Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $30,084
34%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 34% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by JOHN W K

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Will Donald Trump steal the thunder on tax reform and expose establishment candidates?

    07/13/2015 5:19:43 AM PDT · 14 of 29
    JOHN W K to bonehead4freedom
    I agree!

    JWK

    When will the America People realize we have an Islamic cell operating out of our nation's White House? Will they come to this conclusion when Obama allows Iran to make the component parts for a nuclear arsenal?

  • Will Donald Trump steal the thunder on tax reform and expose establishment candidates?

    07/12/2015 6:56:10 PM PDT · 1 of 29
    JOHN W K
  • Boehner punishes conservatives for upholding Constitution RE: Fast Track

    06/25/2015 6:06:16 AM PDT · 4 of 11
    JOHN W K to Ghost of Philip Marlowe
    And our friends at Fox News continue to ignore the constitutional requirement for a two thirds approval vote for any deals cooked up by our president with foreign countries.

    JWK

  • Boehner punishes conservatives for upholding Constitution RE: Fast Track

    06/25/2015 5:20:38 AM PDT · 1 of 11
    JOHN W K
  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/20/2015 7:48:46 AM PDT · 125 of 129
    JOHN W K to InterceptPoint
    Ted Cruz supports keeping the socialist income tax.

    JWK

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/19/2015 6:15:51 AM PDT · 115 of 129
    JOHN W K to WKUHilltopper
    What we do know is, any deals cooked up by the president with foreign powers must receive a two thirds approval vote to become enforceable law. The founder's intentions are crystal clear on this particular issue.

    Every Republican, including Cruz and Rubio, who voted for this crap spat upon our Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

    JWK

    The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/19/2015 5:08:06 AM PDT · 106 of 129
    JOHN W K to InterceptPoint
    Well, both of them want to keep the socialist "income tax" in addition to ignoring the two thirds required vote for any deals cooked up by Obama.

    JWK

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 7:05:25 PM PDT · 84 of 129
    JOHN W K to Diogenesis
    You are correct about our global governance crowd! Check out the Council on Foreign Relations Global Governance Page: International Institutions and Global Governance: World Order in the 21st Century

    Also, check out the Council on Foreign Relations’ Membership Roster

    Council on Foreign Relations’ Membership Roster

    Chelsea Clinton
    William J. Clinton


    JWK





    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 7:02:53 PM PDT · 83 of 129
    JOHN W K to Diogenesis
    So why do the proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, and this includes snakes like Paul Ryan, pretend it is not a treaty? The obvious answer is, to lessen the bribe money which would be needed if a two thirds vote were necessary to approve this traitorous sell out!

    And if you think bribery is not taking place on this issue, here is the evidence that members of our Senate have sold their vote!

    See:Corporations shell out $1.2mn in Senate contributions to fast-track TPP

    “What the documents showed was that out of a total of nearly $1.2 million given, an average of $17,000 was donated to each of the 65 “yes” votes. Republicans received an average of $19,000 and Democrats received $9,700.

    “It’s a rare thing for members of Congress to go against the money these days,” Mansur Gidfar, spokesman for the anti-corruption group Represent.Us, told the Guardian. “They know exactly which special interests they need to keep happy if they want to fund their re-election campaigns or secure a future job as a lobbyist.”

    And, here is a list of dirt bag traitorous Republican Senators who voted to circumvent our representative system of government and allow the president to usurp Congress' legislative functions:

