Comment

Comment by John Wayne Sitterley on February 12, 2011 at 3:48pm

Is it All About the Money???
Dear friends;You may find this interesting. Money Masters
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#In the free market, competition is often ruthless. Antitrust law regulates this competition in order to prevent unfairness in the conduct of business. Theterm antitrust refers to the industrial giants of the nineteenth century, corporations which organized themselves into jointly managed units known as trusts. Through size and strength, the trusts single-handedly controlled the nation's most important markets, crushing all competitors, dictating prices, anderratically supplying goods and services to consumers. This led to the condition of overall dominance known as monopoly.

Read more: Monopolies and Antitrust Law - Further Readings - Act, Court, Feder... http://law.jrank.org/pages/12520/Monopolies-Antitrust-Law.html#ixzz...

Can the Federal Reserve, if not by audit, be held accountable by the Anti-Trust Law?

We owe the Fed Rev $5trillion dollars. There was a bill to audit the Fed but it got "lost" or "stalled' in congress??? Perhaps the Anti-Trust law will make it through and be more useful. It was put in place by the Roosevelt Administration. 

Best Regards; John Wayne

Comment by John Wayne Sitterley on January 9, 2011 at 12:13pm

Friends;

The shooting of Gabrielle Giffords.
In a moment, a lunatic destroyed a half a dozen lives.  Six were killed.  Others were wounded.  Gabrielle Giffords remains in critical condition, with a gunshot wound to the head.

Ladies and gentlemen, this tragety is absolutely uncalled for. I ask for a moment of silence and personal reflection.

Though we may have differences, violence is not the solution. We are all people. The beautiful little 9 year old girl, born on September 11th 2001, is a loss to us all, and I send my deepest condolences to the Green Family and to the Giffords family in Tucson.

Sincerely;
John Wayne

Comment by Herb Kelley on October 15, 2010 at 8:14pm

Fellow Arizonans; I don't think John McCain should be to complacent as to his re election. I believe he over stepped his position using money to sway voters. I am a life time Arizonan since 1939 and frankly, as much as I respect his military service, I wouldn't trust McCain to stand up to Nancy Pelosi.

Comment by John Wayne Sitterley on July 5, 2010 at 2:00pm

Dear Reader;
Concerning South America...Recently, Hugo Chavez has stated that Venezuela is entering the “third phase” of the revolution. To most, this language might seem somewhat harmless; however, it was Fidel Castro, half a century ago, who used these same words before he informed his Soviet counterparts of his intention to incite revolution throughout Latin America. Chavez is communicating his plans for the future to the socialist and communist elements in Latin America. You can see the Russian interest in Venezuela.
Historically, Bolivar was seen as the liberator of Latin America as he led independence movements in a number of colonies then under Spanish control. He soon saw his plan for Gran Colombia. A centralized Latin American government now faced heavy opposition from those he had just liberated. They did not want to cast off one yoke to replace it with another. Bolivar subsequently named himself dictator to suppress opposition to his vision. This move only further mobilized his detractors, leading to an assassination attempt and dashing his plan for a united Latin America.
Chavez believes that he carries the torch of Bolivar and will unite Latin America into a counterweight to U.S. hegemony, much like Castro sought to do. Unlike Castro, Chavez is not economically constrained; Venezuela is sitting on top of the world’s fifth largest reserve of oil. One more time the United States have a new old problem in our "backyard". Venezuela's "real threat" to the United States comes from Chávez's links to Iran and Russia. Also, the Cuban Army fights for Communist ideals in South America and Northwest Africa bringing support to the anti-democratic forces in Ethiopia and Somalia.
John Wayne (Source; International Administrative Agent)

Comment by John Wayne Sitterley on June 27, 2010 at 12:39am

This film may be a fake. There is no Rep John Heller (R) from Pennsylvania

Comment by John Wayne Sitterley on June 22, 2010 at 8:53pm

Dear Reader; Synopsis 2, the War Against America...

Well…I’m not sure how to say this, so I guess I’ll just say it knowing that the American Patriotic movement is a smart bunch of folks. We are at war on three (3) different fronts today. This war consists within the “Political, Social and Economic spheres of influence” and consists of two different, yet related, movements.

Since my first piece, “Synopsis 1-The Middle-East”, my eyes have opened to just how dire the situation is that we face as a nation. The hostilities of WWII may have ended in 1945, but the battles are still raging on today and are reaching its fruition.

