• jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 03:41 PM
    You're welcome. There is a battle for the heart and soul of the black church and a lot of black Christians, including leaders, aren't really aware of what's going on. As I think you're aware, I am Seventh Day Adventist. Back when Dr. Ben Carson was running for president there was a Huffington Post article were a gay SDA was asked about his (Dr. Carson's) and the church's view on gay marriage. He (the gay man) responded that he didn't want gay issues to overshadow the fight for the ordination of women pastors. (The church hires women pastors but they aren't ordained but "credentialed" and don't ask me to explain why that is because I don't know). The SDA church still as an organization is united on marriage being between a man and a woman. But I was at a New Years Eve prayer meeting where I heard a pastor of a large black SDA church say that he was wanting his members to partner with him of fighting homelessness (good), hiring a youth pastor (good) and doing evangelism (good) and then he added "So when you give your money to help LGBTQ remember to give to the Lord too." And I was like "What the hell?" This was formerly a very conservative church. I know some of the people in the audience didn't agree with that but nobody stood up and said anything, and to be fair I didn't either. But I also have a brother in law (ex-wife's sister's husband) who has two non-denominational (I think) mega churches. Back in 2020 he wanted to talk politics with me and explain to me why I should support Joe Biden. (I think he thought I supported Trump because most people can't think outside the two parties). We argued back and forth until finally I said "You're church runs a daycare right?" He was like "Yes." I was like "Would you be okay with the government telling you that you had to hire gay teachers? Because under Biden that's coming." He just got VERY quiet. He hadn't even thought of that. (Actually recent rulings by SCOTUS state that teachers of schools run by churches, like pastors, are not covered by the Civil Rights Act based on the ecclesiastical exception. So that can't happen per se.) Something else that I almost put in the last post but I felt it was getting long. Some years ago TD Jakes was put on the spot by a viewer question when he was being interviewed by Marc Lamont Hill. The question was about the black church and the gay community. TD Jakes answer, which I felt was reasonable, is "All churches don't teach the same thing so go wherever you feel comfortable but don't try to make my church conform to your views." A lot of people interpreted TDJ as saying his own views on gays and gay marriage was "evolving" and he was attacked by Christian conservatives. However this is becoming an issue again because there's been video released of him leaving a "Diddy party" and Diddy supposedly goes both ways. (Denzel Washington was seen leaving a Diddy party early with a look of disgust on his face.)
    6 replies | 130 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 02:49 PM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.
    6 replies | 134 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 10:44 AM
    LOL. You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again. Thanks for the compliment! I know PAF isn't a fan of Tim Scott. He also knows RFK JR has his issues. But this is what I think everyone should be able to agree on. The spectacle of what might be the 2024 presidential / vice presidential debates is really what's important IMO. I want RFK JR on the stage with Trump and Biden spitting facts at both of them on the full extent of vaccine injuries and, the fact that natural immunity was ignored and the fact that the lockdowns did more harm than good. I want Tim Scott faced off against Kamala Harris for her to explain why she filibustered the only police reform bill that had any chance of passage rather than offering amendments to improve it. I'd love to see Cornel West and whoever the libertarian presidential candidate ends up being (have they decided yet?) to question everybody else as to why supporting a genocidal maniac like Netanyahu who helped fund Hamas in the first place is in the interest of the American people. Take a little bit of everybody I mentioned, discard the bad parts, and you basically have Ron/Rand Paul. But neither of them are running this year. :(
    6 replies | 134 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 10:33 AM
    Short answer is that I don't think many black people in general ever supported sexualization of children, but it's taking a while for black Christians to wake up to what's going on because of their undying love for Obama and/or dislike of Trump and Republicans Here's the long answer: I'll try to find the statistic, but prior to Obama being president a solid majority of African Americans were against gay marriage, more so than whites, and that flipped after Obama changed his views on gay marriage. It's really a mixed bag. In 2007 Obama was criticized by gays for having gospel singer and minister Donnie McClurkin associated with his campaign. Donnie is known for his ministry to gay people who wish to leave that lifestyle. That's something Donnie himself had to struggle with because he was molested as a child. I can't find the video, but I remember seeing Donnie explain to gospel artist Yolanda Adams that he agreed with Obama changing gay marriage as a "civil rights issue" but he (Donnie) maintained his same position that it wasn't right in the eyes of God. And how did Obama award him for this? Well....Donnie was dis-invited from singing at the 50th anniversary of the MLK March On Washington. At that same event Baynard Rustin, an openly gay lieutenant of MLK who's largely credited with Dr. King adopting a 100% non violent stance in the Civil Rights Movement (before Rustin, Dr. King had armed deacons for security guards and one could argue that Rustin got king killed), was honored for his role in the Civil Rights Movement.
    6 replies | 130 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    9 replies | 262 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 06:57 AM
    Yeah....that doesn't make sense either. Why would Trump do that? There is far more risk than reward in doing that. In fact I can't think of any reward. He could have slipped in a "mass deportation" headline, gotten the same boost from anyone that might have a positive reaction to the thought of a new "Reich" without any of the negative baggage. If Trump was aware of "Reich" contents of the ad, that fits into the "self sabotage" theory that I have. Nobody, not dannno nor Swordsmyth, can come up with an explanation of why Trump did an interview with Bob Woodward prior to the 2020 election. Woodward took down Nixon. Why would Trump even talk to that man, let alone tell him that he (Trump) knew in February 2020 that COVID would be bad but he didn't want people to "panic." Now in February 2020, Dr. Fauci wrote in Nature that COVID wouldn't be any worse than the seasonal flu. The smart thing would be to not talk to Bob Woodward at all, but if you were going to talk to him, shift any blame for a "slow response" to Fauci's article. Sometimes Trump says and/or does things that are needlessly counter protective that make me ask "Does he REALLY want to be president?" But in this case, sabotage by some plant is as reasonable as self sabotage. But Trump has clearly done some self sabotage.
    17 replies | 560 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 06:41 AM
    I wrote this on the blockchain blogging platform https://hive.io. It was forked from Steemit after Steem got taken over by a Chinese investor. I got the information from Anti Federalist's latest Harvard poll. If you sign up for a free Hive account and you upvote my article we both can earn a small amount of the Hive coin which can be swapped for Bitcoin or Ethereum or any other cryptocurrency. https://ecency.com/usa/@jmdrake1968/the-current-most-favorable-u I've also published the same story on Medium.com. (Yes I can get paid for that too). https://medium.com/@jmdrakelaw/the-current-most-favorable-u-s-political-figures-rfk-jr-elon-musk-and-tim-scott-3b4c5590cd71 I was going through the latest Harvard Harris poll, which currently shows Donald Trump up 6 points in the U.S. election, and I found something interesting. On page 15 there is a poll net favorability of political figures. I'm not sure why Elon Musk was included as a political figure as he isn't running for anything (excluding the poll he did on X regarding whether on not he should remain CEO...which he lost). But based on the poll he has a net favorability of 13%, and RKF Jr and Tim Scott have net favorbility ratings of 10%. Donald Trump currently has a net favorability rating of 4% and Joe Biden is at -10%.
    6 replies | 134 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Today, 05:34 AM
    Okay. I'll bite. What's your mental gymnastics explanation of how the creator of the video didn't know this was in there? Even if it was created by AI, the AI has to have some parameters of what to create. I can buy Trump had no idea it was in there. He obviously didn't create the video.
    17 replies | 560 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 12:22 PM
    I LOVE this channel. If you make it, and it can be shot, they'll shoot it.
    0 replies | 148 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:00 AM
