The American Ruling Class

[rickoff]

Thanks for the Petition link, Glen. I just signed on. As with any other White House Petitions raising legitimate concerns, I doubt this one will succeed in bringing about what is asked for, but at least our concerns are heard. Frankly, I have serious doubts as to whether any gold remains at Fort Knox. After all, where's the proof? Even if they were to televise the vaults being opened, and the gold bars counted, that would not be good enough to convince me. There have been scams where lead bars were coated with a layer of gold so as to appear genuine. To assure any such bars are the genuine article, each and every one would have to be precisely weighed and then assayed as to gold content and purity. A scraping from the surface can not be considered sufficient for that purpose, so this means boring into each bar at random locations and depths.

We the People should not be expected to simply take the word of our so called "government" that our national gold assets have been properly guarded and intact. Something of this importance deserves a full independent audit on at least an annual basis.

[dutchdivco]

This whole thing,

With 'White House petitions', reminds me of a line from a book. "They have an 'employee of the month' program, to show how much they CARE about their employees; THAT shows just how much they DON'T care about their employees!"

You create a 'website', and invite people to submit petitions; no GUARANTEE you are going to READ the petitions, much less allow what the petitions say, or how many people sign them, to effect your agenda.

But, it creates the (false) impression that you are 'listening' to the people, or that you 'care' what they are thinking/saying. And, for at least SOME people, who are upset about something, it uses up some of their frustration by giving them the opportunity to DO SOMETHING, even tho the something that they do won't really DO anything.

And, the White House may actually be using the 'info' in these petitions to 'guage' public opinion; to see the realistic limits of how far they can go in pushing a certain issue or agenda. Its like 'polls', its a 'tool'.

I see the latest talk is that the whitehouse WON'T 'push' for a major gun control legislation, such as a re-instatement of the 'assault weapons ban', instead they will go for smaller, more 'targeted' legislation. Perhaps (probably) because polls and petitions, etc. convinced them the majority of the public isn't in favor.

Haven't been on the 'website', myself. perhaps should put on a poll, to repeal the 'gun-free' school zone federal legislation? It was a gross distortion of the intent of the Commerce clause, to begin with. Been in place since 1990, and there have been at least 60+ shooting incidents, at schools, since it was passed. And that only counts incidents which devolved to actual shootings; I haven't bveen able to find any accounting of all the incidents INVOLVING guns in schools, but which did NOT result in an actual shooting; from the kid who forgot his BB gun was in his backpack, to the 14 Y.O. girl who stole her fathers gun, and was 'going to shoot a teacher', but told some friends her plans, and they reported her, and authorities were able to recover the gun without a shooting.

Pretty obvious that laws to restrict guns, don't work. How about repealing the Law; municipalities and states that LIKE the 'gun-free' school zone can continue the program, without the Feds being involved. However, those states/municipalities that feel it only acts as a magnet for 'bad guys with guns', are then free to try another tack.

Why the Federal Gov't ever got involved in it in the first place, is a mystery to me; its not like the Gov't put military troops, or even FBI/BATF agents around the schools; what in the world did they THINK they were doing?

"Oh, I was going to take a gun to school, and shoot a bunch of people. But NOW, that theres a Federal Law, I guess I'll just take up underwater basket weaving, instead!"

Based on a national news story, there are Teachers, administrators and parents in various municipalities who DON'T think arming teachers is such a bad idea; and training programs have already started. However, I don't believe the Federal 'gun free school zone' law, makes an exception for teachers, only for law enforcement officers. Therefore, there is a
'Legitimate' REASON to repeal this heinous distortion of the Commerce clause, (in addition to the constitutionality question).Jim

[rickoff]

In just one week, on January 19th, the scheduled four-day 2013 presidential inauguration events will begin. Here's the schedule:

January 19th - 'National Day of Service." Barry will ask Americans across the country to organize and participate in service projects in their communities to honor our shared values and celebrate the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

January 20th - Barry will participate in a small, private, swearing-in ceremony.

January 21st - Inauguration Day. Swearing-in Ceremony, Inaugural Parade, and official Inaugural Balls.

January 22nd - Inaugural National Prayer Service, 10:30 a.m. Washington National Cathedral. President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, along with dignitaries and Americans of diverse faiths will attend the service which will include prayer, readings, and musical performances. The event is by invitation only, but will be webcast live at www.nationalcathedral.org.