    Alexander, Tenn.; Ayotte, N.H.; Barrasso, Wyo.; Blunt, Mo.; Boozman, Ark.; Burr, N.C.; Capito, W.V.; Cassidy, La.; Coats, Ind.; Cochran, Miss.; Corker, Tenn.; Cornyn, Texas; Cotton, Ark.; Crapo, Idaho; Cruz, Texas; Daines, Mont.; Ernst, Iowa; Fischer, Neb.; Flake, Ariz.; Gardner, Colo.; Graham, S.C.; Grassley, Iowa; Hatch, Utah; Heller, Nev.; Hoeven, N.D.; Inhofe, Okla.; Isakson, Ga.; Johnson, Wis.; Kirk, Ill.; Lankford, Okla.; McCain, Ariz.; McConnell, Ky.; Moran, Kan.; Murkowski, Alaska; Perdue, Ga.; Portman, Ohio; Risch, Idaho; Roberts, Kan.; Rounds, S.D.; Rubio, Fla.; Sasse, Neb.; Scott, S.C.; Sullivan, Alaska; Thune, S.D.; Tillis, N.C.; Toomey, Pa.; Vitter, La.; Wicker, Miss.

    JWK


    " I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87
  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 6:45:29 PM PDT · 81 of 129
    JOHN W K to Mr. N. Wolfe
    A few days ago on the Sean Hannity show while Jamie Dupree was on and talking about Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority and the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal cooked up by Obama with a number of foreign nations, he assured Sean to not be worried about the deal because Congress gets to vote on it before it can become law. And Jamie repeatedly pointed this out.

    What Jamie Dupree did not say is, if Fast Track Trade Authority passes the House, then the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal cooked up by Obama with a number of foreign nations will not need the constitutionally required two thirds vote threshold for approval as our Constitution commands for any deals the president consummates with foreign powers! Fast Track unconstitutionally lowers the two thirds vote threshold needed to a simple majority vote. And this is an irrefutable violation of our founders clear intentions requiring a two thirds vote to approve any deals our president cooks up with foreign countries!

    And why did our wise founding fathers require a two-thirds vote? Hamilton explains why in Federalist No. 75 with respect to the President’s treaty making authority. Hamilton points out the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law” because he:

    “might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

    In the end, our founders agreed to allow the president to negotiate deals with foreign nations, but only with the constitutional requirement that such deals consummated with foreign countries would not have the force of law unless approved by a two thirds vote in the Senate.

    I’m not sure if Jamie Dupree overlooked this critical requirement when discussing FTTPA and the TPP with Sean Hannity, but the facts are what they are and the Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority Bill, having lowered the vote threshold to a simple majority for a deal cooked up by the president with foreign nations is an irrefutable violation of our founders expressed language, not to mention that it is intentionally designed to circumvent Congress’ exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and violates our Constitution’s separation of powers. In fact, it is designed to do exactly what our founders forbid in crystal clear language.

    JWK



    The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. ___ Madison, Federalist Paper No. 47
  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 6:40:07 PM PDT · 80 of 129
    JOHN W K to Diogenesis
    Fox News ran an ad promoting Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority as being a conservative idea to advance free trade. The truth is, FTTPA is not a “conservative” idea nor is it about “free trade”. It’s about creating a managed trade, managed by a group unelected by the American People who represent the interests of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation, and a majority of whom are foreigners!

    This crap started with the NAFTA, and for the proof of what I have just stated above see Establishment of Binational Panels which were created under the NAFTA, and who now regulate America's commerce with foreign nations instead of Congress [the States and People’s elected representatives] as mandated by our Constitution.

    Fast Track Trade Authority is to enhance the above “managed trade”, which is not managed by the Congress of the United States [the States and People’s representatives] who have exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Fast Track Trade Promotion Authority is a proposal to circumvent Congress’ exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and have internationalists dictate the rules for America’s commerce with foreign nations.

    JWK



    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.
  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 6:34:55 PM PDT · 77 of 129
    JOHN W K to Yardstick
    Your interpretation of what I wrote is wrong.

    JWK

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 6:03:32 PM PDT · 72 of 129
    JOHN W K to Yardstick
    I have always recognized that Congress has exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations. Why would you think otherwise?

    JWK

    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 5:49:24 PM PDT · 69 of 129
    JOHN W K to Sirius Lee
    Sirius Lee wrote:

    The Supremes ruled that a sawed off shotgun was not a militia weapon, despite the fact that the army used them as "trench guns". The Supremes ruled that homobamacare was Constitutional as a "tax".

