Tab Content
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-12-2019, 07:33 AM
    It may shock American citizens to learn how many extra congressional seats sanctuary states like California have received because they have swelled their population with illegal entrants. Keep in mind these extra votes California gets in Congress cancels out the votes of the representatives of American citizens in other states. It is estimated California may get between 2 and 3 more seats in Congress because of the massive influx of illegal entrants into this sanctuary state during the past ten years. But to prevent this type of political motivated population swelling, which is done to receive extra votes in Congress and control our federal treasury, our wise founders also demanded that each states would also have to pay a share of our federal tax burden proportionately equal to its representation in Congress. The two fair share formulas with respect to each state’s population size are: .State`s Population_________________X House membership (435) = State`s No. of RepresentativesPopulation of U.S.
    10 replies | 230 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-09-2019, 07:09 PM
    Just for the record, the Administrative Procedure Act, (APA) which was used to justify Roberts’ opinion, is a clever device created by our Washington Swamp Creatures to undermine our representative system of government, and allow unelected activist judges and Justices to second guess and overturn policy making decisions and legislation which rightfully rests with Congress and our Executive branch of government, that is, unless Congress itself, our elected representatives, decide to intervene and strike down a policy judgement made by the Executive branch. In this case, the APA was used to overturn the consequences of an election and a policy making decision made by our President which is objected to by those who lost the election. This is not rocket science to figure out. Just read the entire Court OPINION which documents the whining and frivolous objections of those who ran to the Court over a question which is admitted by all parties does not violate the terms of our Constitution. Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:
    10 replies | 230 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-08-2019, 02:27 PM
    Yes! Really. JWK ”Just because we do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.” Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997)
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-08-2019, 10:24 AM
    Stop with the bull-crap-sky. I never claimed the court claimed the Census Bureau's action was "unconstitutional". My claim is it is not a Justices’ job to second guess the wisdom or legitimacy of legislative acts and policy making decisions which are within the four walls of the Constitution. Its only job is to decide if such acts are within the four walls of the Constitution. And with respect to asking the question "Is this person a citizen of the United States", the fact is, the Second Section of the 14th Amendment requires the distinction to be made between citizens and non-citizens with respect to apportionment, which is why we have a census and requires the question to be asked. In regard to this assumption of power by Justice Roberts , Justice Stone reminds us that: ”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-08-2019, 06:02 AM
    The bottom line question is, why was it constitutional for Obama’s Census Bureau to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States”, and un-constitutional for today’s Census Bureau to ask the very same question? Keep in mind that Section 2 of the 14th Amendment requires the distinction between citizens and non-citizens to be made with reference to apportionment. It appears Justice Roberts believes he is vested with a power to strike down laws and policy making decisions that do not meet his personal sense of fairness, reasonableness and justice, which in fact is second guessing our Constitution which actually requires, by Section 2 of the 14th Amendment to make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens with reference to apportionment. Justice Roberts, who also embraced our federal government entering the states and meddling with the people’s unalienable right to make their own medical choices and decisions, needs to be held accountable for his acts of sedition and personal war against our Constitution.
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-07-2019, 03:43 PM
    Exactly! The courts job is not to second guess the wisdom or reasonableness of policy making decisions, but rather, is the policy within the four corners of the Constitution. Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows: "The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968 JWK Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism , the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-06-2019, 04:56 PM
    In 2015 when Obama asked in the American Community Survey, “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”, one of the reasons he gave for asking the question is, it is “used to decide where new schools, hospitals, and fire stations are needed.” So, according to Obama, it’s important to ask “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” for the above stated reasons. JWK The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-06-2019, 03:26 PM
    Let us not forget that Obama asked this very question in the 2015 "THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY", sent by the Census Bureau! Question "8" asked of "Person 1" reads "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" JWK The Democrat Leadership is correct! The border crisis has been manufactured. It has been manufactured by the Democrat Leadership in Congress refusing to protect our borders against an ongoing invasion.
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-06-2019, 01:48 PM
    If this and if that! The fact is, the Court is not "supporting this Constitution" when it subjugates the very intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution, and laws made in pursuance thereof, have been adopted. And in the case of Justice Roberts, it is not within his job to second guess the wisdom or merits of asking, on our census form, "Is this person a citizen of the United States". His only job is to confirm if putting the question on the census form is within the powers assigned to our federal government. JWK
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-06-2019, 09:29 AM
    Justice Obamacare Roberts needs to explain how the 2nd Section of the 14th Amendment can be carried out without distinguishing citizens from non-citizens. JWK
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-06-2019, 07:06 AM
    It appears with all the noise about the question “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision. In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that: ”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936) Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-06-2019, 07:04 AM