Inauguration Day is always slated for January 20th, but we are told that since it falls on a Sunday this year the public inaugural swearing in ceremony was delayed until the following day. Of course there is no really valid reason why the event needed to be delayed, and what this looks like is that they chose to have it occur on Monday simply because it would fall in line with Martin Luther King Jr Day, which will also be celebrated Monday. Barry, of course, wants to play this up in the media as the swearing in of a "black president" on the very day held as being the most important black history commemorative event. Going ahead with a public inauguration ceremony January 20th would have left the 21st solely as a day of remembrance of MLK Jr, which it rightfully should be. MLK Jr was actually born on January 15th, but MLK Jr Day is always celebrated on the third Monday of January so as to be a national holiday for working people.

As to the January 19 events, did you know that January 19th has also been chosen as "Gun Appreciation Day?" That's right, Larry Ward, President of Political Media and founder of “Gun Appreciation Day” wants 2nd Amendment supporters to turn out at their local gun and ammo stores, rod and gun clubs, and gun shows, and to carry signs supporting the right to bear arms. It's a good idea, and I hope it garners lots of media attention. I think it also is in line with what is officially being asked of citizens in the January inaugural schedule - "to organize and participate in service projects in their communities to honor our shared values." Gun Appreciation Day, of course, would honor the Constitution, the Bill Of Rights, and the 2nd Amendment in particular, a right which should be a value shared by all free men and women. Barry's administration, and the media, doesn't see it that way and they are claiming that Gun Appreciation Day is a slap in the face to MLK Jr's memory, as well as a slap in the face to all other victims of gun violence. Larry Ward appeared in an interview conducted by CNN, in order to counter those claims. He said that he believes that MLK Jr would have approved of a Gun Appreciation Day. When asked by the CNN news anchor to explain that statement, Ward said that if all black people had been allowed the freedom to bear arms then slavery and other forms of black oppression in the United States would never have occurred in the first place. CNN, and the black woman invited to offer a counterpoint, scoffed at Ward's explanation, but I think he made a valid point. After all, our founding documents proclaim that all men are created equal and have certain inalienable rights, one of those rights being liberty. Therefore, how could any US citizen legitimately claim to own another person or deprive them of their liberty and freedom to choose their own path in life? And how then could such black peoples constitutionally be denied the right to bear arms to protect themselves from those who would seek to deprive them of such liberty?

[rickoff]

Pretty obvious that laws to restrict guns, don't work. How about repealing the [Gun Free Zone] Law; municipalities and states that LIKE the 'gun-free' school zone can continue the program, without the Feds being involved. However, those states/municipalities that feel it only acts as a magnet for 'bad guys with guns', are then free to try another tack.

Actually, Jim, a bill (HR 35) has been introduced to do just that. The bill is called "The Safe Schools Act of 2013," and was introduced by Representative Steve Stockman, a Texas Republican, on January 3rd. The bill would allow principals, teachers, and staff, to possess firearms in order to defend their students. Stockman explained the reasoning behind submitting the bill as being the following:

“In the 22 years before enactment of ‘gun free school zones,’ there were two mass school shootings,” Stockman said. “In the 22 years since enactment of ‘gun free schools,’ there have been 10 mass school shootings. Not only has that bill utterly failed to protect our children, it appears to have placed them in danger.”

Another bill (HR 133) seeking repeal of the gun free school zones act was introduced by Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican, on January 4th.

Ron Paul had attempted a repeal of the act in 2007, bud it died in committee when he couldn't get any other lawmakers to cosponsor the bill. Figures, huh? And so far I believe that only one Representative has signed on to cosponsor the Stockman bill. I'd say the chances of passing this don't look good, and of course why would it when Progressives on both sides of the political arena are dedicated to advancing gun control legislation and shredding the Constitution.

[jdodson]

Online activist, programmer Swartz dies in NY - Yahoo! News

Aaron Swartz, 26, hanged himself in his Brooklyn apartment weeks before he was to go on trial.

According to a federal indictment, Swartz stole the documents from JSTOR, a subscription service used by MIT that offers digitized copies of articles from academic journals.

JSTOR did not press charges once it reclaimed the articles from Swartz....MIT allows guests access to the articles and Swartz, a fellow at Harvard's Safra Center for Ethics, was a guest.

Harvard law professor and Safra Center faculty director Lawrence Lessig called himself a friend of Swartz's and wrote..."we need a better sense of justice. ... The question this government needs to answer is why it was so necessary that Aaron Swartz be labeled a 'felon.'"

JSTOR announced this week that it would make "more than 4.5 million articles" publicly available for free.

Aaron's crime was making artcles from academic journals more accessible!
For that, he would have been labeled a felon and considered to be a threat to society for the rest of his life.
Aaron hung himself before going to trial. All he wanted was a free and uncensored internet.