1. Political Sphere: Since the days of 9/11/2001, President George W. Bush declared that “We are at war.” It has been 9 years since that day and yet many of us still think that if we just “pat our enemies on the head”, they won’t hurt us. I can not emphasize enough just how blatantly naive that is. People…WE ARE AT WAR, and the enemy does not want to take you prisoner, they want to kill you and everything you stand for. They want to completely eradicate any and every trace of Western Civilization on this planet in a global jihad and the people (you) who live in it. Who are “they”? They are the Muslim Brotherhood waging Radical Islam’s war against the West. The Muslim Brotherhood was born in 1928 with the Mufti of Jerusalem, 20 years before the founding of Israel. Out of the 1 billion Muslims in the world today, it is estimated that 15% (150 million) of them around the world are part of the Muslim Brotherhood. Adolf Hitler drew alliances with the radical Muslims. The name “Iran” means Aryan. Check Link, (10 shorts in all)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gMLJJEDDDGc&feature=related



2. Social Sphere: When did the “Counter Culture” become the “Main-Stream Culture”? I think it made progress in the 1930’s and again in 1945, but definitely by 1972 with the anti-war protests, the hiring of liberal journalists, teachers and lawyers who would not put on a uniform to serve this great country, the social fabric of America has changed drastically. Many of the "American Radicals" are now leaders in Unions, Congress and the Judiciary.

With respect to the “Hip-Hop Generation” that has no concept of Duty and Honor unless it comes in a “baggie”, I suggest you put down the pipe and wise up. This country, which has afforded you an education (which you have not taken advantage of), an opportunity to succeed as an Individual (which you have not taken advantage of), will not support your desire to be taken care of from cradle to grave. If you are a man, you better start acting like one. Life lesson #1; no one owes you a living. Make something of yourself and contribute something positive to the society of which you belong.


3. Economic Sphere: At the end of WWII when the Marshall Plan was being implemented in Europe, two concepts of economics were introduced. One was Keynesian and the other was Austrian. Keynesian economics won out I suspect because F.D. Roosevelt was a socialist and also probably because Austrian economics sounded too German to gain much public support. But it was exactly Austrian economics of free market, smaller government, less taxes and less regulation that should have been adopted.

Concerning Austrian Economics, "Ludwig Von Mises (1881-1973); Human Action" and "F.A. Hayek (1899-1992) The Road to Serfdom" are its founders. Under Austrian economics, all these “bail-outs” would not have been permissible. Now we have the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the "Bretton Woods Agreement Act" creating the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank in New Hampshire in 1945, the United Nations charter was also under consideration in San Francisco in 1945. In July 1946 the SFR Committee reported on the "Morse Resolution", suspecting that certain "Internationalists' were transforming their agencies into instruments of a "One World Government", U.S. Senator Tom Connally created the "Connally Amendment", simply stating that the World Court; "shall not apply to disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of the United States." So when Fmr U.N.Amb. John Bolton emphatically stated in January 2010 that; "International law does NOT trump the U.S.Constitution.", this is what he references. World peace though world law, could not be further from the truth. This is the "Lofty-Battlefield" of which I speak. Being able to quote the Communist Manifesto does not an intellectual make... Quoting the U.S. Constitution...does.

