The Trade Trap Exposed

FLAVOR00-NONE-0000-0000-000000000000
0.000000
;

Until you understand what is happening, you cannot possibly figure out how to make it stop happening.   
 
This caught my eye in the NWV daily newsletter tonight, because this one paragraph very simply draws exactly the picture I’ve been attempting to paint for all of you, in all my years preaching about sovereignty, sovereignty, they’ve got to get rid of it to control the world, it’s the one thing they don’t want you to know…
 
From NewsWithViews:
 
U.N. overwhelmingly approves global arms trade treaty
“While many within the Obama White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill deny it would impact on Americans’ gun ownership rights, the fact is there [are] far too many U.S. judges — including some on the U.S. Supreme Court — who believe in imposing international law into their court decisions especially on matters involving the U.S. Constitution,” said political strategist and attorney Michael S. Baker…..
http://www.newswithviews.com/NWV-News/news338.htm
by NWV News
 
And there you have it: international law being incorporated into court decisions…. because when Harperius signed his damnable trade agreements, he was automatically subjecting us to international law!  Likewise, Obummer is boiling his frogs slowly, as noted by the author excerpted above.  Nowhere do you see him giving Americans the truth about exactly how much international law now must be applied because contracts require the USA to do certain things the international trade group way… not the American way.   A trade agreement, by the way, is to the Constitution what scissors are to paper. Why? because it is domestic law, and trade agreements trump all domestic laws that get in their way. 
 
Right now, Canada and the USA are having our laws merged to suit trade partners. 
 
Let me explain how “logically” it works. I say logically, because if your only goal is control of all profit from all commerce in the world, then it makes perfect sense: standardize everything so all profit-making is maximized, world-wide. (I’m not even going to mention the eugenics part, but be assured I am painfully aware that it is the other end of the spectrum, and have nightmares of Soylent Green, too)
 
So, to pull this off, they sign these mutual international contracts called “trade agreements”, and however many countries are at the table in any one agreement (at the WTO, it’s nearly 200 to our 1), we have only one vote.  If what the group decides runs counter to our laws, our laws must defer to international law… in order to honour the binding contract that our government signed… without, of course, telling us that we no longer had a choice in how we were going to be governed.
 
Oh, and need I mention, that when those snakes who “govern” us “get the best advice they can on how corporations need the laws to be”, just whose opinion do you think they “legitimately” seek? Multinational corporations and their reams of lobbyists, of course.  They are tailoring world standards to make it easy for these guys to make maximum profit, and bulldozing over our self-governance like a foreclosed home in Detroit. And they’re sure not explaining that to the folks next door like you and me.
 
With every new agreement, bits, pieces, and huge chunks are being excised from our sovereignty, and we do not hear any member of our Parliament, of any party, nor any bright light south of the border, pointing a well-fed finger in rage at the head cheese and yelling “J’accuse!”, do we?  Nope, not a peep.  Nothing in the papers? What a surprise.
 
It’s been their dirty laundry for a very long time now.  Personally, I’ve only heard Steven Harper admit he gave some of our self-rule away once, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RVw12hgKvw.   This is right after the Toronto G20 in 2010, when he signed away Canada’s right to control our banking sector, and at about 1:14 in the video, he shrugs and says it’s “a simple reality.  A simple reality.”  Yep, he said it twice.
 
What’s on the table right now?  The budget.  What’s in the budget? On pages 144-145 (pp 154-155 on the .pdf file) we find nothing less than a “bail-in” clause, allowing our government to “tax” our bank accounts in the same way Cypriots (and a whole lotta foreign money-hiders) were “taxed”.  Right out of their accounts.  In the case of many businesses, 40-60% of their liquid assets. Everybody with a bank account got stung.  Right now, account-holders can only access a daily allotment of cash from ATM’s. Lineups are reportedly long.
 
Can they do it here?  They can once they ram this budget down Canadians’ throats (which they will gleefully do, provided the entire country doesn’t get its dander up real quick and prevent it).  The provisions read that
in the event that a “systemically-important bank” should fail, cash to fund the bank’s recovery would be accessed from depositor’s accounts. 
 
Depositors need to realize that when you deposit money into your account, you are in effect loaning that money to the bank, for it to do with what it pleases.  If the bank collapses and cannot refund its depositors the cash they put in, rather than close, and give each depositor so much on the dollar, instead it takes a percentage from the accounts… that is to say all assets (including safety deposit boxes)… and gives itself the money to “recover”…. by being bailed from inside… a “bail-in”.
 
Why all of a sudden are we seeing the same sort of tactic being built into our legislation as was just unloaded on Cyprus, here and rumored elsewhere as well?  Back to 2009, London, when the G20 brought bail-ins to the table, a brain child of none other than the FDIC, the very agency insuring all American bank deposits, and the EU! Nothing like insuring a sure thing, is there?
 
Then fast forward to 2010, and there’s Harper in that cheery little video of his casually dismissing our loss/giveaway of banking sovereignty, which is how he was planning to set us up for bail-ins, as agreed with the cabal of international banks directing traffic back in 2009.
 
Sensing the potential amputation of some of their hard-earned wealth was just the hobnailed boot to the instep needed to get a considerable number of Canadians to seek alternate means of protecting their deposits. Some are thinking that since the legislation refers to “systemically important banks” that means only the big chartered banks, just because they’re big.  But I don’t think we should forget that by manipulating other things, an “emergency” can be declared… and look who’s going to decide exactly which banks are “systemically important”, and for what reason!  So my feeling is, any money repository other than a mattress (or other safe place) is at possible risk.
 
Caveat depositor, so to speak…
   
Advertisements

~ by Dee Nicholson on April 3, 2013.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: