Tab Content
  • Weston White's Avatar
    Today, 04:37 AM
    Ah yes, great, the courts can simply conspire to keep all cases that do not toe the statute quo line, unpublished and out of public consideration. Yea, nice! Yea, because this is what Tasers are for, shooting people in the back as they run away from you. This is not unreasonable at all, forget about chasing after them, too much effort there, just draw, fire, bag and tag, then go enjoy your paid vacation.
    18 replies | 483 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-25-2017, 04:40 PM
    So it is about the smile then? Then let the SJW also complain about these too:
    47 replies | 906 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    04-25-2017, 03:11 PM
    See: Donald Trump just caved on the border wall (or did he?) "Not this week," White House counselor Kellyanne Conway said of the push for $1.4 billion as a downpayment for the border wall in a Tuesday morning interview with Fox News. "Building that wall and having it funded remains an important priority to him," she added. "We also know that that can happen later this year and into next year." Trump needs to have a rally with a stage filled with victims who have suffered from Mexican drug and human trafficking, and MS-13 gang violence ___ all of which a wall would greatly reduce ___ and then ask Chucky-boy-Schumer and pretty-boy Paul Ryan why they are resisting shelling out a measly $ 1.4 BILLION down payment to start building a wall! Have the Drug Cartels paid these two off? JWK
    16 replies | 401 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    04-25-2017, 07:00 AM
    SEE: Montana Special Election Candidate Calls Out Democratic Opponent As Nancy Pelosi in Disguise ” Gianforte contrasted himself with his Democratic opponent Rob Quist in a Fox News interview Monday, casting his opponent as too extreme. Quist, he said, is so soft on illegal immigration that he wants to make America a “sanctuary country.” Gianforte has also referred to Quist as “Nancy Pelosi in a cowboy hat.” It is absolutely stunning that Democrat candidates and the Democrat Party Leadership are still embracing illegal immigration and flaunting the rule of law. When will these nitwits start embracing the general welfare of the United States and her citizens? JWK
    1 replies | 130 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 03:54 AM
    http://tralfaz-archives.com/coverart/M/Monty_Python/monty_match.htm
    24 replies | 396 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 02:16 AM
    I have to disagree, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with that logo, it has never been an issue until all of this pathetic SJW silliness began cropping up on school campuses and universities across America. The Indians' logo is intended to be a fun, friendly representation of Native Americans and what MLB is itself representative of--it is not an insult or punch at them. The Indians' logo is and has been one of the most popular and recognized baseball logos--even making cinematographic appearances in Major League and Major League II. And let us face the reality, the Indians' logo is in now way damaging their reputation as the federal government historically has, relegating a once independent, spiritual warrior people into dime-slot casino pimps and substance abusing mobile-home reservationists. Oh yea, and where is the outrage for how blatantly how in your face this one is (the name itself is even derogatory):
    47 replies | 906 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 01:46 AM
    Seems that he has exposed an inherent flaw in the design of the field.
    47 replies | 906 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-23-2017, 01:16 AM
    I am going to buy and convert that empty lot adjacent to your home into a chicken farm and butchery, it is going to be noisy, stinky, with lots of commercial traffic coming and going carting off poultry and bio-hazards, your home life is going to become unbearable, so you will demand for me to move, I will tell you deal with it or move elsewhere yourself, you will want to sue me for damages and will go to the government's courts for assistance--then I shall laugh at your hypocrisy.
    11 replies | 337 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    184 replies | 4156 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    11 replies | 337 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-22-2017, 11:30 PM
    And the prosecution would be compelled to honestly disclose to the court and the jury the aspects of this case that pertain to the defendants redress of grievances and protest and of the constitutional ramifications in totality of the submitted circumstances--not just the silliness of the defendants being militiamen who wanted their 15-minutes of fame. Bollocks!
    42 replies | 1371 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-22-2017, 11:15 PM
    How does any portion of Amend. 25 pertain to decreed behavioral disorders such as narcissism, paranoia, or delusions? And BTW grandiosity is synonymous to narcissism, there "doctor" Gartner. At any rate there is constitutional remedy, it goes on to stipulate:
    11 replies | 483 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-22-2017, 03:36 AM
    Si, gracias muchacho!
    42 replies | 1371 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-21-2017, 04:42 AM
