against the indebted nations such as Greece. "the crisis has coincided with a sharp change in the mood on the financial markets since the end of the first quarter, when stock markets in the US enjoyed the strongest performance since first quarter of 1998. Since the start of this week, markets have been more cautious, with bond yields in Spain reaching their highest level in four months on Tuesday, amid concern about the scale of the austerity measures being imposed by the government and fears that the country might need a bailout.
Benjamin Franklin, who used his many talents to become a wealthy man, famously said the only things certain in life are death and taxes. But if you're a corporate CEO in America today, even they can be put on the back burner, death held at bay by the best medical care money can buy and the and the latest in surgical and life extension techniques, taxes conveniently shunted aside courtesy of loopholes, overseas investment and governments that conveniently look the other way. In a story headlined, "For Big Companies, Life Is Good," The Wall Street Journal reports that big American companies have emerged from the deepest recession since World War II more profitable than ever: flush with cash, less burdened by debt, and with a greater share of the country's income. But, the paper notes,"Many of the 1.1 million jobs the big companies added since 2007 were outside the US. So, too, was much of the $1.2 trillion added to corporate treasuries." To add to this embarrassment of riches, the consumer group Citizens for Tax Justice reports that more than two dozen major corporations, including GE, Boeing, Mattel and Verizon, paid no federal taxes between 2008 and 2011. They got a corporate tax break that was broadly supported by Republicans and Democrats alike. Corporate taxes today are at a 40-year-low, even as the executive suites at big corporations have become throne rooms where the crown jewels wind up in the personal vault of the CEO. Then look at this report in The New York Times: Last year, among the 100 best-paid CEOs, the median income was more than 14 million, compared with the average annual American salary of $45,230. Combined, this happy hundred executives pulled down more than two billion dollars. What's more, according to the Times "these CEO's might seem like pikers. Top hedge fund managers collectively earned $14.4 billion last year." No wonder some of them are fighting to kill a provision in the recent Dodd-Frank reform law that would require disclosing the ratio of CEO pay to the median pay of their employees. One never wishes to upset the help, you know. It can lead to unrest.