I’ll be honest….this isn’t new news about the gold dinar but I never really tied this all together and I should have before now…and now I don’t know what to think here…this whole situation has bugged me from the very beginning for the following reasons below, but in an effort to not get too caught up in the bullshyt lame argument of calling me a conspiracy theorist because you are unwilling to remotely ask questions or challenge the motives of your government and status quo, stop reading now. for the rest of you that have a tiny bit of curiosity in peeling back the onion, you be the judge…
1. Egypt was getting real traction on Gold Dinar
2. Obama usurped congress in an act of war to get us in there and WE ARE STILL THERE “ASSISTING” (if you have forgotten, The Obama administration attacked Libya without a constitutional declaration of war, without congressional authorization, without meaningful consultation with Congress — and without a dollar being authorized from the House or Senate. It was a war started by a president who turned to the United Nations for its authority and ignored the authority of the US Congress.
3. A new central bank for the rebels was up and running like day 2 of the invasion (HOW YOU ASK? Well with the help of goldman sachs of course(see link)
4. New reports show that “NATO Forces” were trying to prevent Gaddafi from burying the American buck by causing a single currency called the Gold Dinar in which all African and Middle Eastern nations would accept in return for Oil.
Are we better off as a nation by ignoring and debasing our Constitution? Are we better off having spent more than a billion dollars attacking a country thousands of miles away that had not threatened us? Are we more financially sound having expanded the empire to include yet another protectorate and probable long-term military occupation? Are we more admired throughout the world for getting involved in yet another war?
Still, many will claim that getting rid of Libyan ruler Gaddafi was worth it. They will say that the ends justify the means. As the civilian toll from NATO bombs adds up in a war started under the guise of protecting a civilian population, even the initial argument for intervention is ridiculous. We should not forget that there were no massacres taking place in Libya before the NATO attack. The attack was a dubbed a preventative humanitarian intervention. But as soon as NATO planes started bombing, civilians started dying. – RON PAUL
From Russia Today:
More speculation has been raised on the reasons for NATO’s intervention in Libya. As RT’s Laura Emmett reports, the organization may have been trying to prevent Gaddafi from burying the American buck by causing a single currency called the Gold Dinar in which all African and Middle Eastern nations would accept in return for Oil. The Gold Dinar was intended to compete against the Dollar and Euro. The Gold Dinar would give OIL RICH nations the power to turn around to their ENERGY HUNGRY customers and say “Sorry, the price has gone up and we want gold. “…some say the US and its NATO allies literally couldn’t afford to let that happen…
And some more if you feel like learning a little more…..
It is like any lie; once people are exposed as lying and you probe that lie, then they have to come up with more lies to cover the gaps in the original lie – Ian R. Crane
click this link:
The wave of Middle East revolutions was a false flag from the start and the ultimate target for the US was indeed Libya all along, insists Ian R. Crane, an independent researcher and campaigner for political truth and integrity.
The reason for the Western media having certain countries tagged – such as Venezuela, Cuba, Libya, Iraq, Iran, North Korea – is “they all have or had one thing in common – that is they are free of debt of the World Bank.”
“They are not locked in the World Bank or IMF, they have their own banks, they issue their own currency,” said the researcher.
“We also have to recognize the remarkable coincidence between the Gaddafi statement that he was going to start issuing a gold dinar and demanding that his oil is purchased with gold – and the next thing we know we have a popular uprising [in Libya],” points out Crane.
The researcher believes that the ongoing riots in any other country in the region, particularly the clashes between the army and rioters in Syria, “is deliberately contrived to take the attention away from Libya – the goal is Libya.”
“The goal is not just to control the oil in Libya. Libya’s debt was less than one month of its GDP, so it was not debt – it was just a working capital. But it is not just the oil, because in addition to supporting the country, let’s understand that Gaddafi paid a social wage, every Libyan of working age received the equivalent of $US 1,000 a month and it was up to them whether they worked or not,” reveals Crane, saying that Gaddafi was putting money back into the community and also making all education in Libya free.
Another considerable chunk of the oil revenues Gaddafi spent was on an enormous system of underground aqueducts, turning Libya’s part of the Northern Sahara into farmland, thus taking his country another step closer to becoming a regional superpower.
Crane goes on to link Osama Bin Laden’s killing with the “sudden manifestation” of President Barack Obama’s birth certificate that appeared on the White House website, which was immediately considered a forgery by some because “it was still in the Photoshop layers”. Crane says that following the publication, the media, particularly in the US, needed “something of enormous magnitude to take the birth certificate issue off the front pages – so they decided they needed to murder Osama Bin Laden, for what is at least the third time.”
The researcher also recalled previous rumors about Bin Laden being dead before the end of 2001 and mentioned David Frost’s infamous interview with the now late Pakistani politician Benazir Bhutto on November 2, 2007, when she stated categorically that Osama Bin Laden had been murdered by a former MI6 recruit Omar Sheikh.
David Frost made no comment whatsoever and did not question Bhutto on the sensational statement and on 27 December 2007 she was murdered.
“People should not be taking the version of events offered by the mainstream media at face value,” Crane concluded, but rather dig as deep as possible “to establish what we believe to be the truth.”