Thank you: John Wayne

Comment by John Wayne Sitterley on June 22, 2010 at 8:51pm

Dear Reader; Synopsis 1; The Middle-East...
Ideas on how to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict remains paramount and is an on-going process concerning our international relations with our only ally in the region. Both sides are drawing "lines in the sand" where none need to be drawn, which only adds to the dialectic of this debate. While both sides increase their level of intensity, there is still a large faction of people consisting of Jews, Christians, Arabs, Palestinians and other Muslims living in Israel that just want peace.
Imagine sitting outside at the local cafe sipping a cappuccino with a close friend while you're looking over the menu. The next second, you're flush with fear that at any moment, someone could launch an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade) over your head, a suicide bomber could run in shouting "Allah", or a drive by shooting from a car firing rounds from an AK-47 is embedding themselves in the stucco wall behind you. Though most of us may never see that, this is what the citizens of Israel, and a large part of the Middle-East live with every day.
Synopsis: Though the US Constitution is a "blending" between the constrained and the unconstrained vision of political thought, the major difficulty in the Middle-East is that both sides have such an extreme vision concerning the situation, that it may take a generation or two before they do reach a viable peace and a normal existence. Those (3) visions that exist in the area today, as best as I can deduce is; 1. The highly constrained mono-theocratic vision; much like Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah and the Muslim Brotherhood, 2. the "blended" democratic and humane vision of Israel itself (composed of Christians, Jews, Arabs, Palestinians, Muslims and others that desire peace), and 3. the highly constrained mono-theocratic vision of the nationalist Zionist movement.
Since the peace flotilla incident on the Miva Marmara, which remains a joint operation between Egypt and Israel to curb arms smuggling, divisions have only become larger between the two groups. Israel is frustrated because Hamas is using the media to promote their cause, and Hamas is frustrated because they want the land to set up their own independent state. The Kurds, which are now in Northern Iraq, also want their own separate state that they use to have back when Turkey was called Anatolia. Now they're fighting the Turks along the southeastern border to regain that very piece of land on a daily basis. There is fighting in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kazakhstan all brought about by the extremist elements calling for a Jihad against the infidel to gain independence against the colonization from the superpowers that divided it up in the first place dating as far back as the Roman Empire and Alexander the Great.
From recent DNA testing in the area, it was found that 90% of the Palestinians "have Jewish heritage" from the researcher Tsvi Misinai. The expert insists that "most Arabs living within the Greater Israel-whether they reside in the Gaza, the West Bank or Israel proper-are the descendants of Hebrews who managed to escape Roman-imposed exile.Rather than leave their fatherland, those who stayed during the Byzantine era switched religions to become Christians. And then when the Ottomans conquered the region in the 15th century, they changed over to Islam." He also cites that Emir Faisal, King of Iraq and Syria, wrote in 1917 about the racial kinship. The Kings father was a Hashemite, making him a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammed.
The Philistines (Palestinians) occupied the five cities of Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Ekron, and Gath, along the coastal strip of southwestern Canaan, that belonged to Egypt up to the closing days of the Nineteenth Dynasty (ended 1185 BC). In the early 330s BCE, Alexander the Great conquered the region, beginning an important period of Hellenistic influence in the land, and later in the 2nd century CE, was given the name Palestine by the Roman emperor Hadrian.
So, as you can see, the Middle-East is seeking to gain their independence and individual freedom through out the whole of the region, just as much as Europe did after the fall of the Roman Empire in the West, and yet again with the fall of the Byzantine Empire in Contentinople. This may explain why Turkey, like Rome and Contentinople, wants to rebuild, or at least with Turkish P.M. Erdrogen, envisions himself as the leader to reunify the Ottoman Empire. Visions of the jahad are looking more and more like the reunification of the Eastern world as a dominate, or at least a major player in world affairs as an empire. Even taking into consideration on just how liberal the UN is, I doubt if that idea will go very far. So...How will the land be divided? Will there be a two-state solution? I don't know but compromises have to be made on both side of the issue. Your guess is as good as mine and only time will tell. The one thing that is for sure, is that we are at war. At war with radicalized terrorist organization which has learned to fight on a asymmetrical battlefield in nearly every country in the world, and knows how to work the media to justify their cause.

(Synopsis 2 will look at the War Against aerica, and 3, possible outcomes and/or peace plan)

Thanks; John Wayne

Comment by John Wayne Sitterley on May 13, 2010 at 1:11pm

Dear Reader; It's All Economics...
This is such a great site. All of you have put a lot of thought into your writings and research. I commend you. With that said, and taking from the stand point of the American tax payer, of which you have all done, consider the idea of absolutely no social security (for it was designed in 1935 and was not intended for anyone to collect on) and no social programs (except for children and the indigent and/or a WPA style of welfare where a man actually works for his money, thereby keeping his dignity) and no taxes (or flat tax of 11%). None what so ever. Then reduce the size of government by 50% by consolidating the Departments. Next audit and relieve the Federal Reserve and the United Nations of its duties or cut their funding.

I know this sound very unpragmatic, but something close to this is what will have to happen to curb all the international and domestic spending that the progressive movement has passed by laws since the early 1900's/1930's/1960's/1990's and 2007-10 and made everyone else pay for. We are broke. It was Prof.Carroll Quigley that tied most of the worlds economies together in 1962, and was adopted in the United Nations without much resistance. With that, countries like Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal, France, China, United States and England will fall like domino's. This is what we are observing in Greece today. Russia will be effected less so because they have instituted a flat-tax of 13% which off sets the immediate collapse.

Also there is a Communist Nation, which holds 2 trillion dollars of our debt (the Federal Reserve holds 5 trillion dollars of our debt, Japan 1.8 trillion). If they decide to "call-in" their "note" early, on which they have every legal right to do, this land will become theirs, because we don't have the money to pay them, or we can print so much of it (which the Federal Reserve would love) that it would become worthless. For example, a loaf of bread for $10,000.

I thank you all and think you bring in very good perspectives. There are many issues that we face today. But if the American people are to retain their Constitution and their country, which is my over-all riding concern, massive changes well have to occur on a much larger scale to implement a viable economic plan, or we should start practicing our Mandarin or enjoy the shackles of socialism. Is it that serious? I think it's pretty close.

It's all economics.
Sincerely;
John Wayne

Comment by Michael Oatman on May 1, 2010 at 2:43am

Hi all, I'm helping with getting Jay Quick on the ballot for November's CD8 election versus that out-of-touch Giffords.

