Posts tagged petition
Posted by Brianna Panzica on the Wealth Wire
Gold conspiracy theorists don’t trust the government…
Of course, that’s nothing new. By nature, groups like the Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee(GATA), a group formed to expose control over the price of gold, are suspicious of collusion linked to the government.
But now they’re taking this suspicion into action with a petition to audit the nation’s gold reserves. According to the petition, the last full audit of bullion owned by the U.S. Treasury occurred in 1953: 60 years ago.
The Treasury last claimed to have 261 million ounces in its possession on December 31, 2012. But the time lapse between that and the last time the store was officially checked is significant.
“The gold bars need to be assayed and weighed,” the petition advocates. “Once the gold is verified the paper trail must be audited to determine who really owns the gold; i.e. how much has been loaned to bankers and dealers and sold or swapped to non-Treasury entities including foreign governments.”
“The audit must include professional auditors outside of the Mint, Treasury, GAO, Inspector General and the Federal Reserve System,” the petition concludes.
The petition landed a spot on the White House website on Wednesday, January 9. By Monday morning, it had garnered 3,834 signatures.
If it reaches 25,000 by February 8, the White House has to respond. Policy experts will be required to review the request, and a public statement will be made.
Chris Powell, Secretary and Treasurer of GATA, thinks the request is likely a long shot. He wrote in an article published on GoldSeek:
Of course the U.S. government may be less likely to tell the truth about its gold than to declare signers of the petition to be terrorists and to send rocket-firing drone aircraft after them or have them hauled off to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, outside the jurisdiction of the federal courts and beyond any claim of habeas corpus. But it’s a risk we have to take and if enough people sign and the petition has to be answered, clamor about the gold issue will increase.
If you’re interested in signing the petition or in reading the full petition text, you can check it out here.
My last video demonstrated how easy it is to take a metal object through TSA nude body scanners undetected.
In this video, I interviewed an actual TSA screener to hear more about how these machines are an epic fail. “Jennifer,” who asked me not to use her real name or face, has been on the front lines of the TSA’s checkpoints for the last 4 years.
Please share this video with your family, friends, and most importantly, elected officials in federal government. Make sure they understand that your vote is contingent on them fixing the abuse that 200,000 passengers face from the TSA on a daily basis. If you are (or know) a TSA screener who has seen abuse in the TSA, please contact me (below)!
My legal battle against the TSA’s nude body scanner and pat-down molestation program continues in court, soon with a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. If you’d like to donate to this effort, send PayPal to: jon [at] fourtentech.com
I’d like to thank:
Travel Underground – http://www.travelunderground.org/
Freedom to Travel USA – http://fttusa.org/
Travel Underground who have stood up to the TSA – especially Dr. Ron Paul & Sen. Rand Paul
…and all those who have both publicly and privately stood up to the TSA.
It was reported not too long ago that the Food and Drug Administration would make a decision on the banning of the endocrine-disrupting chemical bisphenol-A (BPA). Now, the agency has finally come to a decision, and unsurprisingly, it has decided that there is not enough scientific evidence supporting for the ban of BPA – that is to say, BPA will not be banned from use in food products, plastic packaging, and personal care products.
On Friday the agency made the decision due to lack of scientific evidence to justify the new restrictions, despite tons of evidence showcasing BPAs dangers. The FDA’s problem? Much of the research was performed using mice, and so they claimed that the findings don’t relate to humans.
“While evidence from some studies have raised questions as to whether BPA may be associated with a variety of health effects, there remain serious questions about these studies, particularly as they relate to humans,” the FDA says.
Canada banned BPA from baby bottles in 2007, while the European Union, Turkey, and other countries banned BPA from baby bottled in 2008. What’s more, various companies such as Toys “R” Us and even Walmart claimed to have discontinued use of BPA in children’s items.
The text source: http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html
A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.
To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.
Open letter to the French Parliament, originally published in 1845 (Note of the Web Publisher)
You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.
We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us .
We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull’s-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.
Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.
First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?
If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.
If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.
Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.
The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.
But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.
There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.
It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.
We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.
Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?
We have our answer ready:
You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.
Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, “Yes,” you reply, “but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.” Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.
“But,” you may still say, “the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.” Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.
Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?
But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have only half as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else’s would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.
Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.
If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.
Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.
Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: “How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?” But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.
To take another example: When a product — coal, iron, wheat, or textiles — comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!
Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845
 A reference to Britain’s reputation as a foggy island.
The Tennessee Nullification Bills (HB 1212 & SB 0620) of Unconstitutional Federal Laws, Petition PLEASE SIGN! For our Legislators to Pass the Bills. Video – People arrested for Free Speech
I have also spoken to the Chair (Rep. Haynes) of the Subcommittee (State and Local Government) where the HB 1212 needs to get passed first.
The members of the Sub Committee – which needs to pass this bill first are:
Rep. Ryan Haynes the Chair was very open to getting the bill through the sub committee when I spoke with him on 1/3/12.
Since then I have spoken to many people about the nullification bill and did not think a petition would need to be signed by the People of Tennessee to get the bills through the State Legislative House and Senate. I believe I was wrong about that now. I believe pressure from the People in letting their elected officials know how they feel and demand the State stand up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights for the Citizens of Tennessee, is needed. I will not go into why, but it seems some things have shifted since I thought all involved were on board to Tennessee standing up to Unconstitutional Federal Laws.
I have been working on this nullification bill in Tennessee since the beginning of the year with countless of phone calls and a couple of meetings about it.
In fact I have found “Meet Ups” which I was not familiar with before. It is like minded people in all areas of the U.S who meet together with common interest and goals.
I have personally joined the “Patriots, 10th Amendment, Ron Paul, and We are Change” Meet Ups in my area. I have gone to a couple of meetings and have found everyone is real and we all share similar goals and ideas. It is very refreshing to be able to meet and talk to others who are Awake and Aware of all things going on.
Take a look in your area and see if there are Meet Ups that you may want to join. People working together accomplishes much more than working alone on like minded goals.
Because I do not have full confidence in the Nullification Bill in the Tennessee House getting passed without pressure from the Citizens of Tennessee, I have now begun a Petition. This petition will be given to the Legislators of Tennessee to Demand they Pass the Nullification of Unconstitutional Federal Laws. Which then the Indefinite Detention of U.S. Citizens has to be nullified immediately in Tennessee. It is an Unlawful Law that the Federal House, Senate passed and Obama signed.
TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
FYI – Whoever wants to sign it from where ever you are – Please DO! It will show support for the States to Stand Up for the Constitution and against Unconstitutional Federal Laws.
FYI – It seems there are some saying this bill “failed” last year in Tennessee. That is not true. This bill did not have a “2nd” in the subcommittee when it first came up. But that is being worked on now. The bill is Alive and did not fail, we need to make sure it gets pushed through the sub committee and on the House floor for a full vote through people getting involved.
Added 8:15 PM est – 1/10/12 – Arizona Passed a Federal Law Nullification Bill in 2011 in the State Senate.
UPDATE – Video of People Simply Voicing their opinion of the NDAA law and being arrested!
Zerohedge has a good post about it - Here is the video