Maybe that is why the government would not stop pursing the case even after the owner of the documents did not press charges.

He faced 13 felony charges, including breaching site terms

Before you know it, jay walking will be a felony. America has the worlds most prisoners.

[FuzzyTomCat]

We Petition the Obama Administration

Howdy members and guests,

I made up a petition today for everyones review and possible approval ....
__________________________________________________ _______________

We Petition the Obama Administration to:

To expand and consolidate the ban of subliminal messages or stimuli from the existing laws

To expand and consolidate the ban of subliminal messages or stimuli a technique whereby an attempt is made to convey information to the viewer or listener by transmitting messages below the threshold of normal awareness, from the existing laws to include all product goods and service advertizing commerce plus non-commerce views and beliefs of Personal, Governmental, Political, Environmental, Labor Forces, Manufacturing, Groups and Organizational subject matter.

This ban expansion to include all visual and audio media types and outlets such as TV, CATV, Satellite, Radio, Internet formats such as YouTube type videos, Streaming Broadcasts and Down-loadable Media.

The law should make subliminal messages or stimuli more than a deceptive practice and is an invasion of privacy.

Created: Jan 12, 2013

Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Consumer Protections, Human Rights

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pet...-laws/hG4F5C8J


Thank You, for your consideration,
Glen

[rickoff]

Glen, you should definitely nix the requirement for such laws regarding Internet. The last thing we want is for the government bozos to begin regulating what can and cannot be shown on the Internet.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Glen, you should definitely nix the requirement for such laws regarding Internet. The last thing we want is for the government bozos to begin regulating what can and cannot be shown on the Internet.

Hey Rick,

The Movie Industry and TV media in the United States is already illegal to use Subliminal messages in advertising products also it is "ONLY" a deceptive practice to use this tactic on one without their knowledge of it and is an invasion of privacy at the very least. There are numerous legislation's that prohibit advertisers from using subliminal messages in their ads. The FTC (Federal Trade Commission) Act Sec 5 – “prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in interstate commerce.” The TV Code of the National Association of Broadcasters (IV, 14) states: “Any technique whereby an attempt is made to convey information to the viewer by transmitting messages below the threshold of normal awareness is not permitted.” The most potentially effective regulation is made by the U.S. Treasury Department, Division of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). It states: Subliminals are inherently deceptive because the consumer does not perceive them at a normal level of awareness, and thus is given no choice whether to accept or reject the message, as is the case with normal advertising. ATF holds that this type of advertising technique is false and deceptive, and is prohibited by law .

The expansion to include Internet formats such as YouTube type videos, Streaming Broadcasts and Down-loadable Media would be the next step to ban subliminal messages or stimuli. Just the thought of going to a political rally with back ground music and a big screen TV video playing with a honey pot of subliminal messages or stimuli to subconsciously influence you and everyone else should make one pause. You know my allegations and others findings on the US government and years of research of human testing in past postings ....

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tauk#post48273
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tauk#post50722
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tauk#post49696
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tauk#post51223
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tauk#post54425
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tauk#post54427

And the connections to Hofstra University in my forum link findings and another common denominator with questionable ending results is the Obama 2008 and 2012 Presidential "debates" most noted October 16, 2012 the CNN w/ Candy Crowley (moderator) at Hofstra a "private" University in Hempstead, Long Island, New York. Long Island, New York's Largest Private College - Hofstra University These Presidential debates have been going on at Hofstra a highly "liberal" University for DECADES and all have the same negative results for the Republican party ..... odd ?? The continued Obama political campaigning and rally's "after" the election to gain more support for his agenda of taxing the wealthy and higher federal debt limit ... odd ??

These types of "Mind Control" and "Brain Washing" could possibly explain the "Zombie" problem with half the population even videos on P2P sites, YouTube type videos and down-loadable CD/DVD ( non-commence type - music, lifestyle, political, etc.) Recordings using these techniques are in circulation.

Best Glen

[rickoff]

Aaron [Swartz] hung himself before going to trial.

Are you sure he did that, or did you only read that explanation as reported in the Yahoo News?

[rickoff]

The most potentially effective regulation is made by the U.S. Treasury Department, Division of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). It states: Subliminals are inherently deceptive because the consumer does not perceive them at a normal level of awareness, and thus is given no choice whether to accept or reject the message, as is the case with normal advertising. ATF holds that this type of advertising technique is false and deceptive, and is prohibited by law .

