Stephen Harper’s Cyprus Blueprint For Canada
Written by Jeff Nielson
Wednesday, 10 April 2013 12:33
Until now, the “bail-in” (i.e. the Cyprus Steal) has been presented to us in the following manner by politicians, bankers, and the Corporate Media. It is a least-worst option for dealing with a financial emergency, and is being conducted in a fair and legitimate manner.
As previous commentaries have exposed, this is all lies. It is not a “least-worst” option, but rather the most-extreme desperation measure imaginable. It is the only form of stealing which our Crime Syndicate governments haven’t already attempted to perpetrate against their own populations: direct confiscation of assets.
This was not a “financial emergency.” It was a choreographed looting of the Cyprus financial system, plotted at least 18 months in advance. Furthermore, the chronology clearly indicates that the Western banking cabal had already engaged in a secret agreement with the Cyprus government to ultimately approve this theft – and the initial proposal (and first vote) was simply an absurdly transparent sham.
There is nothing “fair” or “legitimate” about this repugnant concept. This is why the propaganda machine invented a euphemism for it which is utter gibberish. “Bail-in” is nonsensical English, used to hide a vulgar act of theft which is completely indefensible.
Ultimately the Thieves themselves even concede that what they are really perpetrating is a form of “taxation.” Yet this “taxation” is entirely ad hoc, and arbitrary; with the initial group of Victims involved (bank depositors) being asset-holders who put their savings in these banks for one (and only one) reason: because the banks and our governments themselves assured depositors again and again and again that their savings were “absolutely safe.”
Obviously if our governments (and banks) are going to arbitrarily choose to betray a particular group of individuals in society with a “surprise” theft of their assets, the one group of individuals who should be last on the list are those people whom the banksters and politicians themselves assured were absolutely safe. There could be no more egregious knife-in-the-back.
However, what if this betrayal is much, much worse? What if the “bail-in” – the bankers’ new form of organized crime – was not merely a desperation measure to ward-off inadvertent bankruptcy? What if the banking cabal and our Traitor Governments were intentionally creating “insolvency” in our financial system in order to manufacture a pretext to engage in this illegal looting?
This brings us to Canada, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and the Conservative Party. Stephen Harper is a consummate Thief. He’s stolen his own job not once, but twice.
He stole his job as Prime Minister originally by promising Canadian voters that (unlike the Liberals) he would never “touch” (i.e. tax) their “income trusts” – into which Canadians had funneled $10’s of billions of their wealth. However it had already become obvious this massive tax-loophole was destroying the entire, national tax base; and was not economically viable. The moment Harper got into power, he flip-flopped and abolished that tax-exemption.
He stole his job a second time when the Opposition Parties were about to unite to vote the Harper regime out of office. Stephen Harper illegally suspended Parliament, and then the Conservative Party and Big Business launched a massive propaganda campaign while Canada’s Parliament was illegally suspended; labeling the plan to vote the Harper regime out of office as “undemocratic.” The Opposition Parties backed off on their threat, and then Stephen Harper ended his illegal suspension of Parliament.
When Stephen Harper came to power, however, he had more on his mind than just breaking promises: he had an Agenda. A part of that agenda was to duplicate – as exactly as possible – the massive housing-bubble of the United States; the largest asset-bubble in history, which was followed by the largest “bail-out” package in economic history.
For interested readers, this plot has been described in detail in a previous commentary. For the purpose of this commentary; it’s not essential to know how Stephen Harper manufactured the Canadian housing-bubble (with the enthusiastic assistance of former Bank of Canada Governor Mark Carney). It’s only essential to note the dates involved. Stephen Harper began constructing the Canadian housing-bubble after the U.S. bubble had already burst.
There can only be one thing worse than engaging in suicidally-reckless economic policy. This is to engage in suicidally-reckless economic policy after that policy has been exposed as such. The reason this is much, much worse should be obvious to all readers.
The bankers and politicians (of both parties) who manufactured the U.S. housing-bubble have at least “plausible deniability” on their side: they can pretend the U.S. housing-bubble was an “accident.” Stephen Harper has no such cover available to him. The dates involved make this clear that the Canadian housing-bubble is a premeditated betrayal of the entire Canadian population.
