John Wilkenson

JOHN WILKENSON

(NOTE: the following is intended to be purely tongue-in-cheek parody/satire. It will be removed when M.C.C.C. has some real candidates for real public office.)

John Wilkenson is a candidate for the entirely fictitious office of Mesa County Minister of Information. John is a truly wonderful man — (just ask him!) — who loves everybody. He is definitely in favor of God, mom, apple pie, childrens, families, equal rights, education, blue skies, clean air, clean water, "economic development", old dogs and watermelon wine. Just as some homeless panhandlers will write anything on their signs which they think will cause folks to give them money, John is willing to promise anything to any person or group he thinks can help him win election to public office. John promises that if elected, he will work hard for everyone to be a millionaire without the hassle of actually having to do any work. John believes there should be two new cars in every garage and two chickens in every pot without anyone having to do any work to get them. John believes the government should just print all the money everybody wants without anybody having to do any work. That way we could all just party all the time while the little Chinese slave girls make all the stuff we buy. John also believes that everybody who doesn't agree with his platform is a mean-spirited hater/racist/bigot/misogynist/homophobe.

Phyliss and JohnPhyliss and JohnIn support of John's entirely fictitious candidacy, this M.C.C.C. political candidate page will support jpg files as shown by the unlinked photo on the left. All jpg files can also be linked to a destination as shown by the same photo on the right.

As shown by the following hilarious example, this page will support both links to, and the imbedding of, videos.

George Carlin - Language complaints at American Press Club - YouTube video

Quantitative Easing Explained - YouTube video

Government Explained - YouTube video

This page will also support pdf files as demonstrated by the "Assert Your Rights!" pamphlet for which Charles Schenck was sentenced to prison for six months (out of a possible maximum ten-year sentence), a lower court decision which was upheld by Good Old Boy Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr, who wrote the decision in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Holmes appeared to change his position on the freedom of dissenting speech in his dissent (joined by Louis Brandeis) in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919):

"Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power, and want a certain result with all your heart, you naturally express your wishes in law, and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care wholeheartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas -- that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, I think that we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country. I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the First Amendment left the common law as to seditious libel in force. History seems to me against the notion. I had conceived that the United States, through many years, had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798, by repaying fines that it imposed. Only the emergency that makes it immediately dangerous to leave the correction of evil counsels to time warrants making any exception to the sweeping command, 'Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.' Of course, I am speaking only of expressions of opinion and exhortations, which were all that were uttered here, but I regret that I cannot put into more impressive words my belief that, in their conviction upon this indictment, the defendants were deprived of their rights under the Constitution of the United States."

Hopefully this shows what type of Free publicity is available to political candidates on the M.C.C.C. grassroots networking platform.

Under construction . . .