Is America Starting Multiple Wars To Prevent Big Oil Nations From Going Gold Standard

Thanks for the open mind

 

Unless Hussein Obama and the running dogs at the EPA foul up fracking the US will be the big oil exporter in a few years.

 

Again, this may be true. Maybe. But the theory part of that video is that our government is manipulated by Rothschild and when these countries are stepping away from Rothschild banking, we are creating reasons to go to war. I can't vouch for the theory part of Rothschild controlling our government, but I know for a fact we have been going to unnecessary war which is easily proveable.

 

Most people saw this article come out about Benghazi; http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/50586

Democrats embraced it and Republicans opposed it. It basically says that Benghazi was actually a CIA base we were using to bring weapons in. It says the reason it was covered up was because it was an undercover operation. The reason they didn't send people in was because it would have exposed the operation.

The video shows evidence that the rebels had lots of big, brand new weapons.

This would explain the Benghazi cover-up.

 

Even if the US isn't dependent on Libyan oil, Europe is, and the same bankers that own Europe own us.

 

It isn't a conspiracy to state bankers run our government, it's common sense, actually. They fund Congress and the President, follow the money. And look at all the things the gov does for them in return, wars, bailouts, no criminal prosecutions after financial collapse, etc.

 

Could the Wolf PAC 28th amendment stop this? Or would they just find alternate ways to control nominees? In your opinion

 

It depends on the details of said amendment. Got a link to it?

 

http://www.wolf-pac.com/

I think it would have to at least slow the corruption. I know it wouldn't end it.

 

Welcome to the real world. you are now above the rest.

 

As a libertarian, I have a bit of a problem with not allowing any sort of money in politics, and resorting to publicly financed elections, that said......money in politics is pretty much raping the Constitution and the people, so something needs to be done.

Here's my solution, if you're interested. It involves both a primary, and an two elections. Hear me out. After the primaries, the five most popular parties all get a spot in every debate. This year, that would have been the Democrats, the Republicans, The Libertarians, the Greens, and I think the Justice parties. That would put all different ideas in the public forum, expose them to 50+ million at least, and would drastically change the landscape of the country. I can assure you, if Johnson and Stein were in the debates, it would have drastically changed things.

The candidates would also need to wear their sponsors on their clothing, so we can so who is bought and paid for by who.

After that, we have our first election process. The three parties who get the most votes move on to the final election. A week after that, we'd have our last election with those three parties. The one that gets the highest number of votes wins the election. I'd also do away with the electoral college, and move back to a popular vote.

Perhaps not a perfect system, but better than we have now, in my opinion.

 

The only Iran's story I know is that US president OBAMA won elections by promising DIALOG with Iran and Syria, but doing other things instead while under his administration Syrian rebels are being ARMED by US. And I am not at all surprised, because I was into voting for Bush in 2000 by his anti war anti nation building talk

 

I agree with a lot of that. I think every party should be allowed to debate for sure. But as an Independent voter I see lots of good and lots of bad in all parties. I think there should be an Independent party, though this would probably end up being the brand everyone uses to seem neutral and require people to look into what they actually stand for.

I don't believe in the free market. I think it ends up being a monopoly down the road no matter how you look at it. Everything controlled by a select few. Kind of like now but without regulations.

 

I remember all that. I could never figure out why they would stand so strongly before becoming the President then change like the wind once in office. If anything I believe Romney would have been worse. His raised National Defense budget over what the Pentagon asked for pretty much screamed more war, since war spending is on National Defense spending since 2010.

 

Should probably move this to the conspiracy theories topic.

 

Only if you're against using your brain, and applying some common sense.

 

Conspiracy "claptrap" is what you believe in served on your establishment media, that for example we invaded Iraq or worry about Iran, because they had WMD's: ALL bad guys according to US have something in common: they do not have banks sucking them by interest, while all the good guys according to US ALSO have something in common: they are all sucked by that same cow, and most are in DEBT by the bankers who suck the interest.

 

I understand why you would say that, it's hard to comprehend this as a possibility. But if you can show me proof Iraq had WMD's or proof that Gaddafi was killing his people, or if you can prove Bashar al-Assad is the one responsible for killing his own people..... I will end this thread. It should be easy to prove right? After all, America would never go to war over something miniscule and unproveable when we have such a high debt, right?

 

[video=youtube;8i3DjmCmGVQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i3DjmCmGVQ&feature=fvst[/video]

Wow.

I wouldn't normally take someone like this for his word. But come on. This is really adding up.

 

There are multiple gold standards, and none of them seem to work anymore because of the nature of the international economy. the US had attempted to revert to the gold standard in the 20th century, to our detriment because we balanced our money on the price of gold worldwide, And certain parties took advantage of that and we're screwing us out of money.

After the Second World War, a system similar to a Gold Standard and sometimes described as a "gold exchange standard" was established by the Bretton Woods Agreements. Under this system, many countries fixed their exchange rates relative to the U.S. dollar. The U.S. promised to fix the price of gold at approximately $35 per ounce. Implicitly, then, all currencies pegged to the dollar also had a fixed value in terms of gold.
Starting under the administration of the French President Charles de Gaulle and continuing until 1970, France reduced its dollar reserves, trading them for gold from the U.S. government, thereby reducing U.S. economic influence abroad. This, along with the fiscal strain of federal expenditures for the Vietnam War and persistent balance of payments deficits, led President Richard Nixon to end the direct convertibility of the dollar to gold on August 15, 1971, resulting in the system's breakdown (the "Nixon Shock").

Before that, a popular practice was the Gold Bullion Standard which basically said that gold would be sold on demand to those with printed money. Before that was the gold specie standard, which actually used gold as a form of currency printed into uniform pieces.

The gold Bullion standard was adopted and then repealed by the British government because speculation on their money caused a huge financial strain they couldn't pay for.


Basically, the Gold standard conserves the wealth of a nation that uses it by not allowing them to go into debt and have to pay it off with interest, but it doesn't allow the government any lateral room engaging the economy during times of recession.

So, I can't see any reason we'd blow somebody up so they can't go broke.

 

Well stated FFBAT.

 

The bankers don't run this country sorry the politicians do. There were no prosecutions because the bankers were doing what the politiicans by threat of lawsuit told them to do.

 

Isn't this the problem though?

I have my own theory about Syria and a Benghazi connection, the problem is that we are forced to make our own best educated guess, as the waters have been so muddied we can't even tell which way is up.

This is why in some ways I still hope Assad falls, its hard to keep everything rigged when their is no mechanism to control people, no police force, or courts system. At the point where people are in Egypt, and Libya, the people on the ground with the guns, make the rules. At least they will have a chance at self determination.

 

Note that I am against a gold standard. I'm not a Libertarian. I've researched too many economist posts that say it would do more harm than good to our county. But if Libya, Iraq, Iran, Syria along with multiple other nations switched their monitary standard to gold..........USA would be in for a swim. We could produce our own oil for a while, fact. But that oil we produce is going to be costly and only Americans could afford it. What happens when that oil runs out? Because it's not a renewable energy?

 

This is a question thread. No facts are stated here. Please tell me your theory. We all KNOW FOR A FACT what we are told is a lie.