There are two, major distinctions between the U.S. and Canadian bubbles, apart from (perhaps) a difference in the level of premeditation. First and foremost, it was impossible for Stephen Harper to match the saturation-level of fraud which has permeated every nook-and-cranny of the U.S. housing sector – from rampant land-title fraud to (institutionalized) Liar’s Loans to literal “fraud factories”: companies being formed solely to custom-produce forged/fraudulent documents for the Wall Street banksters.
The other very important difference is that when the Wall Street crime syndicate and the Republican regime looted approximately $15 trillion from the U.S. financial system in direct hand-outs, (so-called) “0% loans”, infinite “loss guarantees”, and near-infinite tax-breaks there were no “bail-in” rules in place. Directly stealing from peoples’ accounts to indemnify their gambling-losses was merely a “wonderful fantasy” for U.S. banksters (at that time).
With Stephen Harper’s housing-bubble poised to burst – whenever Canada’s banksters choose to detonate it – the question becomes: how large will the subsequent looting be, with Canada’s “bail-in” rules officially carved in stone?
Most of Wall Street’s looting following the Crash of ’08 was of necessity restricted to the 0% loans, loss-guarantees, and tax-breaks. With the entire U.S. economy collapsing (as appears to be happening in Canada); there was only a limited amount which could be stolen from the public Treasury. When Canada’s housing-bubble is detonated there will be no such limitations.
As was spelled-out in my most-recent commentary; the Canadian Budget (and the Financial Stability Board “policy paper” it is based upon) opens up the possibility of not merely stealing bank deposits, but any/every asset in the financial system: bonds, pensions, and equities as well. “Trust funds”? The term has been rendered archaic.
Even if we weren’t dealing with intentional insolvency, and premeditated betrayal; we have already long since crossed the threshold into insanity with respect to another nonsensical euphemism constructed by the Corporate Media: “too big to fail.” The banks are “too big to fail” but the People (collectively) are not?
What if the banksters now tell us that the only way to “save them” (but again only temporarily) is for every family to sacrifice their first-born males? When do we say “enough is enough” with this criminal insanity? Congratulations Doctor, the operation was a success…but the Patient died. And now Stephen Harper and the bankers are going to “operate” on Canada.
In 2008, the same Traitor Governments told us they were “fixing the banks”; with the largest public looting of our economies in history. In 2013, we’re being told that they are still “fixing the banks” – except now this requires exponentially more looting.
It is now crystal-clear when our governments will be finished “fixing the banks”, at which point these bankrupt shells and our insolvent economies will be allowed to default on their gigantic debts: after every last penny of wealth belonging to the Little People has been cleaned out of the Western financial system.
Statistics: Posted by yoda — Wed Apr 10, 2013 12:51 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
In today’s debate over reauthorization of the FISA Amendments Act, Sen. Saxby Chambliss deployed a familiar rhetorical move popular with supporters of broad surveillance powers. Chambliss acknowledged that there have been “a few instances” in which the law has not operated as intended, permitting “overcollection” of entirely domestic communications. But this only goes to show that the oversight mechanisms embedded in the law are working so very well! Moreover, echoing Sen. Dianne Feinstein, he asserted (though of course we can’t check the claim) that the violations that have been discovered have been the result of error, not deliberate abuse.
The first thing to say about this argument is that it’s something of a tautology: Violations of the law (or its spirit) that we’ve identified have been successfully identified! If safeguards and oversight measures discover no such violations, we’re supposed to assume that everything is working great. If they do uncover violations, it’s proof that current oversight is robust and no further safeguards are needed. Catch 22!
A more subtle problem, however, is that oversight of large-scale secret surveillance programs are most likely to uncover inadvertent (and so relatively benign) violations rather than deliberate ones. I think of this as the Stephen Glass Problem, after the infamous fabulist who managed to publish dozens of wholly fabricated articles in The New Republic despite the magazine’s legendarily rigorous fact-checking process—a story wonderfully chronicled in the film Shattered Glass and a Vanity Fair article of the same name. The problem, as editors later realized, was that the fact checking process was very good at catching accidental errors, but not equipped to deal with a journalist who was deliberately fabricating stories, and then exploiting his knowledge of how the fact checkers worked to ensure that his fabrications would pass muster, creating phony web-sites, voice mail accounts, and e-mail addresses to “confirm” his bogus facts. Accidental violations are always easier to catch, because accidental violators are not taking steps to conceal their violations.