These types of "Mind Control" and "Brain Washing" could possibly explain the "Zombie" problem with half the population even videos on P2P sites, YouTube type videos and down-loadable CD/DVD ( non-commence type - music, lifestyle, political, etc.) Recordings using these techniques are in circulation.

Yes, I agree, and would add that simply watching the kind of mindless garbage and blatant disinformation seen on television these days probably has more to do with us having a zombie-like population.
I'm fine with the ATF's position on subliminals, although I don't see what ATF would have to do with detection or enforcement actions against violators, unless the subliminal messages are related to Alcohol, Tobacco, or Firearms. Valid examples might be subliminals that incite the use of firearms to commit violent acts, or encourage people to become addicted to alcohol or tobacco.

The greatest problem I see with detection and enforcement with any type of subliminals is who is going to do it? If you could produce evidence to show that a certain YouTube video contained subliminals, you could probably pursue an action against the producer of that video provided that it was made in the United States. You would have to do a frame-by-frame analysis beforehand of every video you intend to watch, of course, in order to detect a subliminal and avoid being influenced by it, and that would be very time consuming. Now let's suppose that government sets up an IRA (not a individual retirement account, but rather an Internet Regulatory Agency), which is something we know they would love to do. And let's suppose, quite realistically, that this agency would not only have to deal with detecting subliminals, but countless other Internet related issues. The budget of such an agency would obviously have to be gargantuan, and enforcement actions would probably cause a great many Internet service companies to go out of business for allowing a subliminal to be posted on their site. Can you imagine Yahoo, Google, or Facebook, for example, having to police every video before allowing it to be posted on their sites? Enforcement, of course, would be all about gaining total government control over the Internet and imposing fines in order to collect revenues, rather than having anything to do with public "protection." If we don't tell Congress to keep their hands off the Internet, then we are going to lose one of the last freedoms we have to a government hell bent on control and abuse of powers. I really wouldn't be surprised if subliminal videos that already are posted on the Internet have purposely been posted by government shills just for the purpose of drumming up a public outcry that "something must be done," which is always the tactic that government uses in order to implement programs within their control freak agenda. When it comes to big government, we must be very careful about what we ask for.

[rickoff]

One further thought, Glen. - We have software programs capable of scanning downloaded Internet files for viruses, and most of us use these tools to avoid problems. Why not simply develop a program that would scan files to detect the probability that a subliminal message is included in a file, and which would give us the ability to consciously view that message to determine what it actually is? The software would be searching for text that remains in view for just a frame or two, which would distinguish it from explanatory, descriptive, or title text which are all meant to be shown long enough to actually be consciously read.

[FuzzyTomCat]

Yes, I agree, and would add that simply watching the kind of mindless garbage and blatant disinformation seen on television these days probably has more to do with us having a zombie-like population.
I'm fine with the ATF's position on subliminals, although I don't see what ATF would have to do with detection or enforcement actions against violators, unless the subliminal messages are related to Alcohol, Tobacco, or Firearms. Valid examples might be subliminals that incite the use of firearms to commit violent acts, or encourage people to become addicted to alcohol or tobacco.

The greatest problem I see with detection and enforcement with any type of subliminals is who is going to do it? If you could produce evidence to show that a certain YouTube video contained subliminals, you could probably pursue an action against the producer of that video provided that it was made in the United States. You would have to do a frame-by-frame analysis beforehand of every video you intend to watch, of course, in order to detect a subliminal and avoid being influenced by it, and that would be very time consuming. Now let's suppose that government sets up an IRA (not a individual retirement account, but rather an Internet Regulatory Agency), which is something we know they would love to do. And let's suppose, quite realistically, that this agency would not only have to deal with detecting subliminals, but countless other Internet related issues. The budget of such an agency would obviously have to be gargantuan, and enforcement actions would probably cause a great many Internet service companies to go out of business for allowing a subliminal to be posted on their site. Can you imagine Yahoo, Google, or Facebook, for example, having to police every video before allowing it to be posted on their sites? Enforcement, of course, would be all about gaining total government control over the Internet and imposing fines in order to collect revenues, rather than having anything to do with public "protection." If we don't tell Congress to keep their hands off the Internet, then we are going to lose one of the last freedoms we have to a government hell bent on control and abuse of powers. I really wouldn't be surprised if subliminal videos that already are posted on the Internet have purposely been posted by government shills just for the purpose of drumming up a public outcry that "something must be done," which is always the tactic that government uses in order to implement programs within their control freak agenda. When it comes to big government, we must be very careful about what we ask for.