    I agree 100% Federal spending, by our Constitution, is limited to those functions found beneath Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1. JWK
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-06-2019, 06:26 AM
    I have known your game for a very long time . . . misdirection, obfuscation and deflection. :rolleyes: JWK It is absolutely shameful for our sexual deviant crowd to hitch their wagon to the civil rights struggle of African Americans who fought to end distinctions being made based upon race and color.
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-05-2019, 03:50 PM
    And I see you haven't admitted you are wrong about "Congress has never imposed a direct tax by simply sending a bill to each State". The Act laying a direct tax for $3 million did just that. Each state received a bill Additionally, I see you ignore Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813in which the states were left free to pay their quota in their own chosen way, but if they refused, provision was made in the act to assess and collect the tax as Congress saw fit. But hey, that has always been you game . . . making crap up and ignoring historical fact.
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-05-2019, 06:42 AM
    I see you still love to make stuff up and ignore historical facts. For an example of this apportioned tax see an Act laying a direct tax for $3 million in which the rule of apportionment is applied. And then see Section 7 of the direct tax of 1813 allowing states to pay their respective quotas and be entitled to certain deductions in meeting their payment on time. Stop making stuff up and lying about historical facts.
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-04-2019, 02:55 PM
    Keep in mind the reason for apportioning both representatives and direct taxes was explained as follows by Madison in the Federalist Papers, that it “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54 The census is to determine two things. a state's number of representatives, and a state's share of the federal tax burden. Our communist/socialist states like California want to swell their population size with illegal entrants so they can increase their representation in Congress. But they do not want to pay their apportioned share of the federal tax burden as intended by our founders. The two fair share formulas for which the census is conducted are: .
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-04-2019, 12:17 PM
    Our socialists and communists are complaining about being asked, on the census form “Is this person a citizen of the United States?” They complain that the question would scare illegal entrants from answering the form in their state and thus reduce their apportioned share of Congressional Representatives, in addition to reducing their apportioned share of free government cheese. And this is especially true of New York, Maryland and California, which appear to be the biggest objectors to the question. But there is another reason for having the census. In addition to determining each state’s number of Representatives, the census is also intended to determine each state’s share of our federal tax burden! The rule of apportioning both representatives and direct taxes was part of the Great Compromise of the Convention of 1787, and the wisdom of tying representative and taxation to each state’s population size was summarized as follows by Madison in the Federalist Papers, that it “…will have a very salutary effect.” Madison observes in this paper . . . “Were” the various States’ “share of representation alone to be governed by this rule, they would have an interest in exaggerating their inhabitants. Were the rule to decide their share of taxation alone, a contrary temptation would prevail. By extending the rule to both objects, the States will have opposite interests, which will control and balance each other, and produce the requisite impartiality.” See Federalist No. 54
    32 replies | 913 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-02-2019, 05:44 PM
    :up: JWK The EqualityAct attempts to exercise legislation authorized under the “Equal RightsAmendment” which was rejected by the American people, and thus, to this degree,the Act is a usurpation of power not granted.
    16 replies | 431 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-02-2019, 04:25 PM
    . It is absolutely mind numbing that the pin heads at Nike would intentionally recall a shoe featuring the Betsy Ross flag because it allegedly glorifies slavery and racism. Could it be that Nike may secretly embrace the Stars and Bars, which is the actual flag which flew in opposition to ending slavery and the United States? Let us review some historical facts for the nitwits at Nike and regarding slavery in America. Slavery was first introduced on America soil in the early 1600s when a number of slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia, a British colony. And millions more were introduced long before the establishment of the United States and its flag. It was in 1776 and the Revolutionary War, and under what is believed to be a war fought under a Betsy Ross flag, that the good people of America gained their independence from foreign domination and upon gaining their independence the people within a number of the states, exercising their newly found freedom, immediately moved to share the blessings of liberty to all by abolishing slavery!
    16 replies | 431 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-01-2019, 02:28 PM
    She apparently does not believe that the property everyone has in their own labor is really not their property. You should have asked her if she agreed with the enslavement of African Americans during our nation's early days. JWK "The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable. The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands; and to hinder him from employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property." ___ Butchers’ Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)
    26 replies | 381 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-01-2019, 04:59 AM
    Actually, it's the Democrat Party Leadership which embraces socialism/communism. JWK Socialist democrats running for office will promise food on the table, free public housing, health care for all, guaranteed income, free college tuition, and other niceties by taxing the so called rich; and if by chance they ever do gain political power because of such promises made, their socialist iron-fisted dependency will enslave the very fools who elected them.
    26 replies | 381 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-29-2019, 08:57 AM
    And then she claims how she cares about hard working wage earners. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez claims to be an advocate of hard working people living in the Bronx. If that is so, why is she not advocating an end to the unconstitutional direct “Temporary Victory Tax” of 1943, which began federal confiscation of the property which working people have earned by the sweat of their labor, which is then redistributed by the hand of government? JWK ”If, by calling a tax indirect when it is essentially direct, the rule of protection could be frittered away, one of the great landmarks defining the boundary between the nation and the states of which it is composed, would have disappeared, and with it one of the bulwarks of private rights and private property.”__ POLLOCK v. FARMERS' LOAN & TRUST CO., 157 U.S. 429