With traditional, individually targeted surveillance, this may be a tractable problem: When courts are reviewing applications for surveillance warrants that name specific individuals, it is relatively hard to fabricate convincing evidence of a counterterror or counterespionage reason to wiretap an innocent person for some nefarious purpose, and also pretty hard to escape consequences if such an attempt is detected.
The situation is very different with respect to warrantless dragnet surveillance that, by design, vacuums up millions or billions of communications, many if not most of which are quite innocent, stores them in a vast database indefinitely, and then relies on “minimization procedures” to ensure that only the incriminating ones are scrutinized and disseminated. Now, a bad actor doesn’t need to fabricate a warrant application: He only needs to query that vast database of communications for “incidentally collected” information that serves an illegitimate purpose.
If we look at the history of intelligence abuses, in fact, this is often what we find: Sometimes they involved wholly illegal wiretaps of innocent people and groups, but just as often, surveillance conducted for some superficially valid intelligence purpose yielded information that could be used for improper political ends. But despite his name, J. Edgar Hoover never had a vacuum cleaner as massive as NSA’s, or such an enormous pool of information to sift through.
A bad actor in this context need only ensure that his illegitimate queries don’t raise any red flags, or that he has some facially convincing innocent pretext for those queries on the off chance they do attract scrutiny. From what we can gather from the redacted audits of FISA dragnet surveillance that have been released publicly, oversight seems to be focused on problems at the collection stage—with the understanding that broad collection of innocent communications of Americans is not in itself a violation. That means a moderately savvy bad actor may not have too much to worry about. That’s why the proposal to require a warrant before the database can be queried for information about particular Americans is such an important safeguard—and the NSA’s resistance to it so disturbing. Current oversight mechanisms have picked up some inadvertent violations of the rules because, like The New Republic’s fact checking protocol, that’s just the kind of violation they’re well-designed to detect. They’re far less likely to spot the intelligence community equivalent of Stephen Glass—and if they do miss him, the consequences are likely to be more serious than a few phony magazine articles.
View full post on Cato @ Liberty
KING WORLD NEWS INTERVIEW WITH STEPHEN LEEB
Statistics: Posted by DIGGER DAN — Fri Nov 30, 2012 9:17 pm
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
KING WORLD NEWS INTERVIEW WITH DR. STEPHEN LEEB
Statistics: Posted by DIGGER DAN — Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:39 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Stephen Leeb – Why Gold & Silver are About to Soar
With gold and silver consolidating recent gains, today King World News interviewed acclaimed money manager Stephen Leeb, Chairman & Chief Investment Officer of Leeb Capital Management. Leeb brought up the fact that we are seeing shortages in silver and, importantly, that gold production is declining. Here is what Leeb had to say: “What people don’t realize about silver is how illiquid silver is, and how little physical silver that is available in the market. Now you have the Canadian, (Eric) Sprott, who has really been spot on for more than a decade, Sprott has just raised money and needs to take delivery of another 10 million ounces of silver. My question is, from whom? That’s the question.”
“Who is he going to buy it from? The Chinese, who need it for solar? It’s not around. 10 million ounces doesn’t sound like such a big number, but when you have such illiquid markets, it is a big number. In reality, it’s a very big number, especially when you already have shortages. People are already hoarding silver. The Chinese are also hoarding silver.
When you have a situation like that, you haven’t seen anything yet in the way of a bull market in silver. There’s no way of saying how high silver is going to go, but this is going to become an exceptionally scarce commodity.
When asked about gold, Leeb stated, “Historically, when you see gold starting to act apart from other currencies, and not following the dollar, that tends to be extremely bullish for gold. That means people are reaching out and looking for another currency. These entities, which are buying, do not care whether the dollar is up or down.
Gold is no longer competing with any particular currency, it’s just sort of competing with itself. The long-term outlook for gold is extremely bullish, there’s no way around it. What surprises me is that there is no belief in this uptrend in gold. As an example, there was a report this morning that gold was going to top out at $2,000 and then enter a bear market. This is crazy….
“That kind of talk is absolutely nuts, but it’s exactly what you want. These kind of bearish reports are common and what it’s telling savvy investors is that the bull market in gold and silver has not really started. Meaning, we haven’t seen anything yet. All we’ve had so far is the appetizer.