    You can either be a Conservative, or you can keep saying the things you do to excuse the shredding of our Constitution.

    A-freaken men!

    Our Supreme Court has used its power to pretend our Constitution means many things which our founders explicitly rejected when framing our Constitution. A case in point is the Kelo decision in which the Court actually admitted to making the Constitution mean which it thinks it should mean.

    Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:

    ”… while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose”.

    The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

    On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes :

    ”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham's high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”

    And what is the fundamental rule regarding the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution?

    “Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption… (my emphasis), see: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language

    So, what is TexasFreepers point?

    JWK

    The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling. :

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 5:25:40 PM PDT · 65 of 129
    JOHN W K to terycarl
    Thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion.

    JWK

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 5:24:21 PM PDT · 64 of 129
    JOHN W K to lodi90
    This is the same crap they did in the Senate!

    Here is a link to the vote tally of H.R. 1314 which was the vehicle used in the Senate for trade promotion authority: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=114&session=1&vote=00192

    The votes are grouped in different ways at the site.

    JWK

    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 5:16:53 PM PDT · 61 of 129
    JOHN W K to TexasFreeper2009
    And where is "executive agreements" listed in our Constitution under the powers delegated to the president?

    Why do you ignore the checks and balanced our founders wrote into the Constitution to limit the president's authority?

    JWK

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 5:11:14 PM PDT · 58 of 129
    JOHN W K to TexasFreeper2009
    Actually, you are correct! The TPP are regulations of commerce with foreign nations, and Congress has been granted exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations!

    Under our Constitution, regulations of commerce come into existence by Congress authoring a bill to regulate commerce, debating that bill, amending that bill to accommodate the various state interests and the interests of the people of the United States, and then sending that Bill to the president for his signature or veto. This is how our representative system of government works. Fast Track Trade Authority allows the president to usurp Congress' legislative powers in creating a bill to regulate commerce, and leaves Congress with the President's veto power. And this my friend is not authorized by our written Constitution. Keep in mind that all legislative powers are vested in a Congress of the United States.

    Additionally, all bills for raising revenue are to originate in the House of Representatives. Therefore, any trade rules made which affect imposts and duties on imports from foreign nations, which is what the Pacific Rim deal does, must originate in the House of Representatives and not in the Oval Office.

    Fast Track Trade Authority is a blatant attack upon our representative system of government, allows the president to usurp Congress' exclusive power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and violates the separation of powers which our founders wrote into our Constitution!

    Do you support this attack upon our constitutionally limited system of government?

    JWK

    "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

  • 190 Republicans who voted to ignore 2/3 vote requirement for trade treaty (TPP)

    06/18/2015 4:02:50 PM PDT · 1 of 129
    JOHN W K
  • Cato Institute advances myth about Pacific Rim Trade Agreement

    06/12/2015 5:21:48 PM PDT · 8 of 8
    JOHN W K to SoConPubbie
    Ted Cruz is a sell out to the international corporate giants!

    What you fail to mention in your propaganda post is, TPA lowers the required threshold vote to a mere majority vote for any deals cooked up by our President with foreign countries.

    And what was our Founders thinking with regard to our president's power to negotiate treaties? Their fear is expressed in Federalist No. 75 by Hamilton with regard to the President’s treaty making authority and sheds light on why the President was not granted an arbitrary power to make “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law.” Hamilton points out the president

    “might sometimes be under temptations to sacrifice his duty to his interest, which it would require superlative virtue to withstand. An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth. An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents. The history of human conduct does not warrant that exalted opinion of human virtue which would make it wise in a nation to commit interests of so delicate and momentous a kind, as those which concern its intercourse with the rest of the world, to the sole disposal of a magistrate created and circumstanced as would be a President of the United States.”

