Posts by JOHN W K

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Boehnerís suit is not a stunt. Itís 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 Obamaís 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

  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/23/2014 8:48:08 PM PDT · 21 of 48
    JOHN W K to Naplm
    Brushing over a subject for the sake of brevity? Mark Levin went on and on about the Great Compromise, but when it came to mentioning its two component parts he omitted apportionment also being applied to taxation. And what did Madison say with regard to the rule?

    In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…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.”

    Socialists and the friends of big government love their one man one vote part of the Constitution. But when it comes to one vote one dollar they do everthing imaginable to cover up the rule.

    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.

  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/23/2014 8:13:30 PM PDT · 14 of 48
    JOHN W K to Naplm
    Do you really believe the number of people being reached determines the validity of the message?

    JWK

    If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along withFREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Democracy, which is designed to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/23/2014 7:58:21 PM PDT · 9 of 48
    JOHN W K to Nifster
    The Great Compromise had two component parts: apportionment being applied to both representatives and taxes. Mark's distortion is his exclusion of apportionment being tied to both representation and taxation!

    JWK

  • Mark Levin distorts the Great Compromise of 1787

    05/23/2014 7:36:45 PM PDT · 1 of 48
    JOHN W K
  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 7:33:44 PM PDT · 42 of 42
    JOHN W K to Agamemnon
    You confuse constructive criticism with looking for a fight.

    I see Mark Levin on this evening's show was talking about the "Great Compromise" of the Convention of 1787. Strangely enough he never mentioned how the apportionment of both taxation and representation became the moving parts of the Great Compromise.

    I will do a piece on this subject just for you.

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 5:40:58 PM PDT · 40 of 42
    JOHN W K to GeronL
    Passing the taxation buck to the states who will have no control of the spending is pretty useless. It seems to empower the feds to spend anything they like.

    So what happens if the states refuse to pay? A federal judge will make them.

    The States are not inanimate objects, they are made up of people. The people of each state elect their members to Congress. And when their Congressional Delegation returns home with a bill because Congress could not live on the revenue brought in from indirect taxes, imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on consumption, and they are hit with having to pay a bill from their own State’s Treasury, I think the Congressional Delegation will receive its just JUST REWARDS for their irresponsible and tyrannical spending.

    Did you miss that part in the proposed amendment which explains what happens if a State refused to pay its apportioned share in a time period set by Congress? If a state does not pay its apportioned share of the direct tax, Congress may then enter the state and impose a direct tax upon real estate. And, the Act of July 14, 1798, c. 75, 1 Stat. 53 did in fact imposed a direct tax upon real estate and a capitation tax upon slaves. For the collection and enforcement of the tax upon real estate by our federal government CLICK HERE and scroll down to “how the collectors shall demand and enforce payment”.

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 4:08:19 PM PDT · 37 of 42
    JOHN W K to GeronL
    So balancing the annual budget in a no nonsense way is useless? I think Mark Levin would disagree with you.

    Aside from that, if our Founder's method to extinguish a deficit was in place, can you picture the outrage of the Governors and Legislatures of our “progressive” states like California, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania or Massachusetts if their Congressional Delegation returned home with a bill in hand to extinguish an annual deficit they helped to create while in Washington, and these Governors and Legislatures would have to transfer that money out of their own state treasury and into the United States Treasury?

    The truth is, our founder’s tax plan is brilliant and creates a very real moment of accountability which would end the irresponsible spending of “neo-statists” [Mark Levin’s terminology] and encourage each State's Congressional Delegation to follow sound fiscal policies to avoid the apportioned tax.

    JWK

    Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand its powers and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 3:54:42 PM PDT · 36 of 42
    JOHN W K to Agamemnon
    And now all you can do is personalize the thread instead of commenting on what is written?

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 1:23:53 PM PDT · 33 of 42
    JOHN W K to Agamemnon
    Do my work for me? I thought the object was for true patriots to work together to restore our constitutionally limited system of government.

    I've already devoted over 35 years of my life and thousands of dollars in the effort to restore our system of government by researching and documenting the legislative intent of our Constitution as stated by those who framed and ratified our Constitution.

    It is interesting to note how you make me the subject of the thread rather than discuss what I have posted concerning dealing with deficits as our founders intended.

    JWK

    “He has erected a multitude of new offices and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 9:57:12 AM PDT · 29 of 42
    JOHN W K to dead
    I gave you my answer. Apparently you don't like my answer to you rhetorical question.

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 9:55:12 AM PDT · 28 of 42
    JOHN W K to smokingfrog
    I listen to Mark all the time and he only uses the “Get off my phone you big dope.” for 0bama drones, trolls and other idiots.

    I don’t know if Mark has ever read “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan” but would like to hear him comment on it. Why don’t you send him a copy?

