I believe it wasn't staged, but it really happened. But I'm not sure it happened like they say it did. I'm not sure that Obama didn't have it done. It may sound crazy, and I'm not saying he did have it done, but I wouldn't put it past him. With all of the inconsistencies, along with him wanting our guns so damn bad, I don't know. As horrific as the shooting was, the victim count was the equivalent of a half full bus going over a ravine in a snowstorm. Those kinds of tragedies happen all the time, but they don't cause a firestorm of attention to be brought down on the 2nd Amendment like the Sandy Hook tragedy. With his agenda to change the country as we know it, and to be part of a global community that is made to fit his plans, a bus going over a ravine, would be a price he may have been willing to pay. Just saying.
You just jogged something for me. Thanks.
A little preface material. The worlds' financial systems are in rotten shape. The EU is coming apart at the seams over member debt. The US fedgov is broke and still driving debt to the moon. We've reached a point where the senate under Harry Reid will not pass a budget, and the Chief Thief is saying things like the debt ceiling should be raised because the spending (code for borrowing) was already approved by congress. (Think about that for a few moments. And consider how far off base things have to be for the senate to not pass a budget required by law.) Japan never did really recover from the 90's. China is in a downturn that could get ugly.
A couple years ago the IMF floated a one-world currency idea. The idea was to initially have some sort of financial instrument or credit account for governments and central banks, which would eventually grow into a single world currency at the retail level planetwide. I can't remember all the details anymore. Observers long ago noticed the creeping control of the banking system towards centralization, so the IMF proposal was not at all unexpected. Just the timing of the event, but not that the event occurred.
If you've studied much of the history of fractional-reserve banking you know that every banking problem is "solved" in the direction of more power and control to the bankers. For example, early in this country's history, we had no central banks. Local banks issued their own currencies redeemable in gold. Except, being fractional-reserve bankers, they never had enough gold to cover all the currency notes and deposits. That's what fractional reserve means--you have in your vault (reserve) only a fraction of your total liabilities. So, being fractional-reserve bankers, banks printed more currency than they had gold with which to redeem.
Some banks got into trouble because they created too much paper currency or loaned out too much money. (If you're a banker and write a check to loan money to the miller, the miller is gonna deposit that check in his bank, and then his bank is gonna bring that check back to you demanding that you pay it.) All this printing paper currency and making loans is called inflating the money supply. Some banks got into trouble, creating too much money without having enough gold. This caused problems. Courts solved the problems initially by letting banks have "holidays" (the bank gets to close for while rather than being forced to honor its obligations and be forced into bankruptcy and out of business). Another decision said your deposit is not really your money--you gave it to the bank and now its theirs to do with as they wish, in so many words. Those sorts of solutions were not enoughl; so America got a central bank. The primary purposes of a central bank are to let all the member banks inflate at an even rate so none get so far ahead of themselves that they crash the system, and to provide a reserve of money to bail out those banks who do get into trouble. When the Federal Reserve (a central bank) was founded the code words were
elasticity of the money supply. The rest of us call it
print money out of thin air to bail out the banks who get into trouble.
Well, central banking is still fractional-reserve banking. And, of course, central banks have now gotten themselves into trouble. The obvious trend is to give more control and more centralization to bankers. The obvious next step is a planetary financial system with a single central bank at the apex using a single fiat currency. (a fiat currency is a currency that is declared to be legal tender by decree aka fiat. The Federal Reserve Note is a fiat currency. It has no gold backing it. The paper notes have no intrinsic value. You're forced to accept them by law.)
It may be that some in government know more about how bad things really are in the financial world globally than is being passed along to us. Remember Rahm Emanuel's comment about not letting a crisis go to waste? As the world banking situation deteriorates at some point the crisis will be bad enough that the planetary central bank and one-world currency will be proposed again as the solution--because no banker is ever going to propose doing away with fractional-reserve banking, its far too lucrative for the bankers.
I'm sure some in government are just tyrants who want our guns so they can do whatever they want. But, I wonder if some know more about where the world financial situation is headed and don't want us to be able to object to th "solutions".