    So, as it turns out, the founders intentionally commanded by our Constitution, that any deals cooked up by the president with a foreign power would not have “the force of law” unless approved by two thirds of the Senators present. Fast Track would, unconstitutionally, lower the vote requirement to a mere majority vote.

    Ted Cruz is a freaken traitor!

    JWK

    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

  • Cato Institute advances myth about Pacific Rim Trade Agreement

    06/12/2015 6:39:10 AM PDT · 6 of 8
    JOHN W K to Tucker39
    Actually, the use of FTTPA with regard to regulations of commerce with foreign nations has been challenged as being an attack upon our Constitution's separation of power for over a hundred years!

    Back in the 1980s when I was engaged in a research project at the University of Maryland concerning our nation's founding and our Constitution's legislative intent, I came across a paper published in 1883 titled "TREATY TARIFFS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL" which confirms the existing attempt to use fast track with regard to regulations of commerce are unquestionably unconstitutional!

    JWK

    To support Jeb Bush is to support our Global Governance crowd and their WTO, NAFTA, GATT, and CAFTA, all used to circumvent America First trade policies, while fattening the fortunes of international corporate giants who have no allegiance to America or any nation.

  • Cato Institute advances myth about Pacific Rim Trade Agreement

    06/12/2015 6:03:57 AM PDT · 1 of 8
    JOHN W K
  • GOP leaders turn on voters, will work to give president fast-track trade power

    01/28/2015 9:08:45 PM PST · 22 of 28
    JOHN W K to All
    If anyone thinks the GOP leaders behind these so called “free trade” agreements have America’s best interests in mind, read the following article.

    America's Trade Deficit- The Job Killer

    1/15/2015

    ”The so called free traders (be they Democrat or Republican) are not really free traders. They are supporters of mercantile trade where countries like China and Japan get to manipulate their currencies and use VATs against us to increase their exports and reduce their imports from us. Even though there is a provision in the WTO agreement that prohibits currency manipulation we do nothing about it.

    As in most economic issues there are winners and losers. The business group that is the biggest winner are the multi-national corporations. They have built plants in China and other foreign countries to sell products to the country and back to the U.S. They have the same advantages as our competitors to sell cheap products back to the U.S. as imports. They do not want the U.S. government or the WTO to interfere with their foreign partners (particularly China) and they spend huge amounts of lobbying money on Congress to maintain the status quo. The multi-nationals are profiting from our ongoing trade deficit even if the country is not.”


    America is being sucked dry and international corporate giants are the winners in these “free trade” agreements which get passed after they grease the palms of our traitorous Washington Establishment.


    JWK



    Today’s corrupted politics is all about the Benjamins, and which political party's leadership can put their hand deeper into the productive working person’s pocket.
  • GOP leaders turn on voters, will work to give president fast-track trade power

    01/28/2015 7:24:38 PM PST · 1 of 28
    JOHN W K
  • Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

    01/19/2015 11:58:42 AM PST · 51 of 51
    JOHN W K to zeugma
    With all due respect and sincerity, a national sales tax is a bad idea. Taxing consumption as our Founders intended is a very good idea.

    Hamilton stresses in Federalist No 21 regarding taxes on articles of consumption:

    “There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counter balanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.


    It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four .'' If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.”



    Let us say for conversation purposes that Congress is only allowed to raise its revenue by selecting specific articles of luxury and placing a specific amount of tax on each article selected. The flow of revenue into the federal treasury under such an idea would of course be determined by the economic productivity of the nation. If the economy is healthy and thriving and employment is at a peak, the purchase of articles of luxury will be greater than if the economy is stagnant and depressed. And thus, Congress is encouraged to adopt policies favorable to a healthy and vibrant economy because the flow of revenue into the federal treasury can be disrupted should Congress adopt oppressive regulations which impeded and burden our founder’s intended free market system.