    On June 20th, 2013, I mailed my last available copy to Senator Ted Cruz. Never heard back. Additionally, while Mark Levin was in the Reagan Administration, Ed and I hand delivered a copy to every House and Senate Office.

    Perhaps someone here will “tweet” or “hashtag” or whatever this new way of communicating is called, a link to the following thread I started here a couple of years ago. It contains a good portion of documentation concerning our founder’s method to deal with deficits.

    Thumbs up to Mark Levin on phony balanced budget amendment!

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 9:30:21 AM PDT · 26 of 42
    JOHN W K to dead
    Talk show hosts make no laws, tax nobody, command zero armed agents, can legally imprison no man. With what the current administration is unleashing daily on the citizenry of this nation why would anybody be so concerned about the opinions of a guy with a radio show?

    Why don't you ask all the posters in this thread who seem to be carrying water for Mark Levin?

    JWK

    It’s not PORK. It’s a money laundering operation used to plunder our national treasury and fatten the fortunes of the well-connected in Washington.

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 9:24:11 AM PDT · 25 of 42
    JOHN W K to Agamemnon
    Sounds like your beef is with him, and posting here without his ability to acquit himself in the conversation amounts to the equivalent of a conversation with yourself.

    FReegards!

    Now wait a second. Do you feel the same way when Mark Levin quotes someone on the air and then not only attacks what he has quoted, but engages in an adolescent name calling attack upon the person he quoted?

    I have a suggesting for you, give him a link to this thread so he may “acquit himself” and raise his objections to what I have posted.

    JWK

    If the America People do not rise up and defend their existing Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted, who is left to do so but the very people it was designed to control and regulate?

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 9:08:08 AM PDT · 22 of 42
    JOHN W K to bigbob
    So, concerned Americans are not supposed to worry about the propaganda and worthless remedies put out by our "conservative" talk show hosts? Seems that they all gave thumbs up to Mark Levin's liberty amendments without pointing to their hidden dangers.

    Did you get a chance to read Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments: Legalizing Tyranny? If not, read it and get back to me.

    JWK

    If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along withFREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Party, which is designed to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 8:54:47 AM PDT · 21 of 42
    JOHN W K to smokingfrog
    Well, how about you calling his show and object to his proposed amendment and then suggest in its place our Founder's intended method dealing with deficits?

    Last time I heard a caller disagreeing with him he trout's out the insulting remark "Get off my phone you big dope."

    Aside from that, why do you have such a problem with constructive criticism of his "liberty amendments"?

    JWK

    If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along withFREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Party, which is designed to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 6:58:55 AM PDT · 6 of 42
    JOHN W K to Agamemnon
    Are you suggesting Mark Levin would embrace constructive criticism?

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 6:56:38 AM PDT · 4 of 42
    JOHN W K to backwoods-engineer
    Posting truth and facts is an attack?

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís liberty amendment flip-flop on balancing the annual budget

    05/23/2014 6:44:45 AM PDT · 1 of 42
    JOHN W K
  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/23/2014 4:11:05 AM PDT · 49 of 50
    JOHN W K to aquila48
    Perhaps Bernie Sanders can answer your question.

    JWK

    They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 7:13:04 PM PDT · 47 of 50
    JOHN W K to aquila48
    Since we are not talking about "ideas" and are talking about an idea, your question is irrelevant and not worthy of an answer.

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 3:14:37 PM PDT · 45 of 50
    JOHN W K to KC Burke
    Promoting a return to our Constitution’s original tax plan is discourteous and self-promoting? Really?

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 3:05:22 PM PDT · 43 of 50
    JOHN W K to redinIllinois
    You wrote:

    The National Retail Sales Tax, or Fair Tax, is a way to take power back from the politicians and lobbyists by doing away with all the federal income taxes (personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes)

    The FairTax is replacement, not reform. It REPLACES federal income taxes including personal, estate, gift, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment, and corporate taxes.

    Let us look at the facts.

      The “fairtax” does not withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes.  But it would, if adopted, create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor, and it would keep alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes. The “fairtax” is a Washington Establishment cooked up scheme to enlarge our federal government’s taxing arm.

    In addition, the “fairtax”, just as a national retail sales tax, would violate the wisdom and brilliance of our founding fathers rule of apportionment under which they agreed that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned so that each state’s contribution of the total sum being collected would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress ___a rule based upon an idea of representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man, one vote, and one vote one dollar. Socialists love their one man one vote part of the rule of apportionment but fear with a passion one vote one dollar.

    Under the “fairtax” or a national retail sales tax, although the people of a state may contribute a larger share to fund the federal government, they may not get a proportionately equal say in Congress relative to their contribution on how their money will be spent because the rule of apportionment would not be observed!

    And just what were the very intentions behind the rule of apportioning both representatives and any general tax laid among the States?

    In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…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.”

    And during the ratification debated, the following comments are made with regard to the rule of apportionment:


    Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

    “With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

    And see:
    “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

    Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

    And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

    “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”3 Elliot’s 41

    Having stated the above, I do support Congress raising its revenue from taxing consumption, but only as our Founders intended under our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN

    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.

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 12:09:07 PM PDT · 37 of 50
    JOHN W K to demshateGod; FatherofFive
    Name calling comes a lot easier to some folks and that is why we as a nation are where we are today.

    JWK

    Is America on the verge of submitting to communism without a shot being fired?

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 12:05:01 PM PDT · 36 of 50
    JOHN W K to redinIllinois
    I know H.R. 25 [the fairtax] is proposed legislation and I explained how it would be the largest increase in Congress’ taxing arm if adopted in POST NO. 19

    Why on earth would any freedom loving person promote two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor while keeping alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, salaries and other incomes? Are you a socialist?

    JWK

    If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along withFREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Democracy, which is designed to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 10:33:25 AM PDT · 32 of 50
    JOHN W K to aquila48
    Who said Mark is a socialist? What was stated, and correctly so is, what Mark Levin promotes as tax reform is promoting a socialist idea.

    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.

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 10:28:56 AM PDT · 31 of 50
    JOHN W K to redinIllinois
    The truth is, the "fairtax" [H.R.25]if adopted would by THE BIGGEST ENLARGEMENT OF CONGRESS' TAXING POWER SINCE THE SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT! See: POST NO. 19 and get back to us.

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 9:57:14 AM PDT · 24 of 50
    JOHN W K to dware
    I agree with you that is the exact kind of thinking that has put us right where we are today!

    Most of the sufferings we experience today can be linked to a corruptible system of taxation and a corruptible money system, both of which invite predators to flock to Washington to manipulate each in a manner which steals the real material wealth created by America’s hard working citizens and business owners.


    Our founding fathers suffered the miseries of dishonest money and dishonest taxation, and they provide a remedy for each. If America’s honor and greatness is to be restored, it will only happen if and when the people themselves rise up and take back their government, and what could be a more motivating force than a proposal put on the table to return to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as it was intended to operate by our Founders?


    Now Just imagine if Mark Levin and other “conservative” talk show hosts [Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Doc Thompson, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz, Mike Huckabee, Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Herman Cain, etc.] got behind and promoted the following:

    House/Senate Joint Resolution

    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.


    And imagine further if Mark Levin then called for a 2 million man march on Washington to demand Congress send to the states for ratification the above H.J.RES.

    I think there would be no problem gathering 2 million patriots to join in such a demonstration, and that is why I believe our so called “conservative” media personalities will not promote what I suggest above.

    But the bottom line is, “we the people” do have it in our power to take back our government, but it requires the people to rise up and actually participate in throwing off the yoke of tyranny! The following photos tell the tale! CLICK HERE

    The future of America does rest in the hands of the American People!

    JWK

    If the people want to take back their government, then they must rise to the occasion. But to think those who now hold political power at the federal and state level will work in the people's best interest if a convention were called, is to believe the fox can be trusted to care for America’s chickens.

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 9:45:18 AM PDT · 22 of 50
    JOHN W K to GrandJediMasterYoda
     

     

    I agree with you on having Congress raise its revenue from taxes on consumption.  Let us review why our founders adopted this 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, Sean Hannity, 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

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 9:25:26 AM PDT · 19 of 50
    JOHN W K to thetallguy24
    If you are talking about H.R.25, that proposal is a Washington Establishment idea to enlarge Congress' taxing arm.

    H.R. 25 proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon the purchase of articles of consumption, and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor, and would not withdraw Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

    Although H.R. 25 proposes under its “sunset provision” that after a seven year period once the “fair tax” is in operation and if the 16th Amendment is not repealed in that time period, the fairtax will be ended, it is important to note its companion legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment [H.R. 16], even if adopted into our Constitution, Congress would retain the power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains, and other incomes as was done during the civil war when the first income tax was levied and was later upheld as being constitutional.

    I also reject the fairtax because it violates the wisdom of our founding fathers under which they agreed that any general tax laid among the states would be apportioned so that each state’s contribution of the total sum being collected would be proportionately equal to its representation in Congress ___a rule based upon an idea of representation with a proportional financial obligation, or, one man, one vote, and one vote one dollar. Socialists love their one man one vote part of the rule of apportionment but fear with a passion one vote one dollar.

    Under the “fairtax” although the people of a state may contribute a larger share to fund the federal government, they may not get a proportionately equal say in Congress relative to their contribution on how their money will be spent because the rule of apportionment would not be observed!

    And what were the very intentions behind the rule of apportioning both representatives and any general tax laid among the States?

    In Federalist No. 54 we are reminded that our Constitution’s rule requiring an apportionment of both Representatives and direct taxes “…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.”

    And during the ratification debated, the following comments are made with regard to the rule of apportionment:


    Pinckney addressing the S.C. ratification convention with regard to the rule of apportionment :

    “With regard to the general government imposing internal taxes upon us, he contended that it was absolutely necessary they should have such a power: requisitions had been in vain tried every year since the ratification of the old Confederation, and not a single state had paid the quota required of her. The general government could not abuse this power, and favor one state and oppress another, as each state was to be taxed only in proportion to its representation.” 4 Elliot‘s, S.C., 305-6

    And see:
    “The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil”3 Elliot’s, 243,“Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

    Mr. Madison goes on to remark about Congress’s “general power of taxation” that, "they will be limited to fix the proportion of each State, and they must raise it in the most convenient and satisfactory manner to the public."3 Elliot, 255

    And if there is any confusion about the rule of apportionment intentionally designed to insure that the people of each state are guaranteed a proportional vote in Congress equal to their contribution, Mr. PENDLETON says:

    “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”3 Elliot’s 41

    Having stated the above, I do support Congress raising its revenue from taxing consumption, but only as our Founders intended under our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN

    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.

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 9:17:31 AM PDT · 17 of 50
    JOHN W K to cotton1706
    Would you support the following?

    House/Senate Joint Resolution

    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.



    These words, if added to our Constitution, would bring us back to our Constitution’s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as our founders intended it to operate, and they would end the socialist experiment with taxes calculated from profits, gains and other incomes.

    JWK

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 9:13:59 AM PDT · 13 of 50
    JOHN W K to Maceman
    I didn't call Mark Levin a socialist, but his proposed liberty amendment dealing with taxation is a socialist system of taxation.

    JWK

    They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist thieves who use the cloak of government force to steal the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 9:09:49 AM PDT · 10 of 50
    JOHN W K to Phinneous
    I already answered the question of how our federal government ought to be funded which is to return to our Constitution's ORIGINAL TAX PLAN, as our Founders intended it to operate.

    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.

  • Mark Levinís socialist liberty Amendment

    05/22/2014 8:52:08 AM PDT · 1 of 50
    JOHN W K
  • Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention

    05/17/2014 5:30:21 AM PDT · 214 of 215
    JOHN W K to Fledermaus
    What is evil is what Mark is promoting.

    Mark Levin promotes keeping the socialist tax on incomes alive with one of his “liberty amendments”! He also promotes keeping the Federal Reserve swindling operation alive with another one of his “liberty amendments.” And, let us not forget that he also promotes a fraudulent balanced budget amendment which would actually make it constitutional for Congress to not balance the federal budget.

    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

  • Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention

    05/14/2014 11:58:20 AM PDT · 199 of 215
    JOHN W K to CSM
    Leaves the States [those at the state level who trample upon our Constitution, just as the federal government tramples upon our Constitution] is correct! Not the people!

    JWK

    If the people want to take back their government, then they must rise to the occasion. But to think those who now hold political power at the federal and state level will work in the people's best interest if a convention were called, is to believe the fox can be trusted to care for America’s chickens.

  • Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention

    05/14/2014 11:49:00 AM PDT · 198 of 215
    JOHN W K to CSM
    “The fairtax [H.R.25] proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor, while keeping alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”.”

    You truly are a flat out liar. I am astounded at your purposeful LYING!

    CSM,

    You forgot to explain how I am lying. The irrefutable fact is, H.R. 25 proposes to create two new taxes, a 23 percent tax upon articles of consumption and another 23 percent tax upon the sale of labor, while keeping alive Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes calculated from profits, gains and other “incomes”.”

    If I am in error, explain how I am in error rather than posting an unsubstantiated insulting remark.

    JWK

    If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon an Obama, welfare, food stamp, section 8 housing, college loan check, and now free Obamacare along withFREE BACON, we can blackmail them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Obama’s Marxist Free Cheese Democracy, which is designed to establish a federal dictatorship and redistribute the wealth which wage earners, business and investors have worked to create.

  • Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention

    05/14/2014 5:07:45 AM PDT · 180 of 215
    JOHN W K to BillyBoy
    If the people want to take back their government, then they must rise to the occasion. But to think those who now hold political power at the federal and state level will work in the people's best interest if a convention were called, is to believe the fox can be trusted to care for America’s chickens.

    JWK

    Reaching across the aisle and bipartisanship is Washington Newspeak to subvert the Constitution and screw the American People.

  • Mark Levin may get his evil wish to convene a Constitutional Convention