Hi Rick,

The present laws for subliminal messages or stimuli are basically originally set up for "sales" of products when this technique was used years past in movies prior to the end, flashing images to boost sales at the concession stand for soda, pop corn, hot dogs, hamburgers, candy, cigarettes (ATF), alcohol (ATF) and was "SO" effective they banned it's use for product sales.

What we have now has absolutely no laws of protection on non-commence ideological ideas or beliefs added subliminal messages or stimuli flashing images of bloody hands, dead children, people in poverty, prominent people in compromising positions with weapons or covered in blood, as examples.

My problem is not so much the American public, manufactures, groups and organizations but protecting us "FROM" the US Government, political parties and labor unions. As I mentioned before Just the thought of going to a political rally with back ground music and a big screen TV video playing with a honey pot of subliminal messages or stimuli to subconsciously influence you and everyone else should make one pause.

My goal is to totally "BAN" all subliminal messages or stimuli everywhere in a LIVE or RECORDED setting and just not for SALES of products but for everything. The debate on how it could or can be done is in all the American citizens interest because it's a deceptive practice to use this tactic on one without their knowledge of it and is an invasion of privacy.

I guess in some way you could call this a new government regulation but how to regulate the US Government for our protection is another subject. I do like your idea on some software that can be used to help find these in recorded media, but "LIVE" events or rally's with music and videos playing is something else.

Just remember subliminal messages or stimuli laws appear not to have been changed since 1985 and as a example the MUSIC and VIDEO game industry is wide open with "NO" regulations at all, not one. There isn't really any punishment for those whom use subliminal messages or stimuli either.

Hopefully we can find a answer for this problem .... my "White House" petition was/is at least an effort to bring this enormous problem to light something has to be done.

Best
Glen

[Mad Scientist]

It is my understanding that a number of years ago when people first became aware of all the subliminal advertising that was going on they became quite outraged. Representatives were called and told to write bills to prevent this sort of thing from continuing and laws were written and introduced.
But few if any were actually passed.

[rickoff]

Hopefully we can find a answer for this [subliminals] problem .... my "White House" petition was/is at least an effort to bring this enormous problem to light something has to be done.

I understand your concern, Glen, and support your efforts at fighting this problem. But the last 5 words in the above quote, "something has to be done," as a call for government action, has been used over and over again throughout the history of our nation to allow the Ruling Class elite to further their agenda of total control over the states and the People. You recognize that government, and the political parties which comprise government, are probably the worst offenders when it comes to subliminals used to shape public opinion. Therefore, why would we ask government to regulate themselves, when we know they would not? Like so many laws now on the books, they may sound like good ideas and make it look like government is bound to abide by them, but it is all just words on paper. When it comes right down to following those laws, government administrations, government agencies, and political parties, hold themselves above the law. So I believe that enacting any such law regarding subliminals would be more or less meaningless, and in my opinion would only result in a huge government power grab over every facet of communications and audio/visual presentations, under the guise of "protecting" us.

I would think that subliminals are most effective when used upon people who never developed their own firm beliefs and ethics, and instead were shaped in their convictions consciously by public education, media, and the circumstances of their personal environment. Thus, I'm not very concerned with the prospect that my own head could be turned around through exposure to subliminals, but I can see that the perhaps 75% or more of the population which represents the "sheeple" are the ones to be concerned with. And because this large group has already been shaped and molded to think as the Ruling Class would have them think and act, then what is the answer to undoing the damage already done? Would the answer be to expose them to new subliminals which convey positive themes and images while exposing the Ruling Class agenda for what it is, and which would turn this generation of sheeple into caring, kind, and intelligent beings? The current crop of sheeple have been so thoroughly and consciously indoctrinated to believe that the Ruling Class agenda is proper and acceptable as their way of life that perhaps the only way the errors in their thought processes could be positively altered would be through subconsciously processed subliminals. That's certainly something to think about, as it presents just one more dilemma - that reshaping public perception and repairing the damage would be left up to whom?

[rickoff]

Quotable quote of the day......

“I believe for example when Washington, D.C., passed a law that nobody could have a gun except law enforcement, and it was struck down by the United States Supreme Court, that we should overrule the Supreme Court with a Constitutional amendment. I don’t believe that in our society that we should have guns.” - Ex New York City mayor, and Democrat, Ed Koch

The gun control agenda is proceeding in a tireless, ruthless manner, and the media is fueling this feeding frenzy with a daily onslaught of fresh material designed to sway public opinion closer and closer to the Ruling Class objective. Statements from gun control advocates far outnumber opposing viewpoints, and when opposing viewpoints are aired, they are always countered afterwards by an advocate statement. Opposing viewpoints are never allowed the final word in any MSM aired discussion.