I am originally from Saskatchewan and I still own farmland there. (Sask will separate along with Alberta). I currently live in British Columbia.
Given global cooling, earthquakes, the commodity boom, civil unrest, global war, Alberta Separation, the rise of China…..Where do I take my family and young son?
Thanks for all of this invaluable work,
NH
ANSWER: That is a difficult question to answer at this point in time. Normally, if there is a crisis in one part of the world there is always an alternative. This time, every place you look there is political uncertainty. There will be pockets of safe harbors. Alberta may be one if it separates from Canada. The issue stems from oppressive control coming from centralized governments that are not ready to reform. They will crackdown on society in a desperate attempt to retain power. There are some pockets in the United States, but we may be looking more outside the continent. So far, the best spot in Asia has been Thailand.
The Federal Reserve, as expected, cut rates a quarter-point. The Fed also warned that further moves to ease interest rate policy may be coming to an end. The rate cut of 25 basis points to a range of 1.5% to 1.75% has been the third cut this year, which Fed Chairman Powell characterized as a “mid-cycle adjustment” in a maturing economic expansion. The Liquidity Crisis that has emerged in the REPO Market has been deeply concerning behind the curtain as many remained clueless as to why it was even unfolding. Many analysts claimed the Fed was hiding something and US shares of banks tumbled when they were traceable to Deutsche Bank exposure.
This year’s WEC was interesting since every part of the world was in crisis and we have gone into great detail with respect to the REPO Crisis. This year’s attendance set new records for the number of people flying in from around the world which included Russia down to South Africa, Europe, North, South, and Central America, all of Asia from China and Korea as well as Japan down to Singapore and India. The cross mix from fund managers, pension funds, banks, to central banks and even heads of separatist movements from around the world provided for a very interesting cocktail party this year.
Even the third-day training session exceeded 400 attendees. We are looking at holding two conferences outside the USA in 2020 in addition to Orlando – Frankfurt, and Shanghai. Perhaps holding three sessions we can reduce the size of these events. When they reach 700 attendees they are getting just a little too big.
There was so much to cover this year we provided extensive materials because there was just no way we could have covered in detail all of the information when we have a REPO Crisis, Liquidity Crisis, Pension Crisis, Sovereign Debt Crisis, Monetary Crisis, and a Crisis in Democracy with rising civil unrest and growing separatist movements around the globe.
We want to thank everyone for all your loyalty and the show of so many who have been making this an annual gathering as if this were a university reunion.
Thank you very much. We will be posting photos in a special sector for attendees onl
CTH has some new readers, so against the backdrop of the UniParty in Washington DC jumping into action to criticize President Trump’s decision to withdraw from Syria; and against the backdrop of President Trump authorizing an operation last night that killed ISIS leader Baghdadi, perhaps a little factual and historic refresher is in order….
The 40-minute discussion took place on the sidelines of a United Nations General Assembly in New York. The meeting took place at the Dutch Mission to the United Nations on Sept. 22nd 2016:
[…] Kerry’s off-record conversation was apparently with two dozen ‘Syrian civilians’, all from US backed opposition-linked NGO’s in education and medical groups supposedly working in ‘rebel-held’ (aka terrorist-held) areas in Syria.
This opposition conclave also included ‘rescue workers’ which can only be ambassadors from the White Helmets, a pseudo NGO which serves as Washington and London’s primary PR front in pursuit of a “No Fly Zone’ in Syria, and it’s being bankrolled by the US, UK, EU and other coalition states to the tune of well over $100 million (so far). (link)
When you listen to the audio recording (embedded below) it becomes immediately obvious what was going on in 2014, 2015 and 2016 as an outcome of policy from the White House. In addition, you discover why this jaw-dropping 2016 leak/story was buried by the U.S. media and how it connects to the prior 4 years of perplexing U.S. mid-east policy.
This evidence within this single story would/should forever remove any credibility toward the U.S. foreign policy under President Obama. It also destroys the credibility of a large number of well known republicans, and explains how the prior action placed President Trump into a precarious position requiring a careful approach.