    The man knew his facts. Lots of intelligence in the hood Anti Federalist. Love how he pointed out that it takes years to develop a vaccine and this one came out in 9 months. (And to be fair to white people, I have a black friend who has a master's in public health who used the same ridiculous "but the technology was being researched for 20 years" BS line that Fauci is using here. We kind of stopped talking over vaccines. I still love her as a person though.) It's funny how at 2:25 the black woman with Fauci admits to the brother that there is "something going on" with people being paid to take vaccines. And yes, the entire COVID-19 mind control experiment was about fear. Even their "600,000" number can't be trusted as they counted people who fell off ladders and dying from COVID. But after the population was widely vaccinated and the vaccinated were still dying, Fauci came on TV and said "We have to distinguish between people dying with COVID from people dying from COVID." (I wish I could find that clip.)
    672 replies | 99872 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    2 replies | 164 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-20-2024, 07:38 PM
    This looks pretty bearable to me.
    20 replies | 1779 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-20-2024, 02:13 PM
    How a real HIMARS works. The Ukrainian DIY version. I'm betting the Ukrainian version lacks accuracy. But a system like this could fix it.
    0 replies | 103 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-20-2024, 01:34 PM
    Yeah...yeah....I heard it before. So when do we get to prosecute Fauci? It's not like Fauci didn't say back in 2012 that he didn't care if there was a pandemic from his research. https://www.yahoo.com/news/fauci-argued-benefits-gain-function-185934217.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAE3cuZWuq-fYc6EkxV2KyTn4sZvOX00zt9_uSAwRf4iUIqDNeufx45Ondgm-kRxjxAEOboqBS4IS_CaFMEr-PQiezRafKEHw_CXHY3cHJpgPb0Pxlt2O7Tn8fM_qDFviaSWTma 6qJENrd_7WS_17oLTdf81kVyEGkKzfeD-qD6V8 Despite the risks involved, Fauci called gain-of-function experiments “important work” in his 2012 writing: In an unlikely but conceivable turn of events, what if that scientist becomes infected with the virus, which leads to an outbreak and ultimately triggers a pandemic? Many ask reasonable questions: given the possibility of such a scenario – however remote – should the initial experiments have been performed and/or published in the first place, and what were the processes involved in this decision? Scientists working in this field might say – as indeed I have said – that the benefits of such experiments and the resulting knowledge outweigh the risks. It is more likely that a pandemic would occur in nature, and the need to stay ahead of such a threat is a primary reason for performing an experiment that might appear to be risky.
    5 replies | 298 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-20-2024, 12:33 PM
    I've yet to see any solid evidence that Soros is a Zionist. Globalist? Yes. And maybe that's the real riddle? As I pointed out in another thread, during WW 2 there was a split between international Jewry of those who wanted to strangle the German economy through an international boycott and the Zionists who worked with Germany to undermine the boycott in order to facilitate Jewish immigration to Palestine. It seems that Soros came from the former group as opposed to the latter because his family was still trapped in Hungary rather than having already left for Palestine. That doesn't make the things Soros is doing now "good."
    19 replies | 758 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-20-2024, 12:11 PM
    That assumes that: 1) all of the PTB are in lock step and always agree on everything. We know that is false because Hillary really wanted to be president in 2008 but had to give way to Barack Obama and that was decided at Bilderberg. 2) things haven't at all "gotten away" from the PTB. Or as Anti Federalist pointed out, someone created a golem that has gone wild. There was absolutely a different response from Biden and the MSM to the Gaza protests as compared to the Black Lives Matter protests. BLM burned down a police station, looted and burned stores and shot people and Biden and all of his allies called them "mostly peaceful." The Gaza protests occupied some college buildings and sprayed some graffiti. Biden's double-speak response to the Gaza protests was described as his "Charlottesville Moment." Only a blind man would not be able to see that many people on the left are very unhappy with these protestors in a way nobody on the left was willing to call out BLM.
    19 replies | 758 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-20-2024, 11:42 AM
    I wonder how many times this same judge convicted people based on shell casings....yet apparently he didn't know to recover his own shell casings. Anti Federalist, yeah road rage people can get crazy. Best to let them be if you can.
