Russia threatens nuclear attack on Poland over US missile shield deal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/2566005/Russia-threatens-nuclear-attack-on-Poland-over-US-missile-shield-deal.html
Excerpt:

Allies React to U.S. Missile U-Turn

By MARC CHAMPION and PETER SPIEGEL

(See Corrections & Amplifications item below)

Defense Department

An Aegis cruiser fires an SM-3 missile. The U.S. plans to use the SM-3 missile as a major feature of its missile-defense system in Europe.

President Barack Obama's decision to drop plans to deploy a ballistic-missile defense shield in Central Europe -- drawing immediate cheers in Moscow and criticism elsewhere -- is a gamble by the U.S. that scaling back its defense ambitions will improve security in the long run.

View Full Image

Reuters

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, at briefing at the Pentagon Thursday, said the U.S. would initially deploy Aegis ships with missile interceptors to help defend European allies under a revamped missile-shield program.

The U.S. explained the reversal by saying it would lead to a more effective defense because the system that had been planned was designed for the wrong threat, long-range missiles from Iran. Current intelligence suggests shorter-range missiles are more likely to be developed sooner, and they can be better combated by a simpler system, U.S. officials said.
The decision was attacked by Republicans in Congress and Bush-era defense officials, who questioned the new intelligence estimates and accused the administration of putting its relations with the Kremlin ahead of the security of NATO allies in Europe.
The U.S. about-face was a major diplomatic coup for Moscow, which has fiercely opposed the previous plan to put a battery of 10 ballistic missile interceptors in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic.

View Slideshow

Czarek Sokolowski/Associated Press

A Polish woman protested against a request by the U.S. to place a missile defense base in Warsaw, Poland, in March 2007.

Moscow said its own nuclear arsenal was the target, rather than any threat from Iran as the former Bush administration said. In November, Russian President Dimitry Medvedev threatened to station tactical missiles on Poland's border if the U.S. system were deployed. Mr. Medvedev on Thursday gave no indication that Russia would respond to the U.S. shift with greater cooperation, for example in pressuring Iran over its nuclear-fuel program. Other Russian officials said explicitly Thursday that wouldn't happen.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125317801774419047.html

Offshore saves wealth Holding companies video
http://www.incorporation-offshore-saves-wealth.com/holding-companies.html

http://www.zealllc.com/2005/geosilver.htm
Excerpt:

The Rest of the World:  Isn’t it odd seeing Poland as the world’s fifth leading silver producer?  Poland is not typically a country that comes to the forefront of people’s minds when they think silver.  Poland happens to be a primary copper producer, in fact the top producer in Europe, and with all that copper it pulls out an abundant amount of silver.  Its largest miner, KGHM, claims that between its three primary mines there lies some of the largest silver reserves on the planet.

Polish presidents death plane crash conspiracy
http://www.survivalmonkey.com/forum/tin-foil-hat-lounge/27387-polish-presidents-death-plane-crash-conspiracy.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth
Excerpt:

World Distribution of Wealth and Population in the Year 2000

The distribution of wealth is a comparison of the wealth of various members or groups in a society. It differs from the distribution of income in that it looks at the distribution of ownership of the assets in a society, rather than the current income of members of that society.

http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/164793.html
Excerpt:

America's staggering inequality and our strong preference for a Swedish alternative

Fri Feb 11, 2011 7:17PM

Jonathan Weiler, the Independent Weekly of North Carolina

Share | Email | Print

Most Americans realize that the United States has become more unequal over the past three decades or so. But it's unlikely that most Americans have a full grasp of the sheer magnitude of the change in the distribution of wealth since the end of the 1970s, or its impact on the lives of ordinary Americans.

Many data point to what the political scientists Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, in their important new book, Winner Take-All Politics, call "trickle up" economics. For example, according to the Congressional Budget Office, via Lane Kenworthy, the lowest twenty percent of households in America saw their post-tax wages increase from $15,500 in 1979 to $17,500 in 2007 (in constant, inflation- adjusted dollars). The middle sixty percent saw their incomes increase from $44,000 to $57,000 during that period. And the top one percent saw their post-tax incomes explode from $350,000 to $1.3 million, a near quadrupling. The increases for the top one-tenth of one percent and top-hundredth of one percent were greater still.

Of course, many think inequality is irrelevant, as long as a rising tide lifts all boats. But while the wealthiest Americans live ever more opulent lifestyles, ordinary Americans, especially at the sixtieth percentile and below are running in place, if not falling further behind. For one thing, the typical household puts in longer work hours now than was true in 1979, placing added strains on many American families. Furthermore, in the past three years the general picture of distribution has likely worsened, with record levels of long-term unemployment as well as draconian cuts to basic services like health care and education at the state and local level, which have disproportionately affected people lower down the income ladder. So, the relatively weak gains for the majority of Americans in the past thirty years have been precarious, subject to a swift and un-nerving reversal of fortune, while those at the top continue to enjoy record incomes and wealth.

And the growing concentration of wealth at the top is arguably directly related to that growing precariousness for most of the rest of us. Had the pattern of wealth distribution that existed in the 1970s held steady over the subsequent decades, Hacker and Pierson estimate that the lowest sixty percent of households would have enjoyed incomes between $6,000 and $12,000 higher in 2006 than they actually were. That'd be a nice cushion to have in the face of an economic downturn.

http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96426,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/dec/06/business.internationalnews