The key Secretary Kerry moments are at 02:00, and again at approximately 18:30 forward.
The discussion from 18:30 through to 29:00 are exceptionally revealing and should be listened to by anyone who has wondered what was going on in Syria. Kerry even makes mention of the “Responsibility to Protect, or R2P” principle:
.
@18:30 Secretary John Kerry [transcript]:
[…] “Well, the problem is the Russians do not care about law, and we do. And, we don’t have a basis -our lawyers tell us- unless we have a U.N. Security Council resolution, which the Russians can veto and Chinese, OR unless we are under attack from the folks there, or unless we are invited in. Russia was invited in by the legitimate regime, well, it’s illegitimate in our mind, by the regime. And so, they were invited in and we’re not invited in.”
“We’re flying in airspace there, where they can turn on the air defense and we have a very different scene. The only reason they’re letting us fly is because we’re going after ISIS. If we were going after Assad, those air defenses, we’d have to take out all those air defenses, uh, and we don’t have a legal justification, frankly, for doing that unless we stretch it way beyond the law on a humanitarian basis, which some people argue we should – by the way.”
“Uh, but so far American legal theory has not gone into these so called “right to protect”, uh, and we don’t even have what we had in Kosovo where we had an, you know, an existing resolution and so forth. Uh, even though we went alone.”
“And so it’s complicated, it’s not easy. And we’ve been fighting. How many wars have we been fighting? We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan, we’ve been fighting in Iraq, we’ve fighting -you know- in the region for fourteen years. And a lot of Americans don’t believe that we should be fighting and sending young Americans over to die in another country. That’s the problem.”
“The congress won’t vote to do it. And you can be mad at us, but what we’re trying to do is help Syrians fight for their own country; and we’ve been spending a lot of money, a lot of effort to try and help do this. So, there’s an opposition there; the opposition is doing very well. Russia came in, and that’s a problem I know, because, uh, y’ know, uh, we don’t behave like Russians, it’s just a different standard.”
“So we are trying to see if we can test whether Russia, you see, is serious about a political solution. And if they are not serious, then we will help the opposition more. But I don’t think that’s particularly good for Syrians in the end because it will mean more fighting.”
Secretary Kerry is then questioned by an obvious sympathizer toward the extremist elements (calls pro-assad Sunni faction “Sunni Jews”) about why the U.S. fights the extremist Sunni (ISIS), but not the extremist Shia (Hezbollah). Kerry’s response:
“Well, they’re [Hezbollah] a terrorist organization, we’ve designated them a terrorist organization. The reason for [airstrikes against the Sunni Extremists] is because they have basically declared war on us; and are plotting against us, and Hezbollah is not plotting against us; Hezbollah is exclusively focused on Israel, they’re not attacking now, and on Syria where they are attacking in support of the, uh, in support of Assad.”
“So it a, uh, it’s…”
[Interrupted]
Question: “But how to make the majority of the Syrian people accept this approach, that because Hezbollah or the Iraqi or Iranian groups are not attacking the U.S. now when they are attacking against the terrorism in Syria?”
Kerry: “Well, they, they are targeted by the opposition who we are arming and training.”
What the recording reveals is substantive:
♦ First, only regime change, the removal of Bashir Assad, in Syria was the 2013, 2014, and 2015 goal for President Obama. This is admitted and outlined by Secretary John Kerry.
♦ Secondly, in order to accomplish this primary goal, the White House was willing to watch the rise of ISIS (’13, ’14, ’15) by placing their bet that ISIS’s success would force Syrian President Bashir Assad to acquiesce toward Obama’s terms and step down.
♦ Thirdly, in order to facilitate the objective, Obama and Kerry intentionally gave arms to ISIS and even, arguably, attacked a Syrian government military convoy to stop a strategic attack upon the Islamic extremists killing 80 Syrian soldiers.
Pause for a moment and consider those three points carefully. Because the audio, along with accompanying research now surfacing, not only exposes these three points as truth – but also provides the specific evidence toward them.