    3 replies | 256 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-20-2024, 11:32 AM
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to unknown again.
    5 replies | 521 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    05-19-2024, 05:06 PM
    My youngest son got a job before graduating college. He has been there 4 years and got a good promotion. His bonus last year was $30,000. He has over $375,000 net assets and isn't even 27 yet. He owns 2 cars paid for and a 2 family home. The first floor rent covers the mortgage and he has roommates where he occupies the 2nd and 3rd floor. He has 1700 sq ft on those 2 floors. So his transportation is paid for and his housing is free. I think his base salary is around $150k plus stock and bonus. Youngest daughter working as chemical engineer making close to $100k but she spends way more than my son. Son plans on being financially independent after working 10 years. Maximizes his savings, retirement, and wealth, and minimizing his taxes. All his accomplishments are his to take credit for. No handouts from the parents. But he is a rare case and exceptional person. In the 70's any person that wanted to work hard could prosper without college.
    13 replies | 365 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    05-19-2024, 04:57 PM
    I guess there was more to it than finding a job and buying things for cash. We had jobs since we were small. Everyone of us had paper route that got passed from kid to kid. In those days you had to purchase the paper route. You were a business man. You bought the papers and it was your responsibility to collect from your customers. I had a morning and afternoon route. We cut grass and shoveled snow and raked leaves. Once 16 people worked. My mother made sure that money was saved. In 1970 a brand new C10 was less than $2,000 so all those years of work and savings made purchasing a vehicle possible. Houses cost less than $30,000 so with a small downpayment you were a homeowner. Two of my brothers purchased 2 family homes and lived on one floor and rented the other. As mentioned one brother still lives in the home he purchased when he was 18.
    13 replies | 365 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    05-19-2024, 04:48 AM
    Back in the early 70's all my older brothers purchased homes prior to age 24. 2 of them purchased brand new half ton trucks one Chevy one Ford and paid cash. Everybody worked menial jobs. One brother purchased his home when he was 18 and still lives there today. So when you are talking about purchasing a home, a car, or even being able to just live on a wage, that has changed.
    13 replies | 365 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-16-2024, 05:53 PM
    0 replies | 110 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-16-2024, 05:41 PM
    Yep. The bill expands on the definition of what "discriminating against Jews" is and outsources that to a private entity.
    159 replies | 8029 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-16-2024, 12:33 PM
    True story. So when I first met my now ex-wife and her family back in 1998, I thought they were really homophobic. Like they would talk about the "gay agenda" and how Disney secretly pushing gay and sexual messages in their movies and all of that. I was pretty liberal then. I supported ending the ban on sodomy laws because I don't want to know what other people are doing in their bedroom. (Seems like these days certain people want everybody to know what they are doing in their bedroom.) I was okay with ending the ban on gays in the military because I had no intention of joining the military. When it came to gay marriage, I was okay with that until I went to law school and had to read the IRS vs Bob Jones University case. That's the case where BJU lost it's tax except status for having a ban on interracial dating. The holding was since SCOTUS had struck down separate but equal, congress had passed the CRA and President Truman had desegregated the military, all 3 branches of government had decided segregation was against public policy. (After they lost they just banned all dating on campus period). That case greatly concerned me because the SDA church operates a lot of colleges and universities and they all follow the traditional view on sexuality and marriage. About that time Obama had repealed don't ask don't tell. (Branch 1) Sometime later SCOTUS struck down DOMA. (Branch 2). And there was language barring discrimination against transgenders in medicine in Obamacare. (Branch 3). Back to my former in-laws. Four years ago when we were all together for my sons graduating college I overheard them talking to each other about how "terrible" it is that Trump was trying to take away transgender