    Something that I had been wondering, he has never even visited America, right? So the courts lack in personam over Assange. The federalese ought to be focusing on whomever is providing Wikileaks with this information; as Assange only hints that the leaks are from sources, not his groups Intranet cracking and black/grey hat skills.
    184 replies | 4156 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-21-2017, 03:50 AM
    Any way you dice it the excessive force it itself a retaliatory act, so it would be better to just focus on the former and point to acts of wanton negligence and malevolent battery by the officers.
    4 replies | 216 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-21-2017, 03:06 AM
    This is the problem with our courts, purely subjective cases such as this, should be thrown out rather than humored by judges. At least on the face of it, Jones' children are not being abused or neglected by him, and his ex-wife seems to be loosing case after case, so much so that her attorneys apparently get fed up with her. So here we have yet another baseless case being entertained by a judge--do they not already have enough legitimate cases to preside over? The premise of the case is that because he lives, breathes and sleeps his work he is a bad father to his children; because he is outrageous and opinionated he is a dangerous and felonious; because he wears his emotions on his sleeve and airs his anger and defensiveness in public he is an unstable presence to his children; a U.S. President can puff and just not inhale, yet should he do so (where it's legal mind you and away from his children), he becomes nefarious and unworthy of full-time fatherhood? AJ has been doing the same thing for over 20-years and now suddenly it is a serious concern for her, she knew what she was getting into. Certainly, AJ is a pompous blowhard, know-it-all, but this makes one not a bad parent--just perhaps unbearable or unattractive to others.
    104 replies | 1869 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-21-2017, 02:40 AM
    Nice summary: http://www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional-govt--politics/travis-county-custody-case-jury-will-search-for-real-alex-jones/rnbWzMHnFCd5SOPgP3A34J/
    104 replies | 1869 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-19-2017, 11:19 PM
    Wind up the IRS' TAS (Taxpayer Advocate Service) and FRP (Frivolous Return Program), they are utterly useless to the good of the public and rampant throughout in corruption and fraud.
    12 replies | 318 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-19-2017, 11:15 PM
    A mass-murder with Nerf darts? GTFO you literal bag of crap.
    9 replies | 339 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-19-2017, 09:50 PM
    All states really need a type of Rule 11(b) criminal statute that can be filed against overzealous prosecutors, when it is readily apparent that any of the charges waged against a defendant do not meet the requisite elements, e.g., one cannot be found guilty of terrorism when such is not their intention and one cannot shoot everyone when they have no possession or access to firearms.
    9 replies | 339 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-19-2017, 08:52 PM
    Bundy lawyer says court violated rancher’s speedy trial rights https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/bundy-lawyer-says-court-violated-ranchers-speedy-trial-rights/
    42 replies | 1371 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-19-2017, 08:51 PM
    No verdict after second day of deliberations in Bunkerville standoff trial https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/bundy-blm/no-verdict-after-second-day-of-deliberations-in-bunkerville-standoff-trial/
    42 replies | 1371 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    04-18-2017, 05:53 AM
    I disagree. We are talking about foreigners entering the geographical borders of the United States and as such, they can and are having an effect on the entire country. I am still of the opinion that a power to regulate immigration into the United States, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, and for the same reason Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others and upon the General Government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” Passenger Cases (1849). And Justice Taney’s statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790!
    169 replies | 2984 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    04-17-2017, 01:22 PM
    I share your concerns about not trusting Congress. Having said that I am still of the opinion that a power to regulate immigration into the United States, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. To not regulate who may enter the geographical borders of the United States makes about as much sense as not restricting who may, or may not, enter one’s private home. But you are correct about our untrustworthy Congress, which the people of the United States seem to elect and re-elect year after year in spite of Congress’ repeated actions which violate both the text and legislative intent of our written Constitution. JWK
    169 replies | 2984 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    04-17-2017, 07:43 AM
    Well, I see you have once again obfuscated and refuse to engage in a dialogue. My question to you, which has nothing to do with the 10th Amendment, was: ”. . . are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?” JWK