    And so, if Congress is limited to raising its revenue by taxing specifically selected articles of luxury, it suddenly becomes in Congress’ best interest to work toward a healthy and vibrant economy which in turn produces a productive flow of revenue into the federal treasury! It should also be noted that taxing any specific article too high, will reduce the volume of its sales and diminish the flow of revenue into the national treasury, and thus, taxing in this manner allows the market place to determine the allowable amount of tax on each article selected as Hamilton indicates above.


    Some may claim that if Congress is required to select each specific article for taxation and place a specific amount of tax on each article, such a system would invite abuse and allow Congress to exercise favoritism with impunity and would certainly pander to countless lobbyists looking for an advantage in the selection of taxable articles. But let us take a closer look at the consequences involved if Congress should attempt to abuse this power. If Congress should abuse the system and tax one article while excluding another for political gain, consumers are treated to a tax free article and Congress reduces its own flow of revenue into the national treasury. In addition, for every penny lost by excluding a lobbyist’s particular article from taxation, another article’s tax will have to be increased to reclaim that penny. And with each increase upon any specific article the reality of diminished sales becomes a very sobering factor for Congress to deal with as explained by Hamilton in Federalist No. 21.


    Finally, under our Constitution’s original tax plan, let us remember that if Congress does not raise sufficient revenue from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on specifically chosen article of consumption and spends more than is brought in which creates a deficit, it is at this time that the apportioned tax is to be used to extinguish the deficit created, and each state’s congressional delegation must return home with a bill in hand for its state’s apportioned share of this tax and place this burden upon their Governor and State Legislature, and would deplete their own state’s treasury.


    The bottom line is, what do you think would happen if New York State’s big spending Congressional Delegation had to return home with a bill for New York to pay an apportioned share to extinguish the 2013 federal deficit? I kind of think tea parties would change to tar and feather parties and big spenders in Congress would REAP THEIR JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.

    Why is it that not one of our “conservative” media personalities [Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] will discuss the wisdom of our Constitution’s original tax plan, especially when it paved the way to not only control Congress, but created the economic underpinning which led to America becoming the economic marvel of the world?

    Let us not forget by the year 1835, under our constitution’s original tax plan, America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall. Why do so many willingly ignore the wisdom of our founding fathers?



    JWK



    “…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”___ ___Madison, during the creation of our Nation’s first revenue raising Act
  • Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

    01/19/2015 11:14:47 AM PST · 50 of 51
    JOHN W K to zeugma
    See the OP for a rough draft of the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

    JWK

  • Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

    01/19/2015 6:53:06 AM PST · 41 of 51
    JOHN W K to All
    I wonder why Senator Cruz said we cannot get meaningful tax reform while Obama is president. He probably was referring to the president's veto power. But if the Republican controlled Congress sent an amendment to the states such as the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT, it would effectively remove Obama from the process. Is it possible that Senator Cruz may have missed this pathway to real tax reform? Keep in mind that Republican Governors are in control in a majority of the States! Sending an amendment to the states at this point in time which offers real tax reform seems like a good idea!

    JWK

    “Honest money and honest taxation, the Key to America’s future Prosperity“___ from “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan”, no longer in print.

  • Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

    01/19/2015 6:49:26 AM PST · 40 of 51
    JOHN W K to zeugma
    Why not go with the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT which would return us to our Constitution's original plan as our founders intended it to operate?

    JWK

  • Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

    01/19/2015 6:47:07 AM PST · 39 of 51
    JOHN W K to DoodleDawg
    And that is what the direct apportioned tax is for . . . extinguishing a deficit by having each state's congressional delegation bring home a bill for their state to pay and apportioned share to extinguish the deficit!

    JWK

  • Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

    01/19/2015 6:08:57 AM PST · 32 of 51
    JOHN W K to central_va

    Exactly! Taxes at our water’s edge get foreigners to pay for the privilege to do business on American soil, just like a fee is required to sell one’s products at a flea market!

