VANCOUVER, Canada ( Bullions Bull Canada) -- The veils have been removed. The open criminality of Western regimes is now on display for all the world to see. Bank robbery is now official government policy across the West with no debate and no voting.As was noted in my original commentary on this government-perpetrated crime, it was immediately obvious that this was an entirely staged/scripted event. To fully comprehend the premeditated nature of this crime requires a detailed examination of the chronology.
...[Item 19] The introduction of a statutory bail-in resolution tool (the power to write down or convert into equity the liabilities of a failing firm)... [emphasis mine]Why was there no rioting in the streets of the U.S. and UK? Why were there no scathing condemnations from our wonderful "free press?" In fact, why did the media not even mention the "bail-in" was now government policy for the U.S. and UK? And what about our "leaders," the politicians? Why did not a single one of these stalwarts in the U.S./UK utter so much as a "peep" about bank robbery becoming official government policy in the United States and United Kingdom? Because when these traitor governments made this their "official policy" they never fully defined what they really meant by "bail-in." Here is as close as the FDIC/Bank of England come to telling the truth:
...A bail-in tool would enable the U.K. authorities to recapitalize an institution by allocating losses to its shareholders and unsecured creditors...[emphasis mine]Why were no UK politicians protesting the "bail-in?" Because when the Bank of England spoke of "allocating losses to...unsecured creditors" no one would have dreamed that what this central bank really meant was stealing the money out of peoples' bank accounts. It should be noted that while that provision was explicitly designated as applying only to "the U.K. regime" that it can be implicitly understood that it applies to the U.S. as well. While the provisions for "the U.S. regime" do not use the term "bail-in," here is the vague language which was employed:
...Title II [of the Dodd-Frank Act] requires that the losses of any financial company placed into receivership will not be borne by taxpayers, but by common and preferred stockholders, debt holders, and other unsecured creditors... [emphasis mine]