    169 replies | 2984 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    04-15-2017, 11:15 PM
    Because... the
    23 replies | 853 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    04-15-2017, 01:21 PM
    I already expressed my opinion on the subject being discussed. I wrote: ”Our federal Constitution is silent with regard to our federal government having power to regulate immigration into the United States. Having said that, I am of the opinion that such power, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” Now, my question to you was: ”. . . are you really suggesting the Congress of the United States ought not have a power to regulate immigration into the geographical borders of the United States for the same reason it was given a power to set a uniform rule of naturalization?” JWK
    169 replies | 2984 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    04-15-2017, 11:12 AM
    No. I won’t change the style in which I post. And with regard to your notion that every state can determine how they want to handle immigrants, we are not talking about states handling immigrants. We are talking about foreigners entering the geographical borders of the United States unchecked and unrestrained, and as such, they can and are having an effect on the entire country. Our federal Constitution is silent with regard to our federal government having power to regulate immigration into the United States. Having said that, I am of the opinion that such power, with the intention to promote the general welfare of our country, is a reasonable power to be placed in Congress’ hands in order to promote the general welfare of the United States, just as Congress was granted the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. And what was the primary reason for grant this power to Congress? Chief Justice Taney summarized the very object of allowing the federal government to set the rules for naturalization as follows: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others and upon the General Government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” Passenger Cases (1849). And Justice Taney’s statement is in full harmony with the intentions of our forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790! REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148
    169 replies | 2984 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    04-15-2017, 10:27 AM
    I have no idea what you mean by walnut. With reference to the distinction "taxpayers", I agree with you completely! Government force ought not be used to confiscate the property one individual has in their labor with the intention to transfer that property to another for their personal use and enjoyment. To do so is to engage in tax tyranny! "Under a just and equal Government, every individual is entitled to protection in the enjoyment of the whole product of his labor, except such portion of it as is necessary to enable Government to protect the rest; this is given only in consideration of the protection offered. In every bounty, exclusive right, or monopoly, Government violates the stipulation on her part; for, by such a regulation, the product of one man's labor is transferred to the use and enjoyment of another. The exercise of such a right on the part of Government can be justified on no other principle, than that the whole product of the labor or every individual is the real property of Government, and may be distributed among the several parts of the community by government discretion; such a supposition would directly involve the idea, that every individual in the community is merely a slave and bondsman to Government, who, although he may labor, is not to expect protection in the product of his labor. An authority given to any Government to exercise such a principle, would lead to a complete system of tyranny." ___ See: Representative Giles, speaking before Congress February 3rd, 1792 JWK
    169 replies | 2984 view(s)
More Activity

1 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Hi I'm Chowder

    I saw your debate with Wild English nut-job Rose with the Fair Tax. Man you tore him apart!

    Anyway I want to say thanks for the info you posted on the Hannity Forums. I used to be a neo-con but I saw the light around December of last year.

    I also used to support the fair tax and really thought for a while it seemed like a good idea. But your statements have changed my mind.

    Thanks man.

    -Chowder.

    P.S Where is your sources for the info, I would like to read them more closely or did you rely mostly on the Constitution: the one document our Politicians ignore except for Ron Paul.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 1 of 1
About johnwk

Basic Information

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,401
Posts Per Day
0.44
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
1
Most Recent Message
05-18-2011 11:03 PM
General Information
Last Activity
04-25-2017 06:44 PM
Join Date
07-19-2008
Referrals
1

1 Friend

  1. Weston White Weston White is offline

    Member

    Weston White
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1

01-26-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

04-25-2017


04-17-2017


04-15-2017


04-14-2017


04-12-2017


04-11-2017


04-10-2017


04-05-2017


04-04-2017



Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast