Tab Content
  • johnwk's Avatar
    07-03-2020, 02:18 PM
    See: The Trump administration wants to give workers a payroll tax cut. Experts question whether it could work JUN 5 2020 How a payroll tax cut would work “Payroll taxes are withheld from workers’ wages and are used to fund government programs, such as Social Security and Medicare. For Social Security, employee wages are subject to a 6.2% tax up to $137,700 in 2020. Workers also pay a Medicare tax of 1.45%.
    0 replies | 92 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-30-2020, 09:48 AM
    But having loyal and patriotic Americans in the House drawing up articles of impeachment, would at least shine the light on a tyrant such as Roberts. We need to have this conversation, but our spineless Republicans are more interested in joining hands with the communist/socialist Democrat Party Leadership than representing those who elected them. JWK Our Supreme Court has usurped legislative functions, set itself up as an unelected, omnipotent and unreviewable, policy making branch of government, and now pretends our Constitution means whatever it chooses it to mean.
    4 replies | 180 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-29-2020, 05:11 PM
    . When has our Republican Party Leadership in Congress ___ the self-proclaimed defenders of “law and order” ___ called for the impeachment and punishment of judges and Justices who have repeatedly and knowingly violated the fundamental rules of constitutional construction, defied the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and in so doing repeatedly spat upon adhering to the “rules of the common law” requiring an adherence to legislative intent? While Republican leaders wine and dine our ears to their supposed desire for law and order, they continue to assume the fetal position when our Constitution, the supreme law of our land, is set aside, perverted, and overruled, by the very judicial Officers entrusted to support and defend it. Unfortunately, this has been going on for a very long time, but today, the perversions of our Constitution by judges and Justices are more profound, their usurpation of legislative power is more stark and blatant, and an air of omnipotence by judges and Justices reveals they have no fear whatsoever of reprisal for the mischief and tyranny they have engaged in. The sad truth is, we were amply warned a long time ago about submitting to tyranny: ”Submit to despotism for an hour and you concede the principle. John Adams said, in 1775, “Nip the shoots of arbitrary power in the bud.” It is the only thing a people determined to be free can do. Republics have often failed, and have been succeeded by the most revolting despotisms; and always it was the voice of timidity, cowardice, or false leaders counseling submission, that led to the final downfall of freedom. It was the cowardice and treachery of the Senate of Rome that allowed the usurper to gain power, inch by inch, to overthrow the Republic. The history of the downfall of Republics is the same in all ages. The first inch that is yielded to despotism - the first blow, dealt at the Constitution, that is not resisted - is the beginning of the end of the nations ruin.” ___ THE OLD GUARD, A MONTHLY JOURNAL DEVOTED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF 1776 AND 1787.
    4 replies | 180 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-20-2020, 03:04 PM
    In Gorsuch’s written opinion we find: “This Court normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment. After all, only the words on the page constitute the law adopted by Congress and approved by the President. If judges could add to, remodel, update, or detract from old statutory terms inspired only by extratextual sources and our own imaginations, we would risk amending statutes outside the legislative process reserved for the people’s representatives. And we would deny the people the right to continue relying on the original meaning of the law they have counted on to settle their rights and obligations. See New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira, 586 U. S. ___, – (2019) (slip op., at 6–7).” “With this in mind, our task is clear. We must determine the ordinary public meaning of Title VII’s command that it is “unlawful . . . for an employer to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” §2000e–2(a)(1). To do so, we orient ourselves to the time of the statute’s adoption, here 1964, and begin by examining the key statutory terms in turn before assessing their impact on the cases at hand and then confirming our work against this Court’s precedents.” Gorsuch is absolutely correct in pointing out the Court “… normally interprets a statute in accord with the ordinary public meaning of its terms at the time of its enactment.” And the explanation Gorsuch gives for doing so is only too obvious to create any contention. But every now and then a word or term used in legislation may be construed in a manner that if applied to the statute, would pervert the evil intended to be addressed by the legislation at the time of its adoption, and it would allow judicial decisions which neither the legislature or public at large would have embraced at the time of the legislation’s adoption. In other words, it would allow our judicial branch of government to force upon the people that which neither the legislature nor public was willing to do at the time the legislation was adopted. So, the real question to be answered is, did the legislature, when passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, intend to provide protection in the workplace for employees displaying and/or engaged in sexual deviant conduct? To this, the obvious answer is a resounding no!Let us not forget the fundamental principle requiring the above question to be answered is emphasized by our very own Supreme Court. In Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), in which the Court confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court: ”But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :
    3 replies | 212 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-19-2020, 05:14 PM
    Gorsuch wrote “Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences." Indeed, a major problem with Gorsuch’s ruling is its unexpected consequences. Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , like the unconstitutional Americans with Disabilities Act , will most certainly lead to business owners paying out millions upon millions of dollars to stop frivolous court actions filed by blood-sucking shyster lawyers.
    3 replies | 212 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-19-2020, 04:08 PM