    JWK

  • Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS

    01/18/2015 5:23:37 PM PST · 1 of 51
    JOHN W K
  • Sen. John Thune to push Chamber of Commerce’s tax reform

    01/16/2015 4:07:31 PM PST · 14 of 15
    JOHN W K to Georgia Girl 2
    That is why I suggest ending all taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes. Let us return to our Constitution's original tax plan as it was intended to operate by our Founders!

    JWK

  • Sen. John Thune to push Chamber of Commerce’s tax reform

    01/16/2015 4:04:29 PM PST · 13 of 15
    JOHN W K to Dutchboy88
    It's not my technique to put the burden on the States. It's part of our constitution's original tax plan as intended by our Founding Fathers.

    JWK

  • Sen. John Thune to push Chamber of Commerce’s tax reform

    01/16/2015 12:55:12 PM PST · 8 of 15
    JOHN W K to Dutchboy88
    No. I have no book to sell. But I do see our nation being destroyed from within. As to Boortz, you be the judge.

    JWK

  • Sen. John Thune to push Chamber of Commerce’s tax reform

    01/16/2015 12:50:34 PM PST · 6 of 15
    JOHN W K to C19fan
    And they get away with it because our Fifth Column media is in bed with them!

    JWK

  • Sen. John Thune to push Chamber of Commerce’s tax reform

    01/16/2015 12:46:43 PM PST · 4 of 15
    JOHN W K to eyeamok

    I have also written about the Victory Tax many times, e.g.,

    see: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3066870/posts

    JWK

  • Sen. John Thune to push Chamber of Commerce’s tax reform

    01/16/2015 12:06:51 PM PST · 1 of 15
    JOHN W K
  • Jeb Bush and Common Core tyranny!

    01/03/2015 5:58:51 AM PST · 1 of 11
    JOHN W K
  • Boehner’s suit is not a stunt. It’s an act submitting to Obama's ongoing tyranny!

    06/29/2014 3:09:58 PM PDT · 1 of 12
    JOHN W K
  • Is the House complicit in Obama’s immigration tyranny?

    06/21/2014 9:37:49 AM PDT · 1 of 9
    JOHN W K
  • President Obama encouraging aliens to invade our borders!

    06/07/2014 7:06:39 AM PDT · 1 of 16
    JOHN W K
  • Establishment Republicans give their loyalty and support to Obamacare!

    05/26/2014 10:25:27 AM PDT · 13 of 14
    JOHN W K to Mogger
    What we seem to overlook and take into account is that our Republican Governors and members of Congress who pretend to be against Obamacare for violating our Constitution have the option to convene a grand jury to assess whether or not a number of our Supreme Court members have engaged in malfeasance, misfeasance and/or nonfeasance when ruling in the Obamacare case, which just happen to be indictable offenses. Keep in mind the written opinions of our Justices in the Obamacare case are evidence, and ought to be reviewed by a grand jury to determine if sufficient cause exists for their indictment.

    JWK

    "The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

  • Establishment Republicans give their loyalty and support to Obamacare!

    05/26/2014 9:14:17 AM PDT · 1 of 14
    JOHN W K
  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/25/2014 5:35:05 PM PDT · 48 of 48
    JOHN W K to linedrive
    You are absolutely correct, and the formula is:

    State`s Pop.
    __________ X SUM NEEDED = STATE`S SHARE OF TAX
    U.S. Pop.

    JWK

  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/24/2014 12:48:01 PM PDT · 45 of 48
    JOHN W K to CatherineofAragon
    I still have a rotary phone home. This computer/internet stuff is relatively all new to me. As a matter of fact when I researched our nation's founding at the University of Maryland many years ago, it was done at the Mckeldin Library, and by reading through countless volumes of original resource material and taking hand written notes or coping pages of text on a copy machine. I did not have today's luxury of a computer and search engine.