rights to healthcare. This was the first I heard of that and I wasn't sure what that meant. But I bet they thought it was about whether or not a transgender having a heart attack would be turned away form the hospital. I didn't argue with them, but I was thinking "I bet there's more to it than that." Sure enough, within a year I heard of a case of a "transman" suing a Catholic hospital for not doing a hysterectomy because the hospital said it didn't want to be involved in any gender affirming surgeries. I've never asked my ex or her family what they thought about that. At that same graduation event a pastor who is married to one of my exes sisters wanted to talk to me about politics because I guess he wanted to "set me straight" about being a "republican" and a "Trump supporter." I am neither but I get accused of that all of the time because in some circles if you aren't lining up to kiss the donkey's ass and/or if you don't totally despise Trump (and despite what some here think, I don't hate the man), then you must be a Trump supporter. Finally I asked the pastor "You have a daycare with your church right? How would you feel if the feds told you that you have to hire an openly gay teacher?" Boom! i had him! He hadn't thought about that. (Actually religious schools are allowed to discriminate in hiring of teachers because they are the same as hiring clergy and that falls under the same "ecclesiastical exception" that excempts churches form the CRA when dealing with clergy.) Anyhow, I have transgender relatives. If any of the were having a heart attack I'd want them to be able to go to any hospital and have treatment. But that is not what Obama was pushing or is being pushed now. /long rant
    7 replies | 282 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-16-2024, 12:09 PM
    What...the actual....hell? Like what? That man has to be possessed.
    7 replies | 282 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    7 replies | 282 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-16-2024, 09:38 AM
    56 replies | 10191 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-16-2024, 09:13 AM
    :rolleyes: If I was not correct then they wouldn't be offering this amendment! Yes there have been CRA cases based on antisemitism such as calling someone "Jew boy" but this is an escalation. Part of proving discrimination is showing animus against the protected class. The definition that this bill brings in by proxy includes saying you don't support the state of Israel as evidence of such animus. That is the problem. Read the case I linked to above before responding so we can have an intelligent conversation.
    159 replies | 8029 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-16-2024, 08:36 AM
    Yes. Exactly. Full stop. This is a hypothetical question. But it's based on advances that are actually being developed. Okay. And yet there are exceptions that you mentioned where you would allow it. And that's why "the government is part of the question." There's nothing "casual" about evictionism. We know that abortion will continue to happen. Ban it in one state, it will happen in another state. Women might even travel to Canada at some point.. Harm reduction is not casual. That's a disingenuous argument.
    99 replies | 6395 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    05-16-2024, 08:26 AM
    It's never been enforced based on an expansive definition of antisemitism that includes what most sane people would NOT call antisemitism. That's the point that I and Anti Federalist and Matt Gaetz are saying. Congress would never be able to pass a law that included a definition of antisemitism that said "If you say Jews killed Jesus that's antisemitism." Based on the text from the law that I already gave you this expansive definition of antisemitism can be used to trigger a federal instigation and can be used as evidence in a discrimination lawsuit. You're just being obtuse now.
    159 replies | 8029 view(s)
More Activity
About GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
3,404
Posts Per Day
2.62
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:18 PM
Join Date
10-30-2020
Referrals
0

5 Friends

  1. Danke Danke is offline

    Top Rated Influencer

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Danke
    Danke
  2. fatjohn fatjohn is offline

    Member

    fatjohn
  3. harrysng10 harrysng10 is offline

    New Member

    harrysng10
  4. jmdrake jmdrake is online now

    Member

    jmdrake
  5. Sammy Sammy is offline

    Member

    Sammy
Showing Friends 1 to 5 of 5

12-13-2023


09-04-2023


08-19-2023


09-05-2022


02-11-2022


12-05-2021


10-21-2021


Page 1 of 80 1231151 ... LastLast

05-19-2024


05-15-2024


05-13-2024


05-12-2024


05-10-2024


05-09-2024



Page 1 of 80 1231151 ... LastLast