    As we shall see, Justice Gorsuch, in writing a majority opinion, Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, has perpetuated a fraud upon the American people, embraced a usurpation of power by Congress, and violated his oath of office to defend our written Constitution, In the case Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, Justice Gorsuch begins by writing: “Sometimes small gestures can have unexpected consequences. Major initiatives practically guarantee them. In our time, few pieces of federal legislation rank in significance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There, in Title VII, Congress outlawed discrimination in the workplace on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Today, we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender.” Gorsuch then goes on to ignore historical facts which establish Congress usurped a power outlawing distinctions being made in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, and in so doing he condones, by his silence, this blatant usurpation of power engaged in by Congress, which not only has resulted in the loss of people being free to mutually agree in the contracts and associations ___ which is a fundamental inalienable right of mankind ___ but Gorsuch adds to the ongoing fraud by adding to the meaning of “sex” found in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, protection for sexual deviant behavior, which most assuredly was not intended by those who authored and passed the Act. In fact, Justice Gorsuch, and the majority members on the Court, decided to do for the people that which the people have rejected, and been unwilling to do for generations by adopting a constitutional amendment forbidding distinctions in the “workplace” based upon “sex”, which is our Constitution’s lawful method for change to accommodate changing times.
    3 replies | 212 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-17-2020, 01:58 PM
    NOTE: I would appreciate posters sticking to the legal aspects of the opinion. . Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, ignored the rules of statutory construction by ignoring the distinction between "sexual orientation discrimination" and "sex discrimination"___ the latter being the intended object of protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while protection for the former was considered for protection on various occasions, but never agreed upon and written into law. As pointed out in Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent "For several decades, Congress has considered numerous bills to prohibit employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. But as noted above, although Congress has come close, it has not yet shouldered a bill over the legislative finish line."
    0 replies | 84 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-16-2020, 03:32 PM
    The big problem is, this unconstitutional ruling, like the unconstitutional Americans with Disabilities Act, will most certainly lead to business owners paying out millions upon millions of dollars to stop frivolous court actions filed by blood-sucking shyster lawyers. See, e.g., Florida man sues dozens of Colorado businesses - KMGH-TV Also see: Drive-By Lawsuits and the Abuse of the Americans with …
    12 replies | 340 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-16-2020, 07:59 AM
    And Senator Cruz put it as follows: “This judicial rewriting of our laws short-circuited the legislative process and the authority of the electorate,” he said. “Six un-elected and unaccountable judges instead took it upon themselves to act as legislators, and that undermines our democratic process.” LINK JWK ”The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” ___ Madison,Federalist Paper No. 47
    12 replies | 340 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-15-2020, 06:30 PM
    The majority opinion in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , is similar to the unconstitutional American’s with Disabilities Act … both are at odds with the text of our Constitution and legislative intent, and both ought to be labeled A Lawyers’ full employment Act. JWK "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
    12 replies | 340 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-15-2020, 05:35 PM
    We are talking about a matter of law! The S.C. ruling, in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia , is intentionally designed to give sexual deviants, as an identifiable group, easy access to initiate court action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, against an employer who allegedly fires an employee based upon their sexual proclivities. The abuse of power involved is, Congress is not authorized, by our Constitution, to prohibit distinctions based upon sex ___ the exception being the 19th Amendment which forbids the right to vote to be denied based upon “sex”. As a matter of law, neither Congress nor the Supreme Court is authorized to forbid distinctions being made based upon sex as they may relate to the various States' internal businesses. The 14th Amendment, alleged to grant such power, is summarized as follows during the 39th Congress which framed the Amendment: “Its whole effect is not to confer or regulate rights, but to require that whatever of these enumerated rights and obligations are imposed by State laws shall be for and upon all citizens alike without distinctions based on race or former condition of slavery…It permits the States to say that the wife may not testify, sue or contract. It makes no law as to this. Its whole effect is to require that whatever rights as to each of the enumerated civil (not political) matters the States may confer upon one race or color of the citizens shall be held by all races in equality…It does not prohibit you from discriminating between citizens of the same race, or of different races, as to what their rights to testify, to inherit &c. shall be. But if you do discriminate, it must not be on account of race, color or former conditions of slavery. That is all. If you permit a white man who is an infidel to testify, so you must a colored infidel. Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures-not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens- equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any race.” ___ SEE: Representative Shallabarger, Congressional Globe, 1866, page 1293
    12 replies | 340 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-15-2020, 12:01 PM
    From the the dissenting opinion: Today, many Americans know individuals who are gay, lesbian, or transgender and want them to be treated with the dignity, consideration, and fairness that everyone deserves. But the authority of this Court is limited to saying what the law is .
    12 replies | 340 view(s)
  • johnwk's Avatar
    06-15-2020, 10:20 AM
    See: Supreme Court rules existing civil rights law protects LGBTQ workers June 15, 2020, “The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that existing federal law forbids job discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender status, a major victory for advocates of gay rights — and a surprising one from an increasingly conservative court. In decisions on two separate cases, the court said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, among other factors, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status.”
    12 replies | 340 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.


    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


Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
05-18-2011 11:03 PM
General Information
Last Activity
07-07-2020 06:29 AM
Join Date

1 Friend

  1. Weston White Weston White is offline


    Weston White
Showing Friends 1 to 1 of 1






No results to display...
Page 1 of 36 12311 ... LastLast















Page 1 of 36 12311 ... LastLast