The problem in the Obama/Kerry’s secret strategy became clear when ISIS grew in sufficient strength to give the White House optimism for the scheme – however, instead of capitulation Assad then turned to Russia for help.
When Russia came to aid Bashir Assad the Syrian Government began being able to defeat ISIS and the Islamic Extremist elements within Syria. For the hidden plan of Obama/Kerry (and also McCain, Graham, et al), Russia defeating ISIS, al-Qaeda and al-Nusra, upended their objective.
Against the backdrop of this recording we can reconcile so many historic issues. We already know of a Second Presidential Finding Memo authorizing additional CIA covert action in 2012, this time in Syria. However, unlike the 2011 Libyan operation we do not know the operational name of the second action in 2012 Syria.
2012:WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing U.S. support for rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government, U.S. sources familiar with the matter said.
Obama’s order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence “finding,” broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad. (link)
Further consider how this Kerry audio tape, and the now transparent Obama policy toward Syria, absolutely confirms our earlier research as contained within the Benghazi Brief surrounding Syria. [Previous post]
President Obama, Secretary Clinton (2011, 2012) and later Secretary Kerry, together with John McCain, and the CIA tentacled team within the Republican party (2013, 2014, 2015) were willing to support extremist (under all factional names) in order to overthrow Bashir Assad…
…THIS WAS THE Obama/Kerry POLICY.
This was their 2016 admitted policy, only because they were caught.
Nothing else mattered.
President Trump took office in January 2017, and began a process to kill and remove, with extreme prejudice, the ISIS forces that President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry armed. He began with the end in mind, and delivered the following quote:…
QUESTION: Might you clarify this response you gave on one of your very recent blogs. You said bail-in may NOT be permitted on US soil. Did you mean that despite the laws written in the USA to allow it, you don’t think it is likely to happen to USA citizens banking in the USA?
OR were you only meaning in regards to overseas banks with locations within the USA would most likely not use bail-in.
OR because of all the EU money fleeing to USD/USA that the banks stable in the USA (for now) and thus no bail-in needed?
Do you think there would EVER be the case for a USA bank bail-in? Or is this just more conspiracy talk? For obvious reasons, this is of great concern to all of us as this USD repo madness, liquidity crisis and DB’s derivative contagion begins to spread throughout Europe into the next ECM turn in mid-January 2020.
Thank you in advance for your efforts and response to this question.
L
ANSWER: The bail-in laws were passed during the last crisis which was a popular response at that time because no bankers were ever punished for what they did in New York City. To the extent that FDIC exists, they would certainly honor that or it would be political suicide. However, the fine print is FDIC cover per person. Putting money at 5 different banks would seem to get around their limitations, but I would not count on that.
The gray area comes in two aspects.
First, there are at any given time money from one bank which can be at another (REPO) which is also why there is a liquidity crisis
Second, there are business accounts which exceed $100,000
The problem with a bail-in is that the ramifications would be far worse than the Great Depression. You would destroy businesses that would then be unable to make payroll and the unemployment would be massive – far greater than the 25% high of the Great Depression.
The BAIL-IN policy of Europe is a different animal altogether. This has nothing to do with bailing-out bankers. This stems from the refusal to consolidate debts. If banks failed in Southern Europe, then a bailout would mean money from the north could go to the south. This is the structural design. It is WHY Europe adopted the bail-in, quite different from the question of bankers’ conduct. Germany’s demand to join the Euro was that there would be no consolidation of debts. As I have said, the EU is like a family reunion with the cousin who is the drunk than people smile at, but would never lend him a dime. You can pretend it one happy family, but that is just the surface.
A bail-in would actually be devastating economically. It defeats the very idea of banking for if the burden is shifted to depositors to monitor banks when we have agencies who are supposed to do that, then why do we need governments or pay taxes?
Despite the laws, they were never thought threw and it is a huge difference between a regional bank and Goldman Sachs. The hatred was directed at the New York Banks – and rightly so. Because the federal court in New York City has protected the bankers, they have actually undermined the entire country by their stupid actions.