When the bull market really gets going you’ll see everybody talking about this. You will see targets of $10,000, $12,000, $14,000 for gold, and $200, $300, $400 for silver, as being commonplace. Right now (in the mainstream media) you can’t get anyone to say gold will go much past $2,000.
One thing I want to point out, and what people don’t realize, is that bringing on gold deposits is a massive, massive task. It can take 5 or 10 years to start a new gold mine. The one thing you see, that is consistent here, Eric, is that cap-ex budgets continue to rise and rise dramatically for bringing on new gold production. The bottom line is that you are not going to see a lot of new gold production.
What we saw last year was a tremendous divergence between gold, which was up about 11%, and gold stocks, which were down, and in some cases dramatically. I’ve never seen anything like it in my life. I believe the differential between junior gold’s and physical gold was like 30% or 40%. I’ve never seen anything like that.
One of the major factors has been weaker gold production. In fact, gold production has been declining and it’s going to continue to decline. Based on current trends, you have to say you are at peak gold. There is just no doubt about it.
I’m going to tell you right here that I think gold will end the year close to $3,000. Silver will end the year at all-time highs. My guess is the price of silver will end 2012 at $60, $70 or $80, and that will surprise a lot of people.”
Statistics: Posted by DIGGER DAN — Fri Jan 20, 2012 2:19 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com
Stephen Leeb – Gold Bull & Germany Flirting with Depression
With gold trading lower by almost 3% and silver off more than $1, today King World News interviewed acclaimed money manager Stephen Leeb, Chairman & Chief Investment Officer of Leeb Capital Management. When asked about the action in gold, Leeb responded, “It doesn’t make a lot of sense to see the world coming apart and gold going down. We are seeing liquidation by some hedge funds and maybe even banks to some extent that need liquidity. You have to go back to 2008 and I think the drop in 2008 was probably in the neighborhood of 30% and then gold just started taking off again.”
“The catalyst after the drop in 2008 was recognition there were problems that had to be solved by extraordinary means. And once that was recognized, gold just shot up like a missile and really didn’t look back. I think this is probably a similar kind of correction, except now it’s not the US financial system that is in peril, it’s the eurozone that’s in peril.
The treaty or so-called treaty they struck last week is a joke. To assume countries that have been fighting for 300 years, and share absolutely nothing culturally, are suddenly going to come together and sign a piece of paper and all agree to think alike, it’s crazy.
What I think will happen, one way or the other, is Germany will decide it’s going to have to print money. That’s really the only way out. You have to have growth or you are never going to get rid of these deficits.
People can only cut back to a certain extent. If they start cutting back on food and energy you impoverish the entire population. You are seeing some of that in the US right now. A large portion of our population in the US is spending over 50% of their money on food and energy. Clearly the numbers are high in Europe too
“What’s remarkable here, Eric, is the Germans have this long-standing inflationary fear. We all know it stems from the 1920s and the hyperinflation during the Weimar Republic and the wheelbarrows of money, etc.. But it wasn’t the hyperinflation in the ‘20s that laid the foundation for Hitler, that wasn’t the catalyst for Hitler. It was the depression in the 1930s, the protracted depression that made possible the rise of Hitler.
So the Germans are really flirting with the same kind of situation that occurred in the 1930s. If Europe continues to sink and the Germans don’t relent on this stuff we are going to head for a real deflationary depression.
My big picture is that Merkel and the Germans will allow the printing of money and once that happens, just as it happened in 2008, once you get a sign, that’s blastoff time for gold. Gold and silver will shoot up like rockets. In my opinion gold will close 2012 at $2,500 or above, probably above. Gold could easily double from here in the next 12 months if you get the kind of money printing that I expect to happen in Europe.
So how low gold will go here is literally meaningless. My advice to investors is don’t try to catch a bottom and be a hero. It could happen any time. It could be happening as we speak, it could be happening today. But it’s really irrelevant. Let’s say gold is at $3000, $4,000 or $5,000 in three or four years, which I think is very, very likely–are you really even going to remember that it went to $1,650 or $1,550? No.”
Statistics: Posted by DIGGER DAN — Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:56 am
View full post on opinions.caduceusx.com