    26 replies | 381 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-28-2019, 06:20 PM
    You bet Alexandria-Ocasio-Cortez has it made, especially when it comes to her health care. Members of Congress get a gold-level Obamacare policy and receive federal subsidies that cover 72 percent of the cost of their health insurance premiums. Additionally, free or low-cost care is available to them from the Office of the Attending Physician, and they also have access to free outpatient care at military facilities in the Washington, D.C., area. Sure pays to be a socialist administrator in government. JWK
    26 replies | 381 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-28-2019, 05:19 PM
    In every socialist country, those who hand out government cheese live large, while those receiving “free” government cheese are trapped in poverty and forced to prostitute their vote to socialist leaders to survive. Witness Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who now lives large with an annual salary of $174,000 and about another $110,000 in fringe benefits bringing her annual earnings up to about $285,000. And what is the average salary of her congressional district’s constituents? It’s under $60,000. But even with such a huge difference between AOC’s salary and her constituents, one of the first things AOC wanted as a member of Congress was to give herself and members of Congress a $4,500 cost of living increase and increase her constituents’ taxes to pay for it. While Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the rest of the Democrat Leadership promises free socialist cheese to get elected, its seems quite clear they are the only ones who receive that cheese which is financed by confiscatory taxes imposed on their constituents. JWK The Democrat Party Leadership has been angry, stupid and obnoxious ever since the Republican Party Leadership freed democrat owned slaves. ___ Author unknown
    26 replies | 381 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    06-23-2019, 12:23 PM
    I mean businesses in general, Walmart, CVS, Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Blue Shield, PG&E, AT&T, Direct TV, W3C, ICANN, etc.
    139 replies | 1411 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    06-23-2019, 09:25 AM
    That is all fine and dandy, well that is until you realize they have overtaken the market, becoming a monopoly, such is the case for many existing conglomerations that control the lion's share of varied markets. ...And then such a system as this becomes fully implemented and integrated throughout society and your service starts being declined by the very limited selection of consumer choices due to your personal habits and political affiliations or because of your family and friends, etc: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4
    139 replies | 1411 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    06-23-2019, 09:16 AM
    Ben Chestnut (born 1973/1974) is an American billionaire Internet entrepreneur. He is the CEO and co-founder (with Dan Kurzius) of MailChimp, an email marketing company. May or may not be Mark Armstrong (a tech guy from college): https://www.crunchbase.com/person/mark-armstrong#section-overview Dan Kurzius (born 1971/1972) is an American billionaire businessman, the co-founder and chief customer officer of Mailchimp. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mailchimp#cite_note-7 https://www.inc.com/magazine/201802/mailchimp-company-of-the-year-2017.html
    139 replies | 1411 view(s)
  • Weston White's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 10:37 AM
    Hello, it's called censorship and it's a very bad business practice, companies that participate in it should be shunned, censured, and ridiculed out of existence by all. Remaining unbiased or maintaining impartiality is paramount for all service oriented businesses--else begins their downfall, a la Facebook.
    139 replies | 1411 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-22-2019, 08:28 AM
    With all the talk about “fake news” these days, confirmation of fake news is easily found in hundreds of media outlets which continue to condemn the wrong actors for the existence of slavery in the United States. For example, Cory Booker, said “It is a cancer on the soul of our country.” While Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee alleged “The role of the federal government in supporting the institution of slavery . . . must be formally acknowledged and addressed.” But what these liars refuse to acknowledge is, slavery was first introduced on America soil in the early 1600s when a number of slaves were brought to Jamestown, Virginia, a British colony. And millions more were introduced long before the establishment of the United States. In fact, in their quest to promote a fraudulent collective responsibility upon the good people of the United States, flimflam artists like Cory Booker, Sheila Jackson Lee, actor Danny Glover and other hustlers fail to acknowledge that after the Revolutionary War and the good people of America gained their independence from foreign domination the people within a number of the states, exercising their newly found freedom, immediately moved to share the blessings of liberty to all by abolishing slavery! For example, the people of Vermont took this immediate action in their 1777 declaration of rights, which declared "no ... person born in this country, or brought here over sea, ought to be holden by law to serve any person as a servant, slave, or apprentice". Likewise, the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 declared that "all men are born free and equal" and was used by the court a few years after its adoption to legally forbid any person to be held as a slave. And, in 1787, the Northwest Ordinance, adopted by the Confederation Congress on July 13, 1787, declared "there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." By the year 1788 all the states north of Maryland, except New York and New Jersey, had legislated to extinguish slavery, and by 1804 the remaining two northern states had put slavery to rest.
    2 replies | 115 view(s)
No More Results

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
2,232
Posts Per Day
0.56
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
1
Most Recent Message
05-18-2011 11:03 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 04:50 AM
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

04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-14-2018


01-26-2017


No results to display...
Page 1 of 35 12311 ... LastLast

07-08-2019


07-06-2019


07-05-2019


07-04-2019


07-02-2019


06-28-2019


05-18-2019


05-08-2019


05-07-2019



Page 1 of 35 12311 ... LastLast