Recently you wrote: “Recently, this has manifested in laws that have attacked foreign investment in real estate, which is not the “hot” money that blew up the world in 1997. ”
I live in Vancouver where real estate prices are completely divorced from local wages. If it is not hot overseas money that is driving our real estate market then what is? Your analysis is appreciated as always.
Nick
ANSWER: It is foreign money pouring into Vancouver seeking to park in a world that is in economic and political chaos. This has been accelerated by the decline in the C$, which has made the prices appear cheap in other currencies. When you look at our Canadian Real Estate Index in terms of different currencies, you can see that it has been attracting capital. The problem is rather clear. Foreign capital buys the trophies. Others may raise the price of houses because they see the high-end rising, but it is not foreign capital that is bidding for the average home in general. The problem comes when they put in punitive laws that become permanent because of a trend based entirely upon currency.
QUESTION: You commented that the central banks had a difficult position when they were on the gold standard compared to post-1971. Could you explain that difference?
Thank you for the education. Its better than any classroom.
EJ
ANSWER: The United States created the Federal Reserve in 1913. Prior to World War I, central banks were long-established in Europe like the Bank of England in 1694. What you have to understand is that BEFORE World War I, the central banks of Europe were faced with two duties because there was the gold standard.
1.) The first was to defend their currency’s parity with gold and thereby the entire edifice of the international gold standard. This required raising interest rates and keeping the total volume of money and credit under control, often with contractionary effects.
2.) The second responsibility was to act as a lender of last resort for their banking system by supplying emergency liquidity. This necessitated an expansion of credit and a lowering of interest rates.
Post-1971, the central banks were no longer required to intervene to maintain the exchange rate relative to the gold standard, which is more or less similar to Hong Kong managing the peg to the dollar today.
Paul Volcker raised interest rates insanely into 1981 to stop inflation, but he ignored the consequences that would have on the value of the dollar on world markets. This was the stone that hit the standing pool of water which then at the 1985 Plaza Accord suggested that Europe create a single currency. One mistake is never corrected and never acknowledged. They constantly create a new scheme to solve the last one they created.
The migrants trying to get into Europe for free welfare rioted on Monday in Malta setting cars on fire and attacking staff. Malta had agreed to house them temporarily in a detention center waiting for other EU countries to accept them for settlement. This illustrates the fears of many in Europe about all of these migrants who have been allowed to enter without skills in language or fields that would be suitable for employment. Despite the violence, European politicians simply cannot admit that this has been a huge mistake.
Justin Trudeau celebrated an overwhelming victory following the results of the Canadian election – SEE RESULTS HERE – The Liberal party lost 21 seats but remained the majority parliamentary winner albeit without a majority. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a “solid mandate from the election results.” The Conservative party gained 27 seats and the most national votes, but remain the losing party. The New Democrat Party lost 15 seats and declared the 2019 election a major success for their agenda.
It’s all weird.
During their post election speeches the Liberals (Trudeau), Conservatives (Sheer), New Democrat Party (Singh) and the Green Party (May), all declared victory. It seemed like a hot mess of political messaging; but hey, that’s Canada.
Congratulations, I guess.
Liberals (RED), Conservatives (BLUE), New Democrats (Orange)
Donald J. Trump
✔@realDonaldTrump
Congratulations to @JustinTrudeau on a wonderful and hard fought victory. Canada is well served. I look forward to working with you toward the betterment of both of our countries!
Tonight the results of the Canadian election will start to be announced. Canada is a parliamentary system and therefore voters do not vote for a national candidate, instead they vote for a local representative, MP’s, who belong to a national party.
There are 338 separate district races called ‘federal ridings’ from coast to coast. In order for a party to win outright they need to win 170 district seats.
If a party doesn’t win 170 seats they need to form a government in combination with one, or more, of the other parties. Whichever party wins the majority of the seats elects a leader to become Prime Minister.
Currently there are 177 Liberal seats; 95 Conservative seats; 39 New Democratic Party seats; 10 Bloc Quebecois seats; 2 Green seats; 1 People’s Party of Canada seats; and 8 Independent seats. Early results should start coming in around 7:00pm Eastern.
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 