We need signatures! Are there any events in Tucson (CD8) happening before the 25th of May (deadline), where I could find many people interested in helping Jay in his first steps toward defeating Giffords in November?

Please help! Post here or preferably email me at oatman@geocities.com with any info on upcoming events before the last week of May!

God Bless and thank you ALL for your continued commitment!

Michael Oatman

Comment by John Wayne Sitterley on April 11, 2010 at 7:19pm

Dear Reader; ****
The "Lofty Battleground" of Domestic and U.S.Foreign Policy of the 20th Century America.
If you want to understand what's going on today, it started in 1848, but made great strides in 1945. When we were celebrating the victory in Europe and the Pacific Theaters after World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt absorbed the debt of our allies, thus we became a world power when they repaid their debt. This war was fought in what I call, "The Lofty Battlefield"...the field of economics. Concerning Economics; Those that believe in the free-market system incorporating smaller government and lower taxes and less regulation, tend to support "Ludwig Von Mises (1881-1973); Human Action" and "F.A. Hayek (1899-1992) The Road to Serfdom" and is known professionally as "Austrian School of Economics". (the good guys) In America during the 1980's, the world renowned economist Von Mises, was used as the theoretical base for "Reaganomics", and thankfully so. The German Chancellor Merkle just announced a few months ago (09/2009) her move in the direction of Austrian Economics. Good for her. She's absolutely right. Any less of a decision would be foolhardy.
Though through the Federal Reserve Act of 1913, the "Bretton Woods Agreement Act" creating the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank in up-state New york in 1945, the United Nations charter was also under consideration in San Francisco in 1945 and proposed to establish a World Court. During the same time, the 87th Congress was supporting Disarmament talks. The slogan of the World Court was "World peace through law". The problem here is that the judicial body, of which we only have one (1) out of the fifteen (15) judges, had no precedence in legislative or common law-its writs are enforced by the sovereign power of the state. Among its most fervent supporters were the American Bar Association (ABA) and the Nation Education Association (NEA). This should start making sense to you about now. The Charter was promptly ratified November 1945 for the United Nations and the World Court was provided for by Article 36 of the same charter.
Here's were it gets interesting. In July 1946 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reported on the "Morse Resolution", suspecting that certain "Internationalists' were transforming their agencies into instruments of a "One World Government", U.S. Senator Tom Connally created the "Connally Amendment". The Connally Amendment simply states that the World Court; "shall not apply to disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the jurisdiction of the United States." So when Fmr U.N.Amb. John Bolton emphatically stated that; International law does NOT trump the U.S.Constitution.", this is what he references.
From all the Communist/Socialist/Progressive leaders we have elected into the White House, (i.e. Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson F.D.Roosevelt, Carter, Clinton and Obama), this country has moved from a Center rule Federal government to a"Total Government" national/international rule, where the "power" is located at the top...not near the state level, thereby turning our Constitution on its head. Radicals in 1958 began their well-organized attempts to destroy the Connally Amendment. World peace though world law, could not be further from the truth.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights, are the only documents keeping us from having the socialists place shackles on our feet. It must be understood that the "Cold-War" is not over. Russian Vladimir Putin, once the president of Russia, now the Prime Minister, and soon to be the President again has been trained since the age of six (6) to be a KGB agent, and became the KGB Director of all five Directorates of the Soviet Empire. Do you really think he is pro-democratic? It's like asking Hubert Hoover to become a communist. The conflicts around the world are but games from the Russian Foreign Service Office to ware down our resolve. This is why the Middle-East is so important. It brings a part of the world back into Western Influence.
Well...now guess which country just absorbed $2 Trillion dollars worth of our debt. That's right...China, a communist nation. If you're not squirming in your chairs right about now, you should be. China, as Fmr Prime Minister of Russia N. Khrushchev has been reported of saying to Mao; "No need to attack (with your 4 million man Army and now 23 nuclear-submarines and countless long-range missiles), we can destroy America economically."
So this is the "Lofty-Battlefield" of which I speak. The "Cold-War" is not over and we are giving tons of money to soviet satellite nations. This is like back in school when; "you give the neighborhood bully $10 a week of your lunch money not to beat you up every day". Oh...and guess who's running the Department of State. Being able to quote the Communist Manifesto does not an intellectual make...Quoting the U.S. Constitution does.
Thx;
John

Dear Reader; Part II; Important
Who will proclaim in a campaign speech: "I have little interest in stream lining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. Its not to inaugurate new programs but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is Constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' interests, I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can".
Quote: Barry M. Goldwater, "Conscience of a Conservative",
BN Publishing 1964/2007 p 17 Thx; John

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 10
• Next ›
• Page