    JWK

  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/24/2014 11:09:45 AM PDT · 43 of 48
    JOHN W K to RginTN
    When Mark Levin talks about the Great Compromise of 1787 which has two inseparable components – taxation and representation – and he leaves out that a State’s allotted representation under the Great Compromise is tied to a financial obligation, the very essence of the Great Compromise is distorted!  This does not mean it was intentionally distorted,  but none the less it was distorted! 

     

    If you take the time to read Madison’s Notes as I have you will see that prior to July 2nd the Convention had a heated discussion concerning taxation and how the States would be represented in a national legislature.  And on  July 2nd Sherman of Connecticut remarked: “We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we should break up without doing something”

     

    On July 12 of the Convention, and after fierce debates concerning taxation and representation, Mr. MORRIS proposed a workable compromise, “that taxation shall be in proportion to Representation."

     

    Here is what followed:

     

    Mr. BUTLER contended again that Representation Sd.. be according to the full number of inhabts. including all the blacks; admitting the justice of Mr. Govr. Morris's motion.

    Mr. MASON also admitted the justice of the principle, but was afraid embarrassments might be occasioned to the Legislature by it. It might drive the Legislature to the plan of Requisitions.

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS, admitted that some objections lay agst. his motion, but supposed they would be removed by restraining the rule to direct taxation. With regard to indirect taxes on exports & imports & on consumption, the rule would be inapplicable. Notwithstanding what had been said to the contrary he was persuaded that the imports & consumption were pretty nearly equal throughout the Union.

    General PINKNEY liked the idea. He thought it so just that it could not be objected to. But foresaw that if the revision of the census was left to the discretion of the Legislature, it would never be carried into execution. The rule must be fixed, and the execution of it enforced by the Constitution. He was alarmed at what was said yesterday, [FN*] concerning the negroes. He was now again alarmed at what had been thrown out concerning the taxing of exports. S. Carola. has in one year exported to the amount of 600,000 Sterling all which was the fruit of the labor of her blacks. Will she be represented in proportion to this amount? She will not. Neither ought she then to be subject to a tax on it. He hoped a clause would be inserted in the system, restraining the Legislature from a [FN2] taxing Exports.

    Mr. WILSON approved the principle, but could not see how it could be carried into execution; unless restrained to direct taxation.

    Mr. Govr. MORRIS having so varied his Motion by inserting the word "direct." It passd. nem. con. as follows-"provided the always that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to representation."

     

    __________

     

    Now, is it not quite misleading, when discussing the Great Compromise, to omit the founders intentionally tied both taxation and representation under the rule of apportionment?

    JWK

    “The apportionment of representation and taxation by the same scale is just; it removes the objection, that, while Virginia paid one sixth part of the expenses of the Union, she had no more weight in public counsels than Delaware, which paid but a very small portion” 3Elliot’s 41

  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/24/2014 11:03:49 AM PDT · 42 of 48
    JOHN W K to CatherineofAragon
    I have no idea what "pinging" is. Perhaps you can send him a link to the thread and he will take the time to address the issue on his show.

    JWK

  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/23/2014 9:26:39 PM PDT · 34 of 48
    JOHN W K to smokingfrog
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment and end taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other “incomes”.

    Section 1: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    Section 2: Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.

    Section 3: This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by three fourths of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission thereof to the States by the Congress. JWK

  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/23/2014 9:13:38 PM PDT · 29 of 48
    JOHN W K to deks
    This tax boils down to be an equal per capita tax if laid directly on the people of a state. For example, if a capitation tax were laid today and the people of New York each had to pay one dollar to meet New York’s apportioned share of the total sum being raised by Congress, the people of Idaho would likewise only have to pay one dollar each if the tax were shared evenly among the people living in Idaho. And, although New York’s total share of the tax would be far greater than that of Idaho because of New York’s larger population, New York is compensated by its larger representation in Congress, which is also part of our Constitution’s fair share formula!

    JWK

  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/23/2014 8:58:29 PM PDT · 25 of 48
    JOHN W K to deks
    I don't know how that is possible unless someone has reprinted it.

    Thanks for the info!

    JWK