Tab Content
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Today, 05:21 AM
    So some of you may know that I have an F450 with a 6.0. I have a 42 foot fifth wheel that I want to tow. The truck just got heads worked on and many new parts. I have driven gasoline engines most of my life and do not want to harm this truck from poor driving principles. I have an app called Forscan that is capable of monitoring the truck. Constructive advice from people with experience would be appreciated.
    0 replies | 20 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    Today, 04:36 AM
    Are you qualified to run X?
    988 replies | 117741 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:57 AM
    You are of course correct.
    59 replies | 1580 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:49 AM
    Bollocks! Examples of limitations are that there has to be a indictment in the house, a 2/3rds majority in the senate, and if the President is impeached the Chief Justice presides. But what is a "high crimes and misdemeanors'" is not subject to judicial review! That's the dumbest argument ever! Do you know how many misdemeanors are defined by federal law? You admit the president can be impeached for bribery or treason even for core constitutional duties right? Then that means he can also be impeached for any other high crime or misdemeanor"! Your argument depends upon pretending that bribery and treason are different from other defined crimes when it comes to impeachment and that's simply not true! But answer this. There are Republicans who have introduced articles of impeachment against Biden for failing to secure the border. Do you think they are wrong? Do you think if they somehow managed to get a 2/3rd vote in the Senate on that it would be subject to judicial review?
    148 replies | 4242 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:23 AM
    All of y'all are wrong. He'll probably pick Ivana.
    187 replies | 10463 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:17 AM
    It's not "cherry picking." It's a direct quote. Nowhere did SCOTUS limit the language about the lack of judicial review on impeachment the way you are falsely claiming they are through your cherry picking! You straight up LIED when you said "No, SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the process used in the Senate for the impeachment trial, that's all it said." I prove you lied by pointed out that they said there was no judicial review of impeachment period.
    148 replies | 4242 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:51 AM
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:50 AM
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:49 AM
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:48 AM
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:46 AM
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:44 AM
    I'm in Ohio and can appreciate JD, but I don't think he covers the criteria... He can cover 1 and 2, but #3 is more like an invitation rather than a defense.
    187 replies | 10463 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:33 AM
    You're just lying. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/#opinions A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review.
    148 replies | 4242 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:32 AM
    Wrong. You are just wrong. This is DIRECTLY from the opinion Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224 (1993) at page 255. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/506/224/#opinions A review of the Constitutional Convention's history and the contemporary commentary supports a reading of the constitutional language as deliberately placing the impeachment power in the Legislature, with no judicial involvement, even for the limited purpose of judicial review. You are fooling nobody but your self. What part of "NO JUDICIAL INVOLVEMENT" do you NOT understand?
    148 replies | 4242 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:27 AM
    And here you fall into your own circular reasoning trap. "Other high crimes or misdemeanors." A misdemeanor is any crime that is punishable by less than one year. Clearly the "core powers" doctrine would keep him from being prosecuted for a misdemeanor committed while executing a core power but it would not protect him from impeachment. This is the crux of your misunderstanding of this entire issue. Again, let's go back to the example of Anwar Al Aawki. He was an American Citizen. The group he was with when he was killed was not covered by the AUMF to go after those who carried out 9/11 or harbored them. No evidence was ever presented to show he was involved in terrorism. Yet, based on nothing but Obama's statement that he ad taken an "operational role" in a drone strike, he was put on a drone list and killed. Based on the core powers doctrine Obama can't be prosecuted but he could have been impeached. If someone says "no" then one has to consider all of the times the government has cried "terrorism" when it wasn't true, like when the intelligence services said Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American soldiers and then, as soon as Trump was out of office, said that wasn't true. And consider all of the people who have been accused of being "Russian agents" from Donald Trump to Tulsi Gabbard to Julian Assange. If there is not some accountability for the abuse of putting someone on a terror watch list and then killing him without trial then we're in trouble. But recklessly or intentionally ordering the killing of someone who isn't a terrorist is not treason. It's not bribery. Sure it's another high crime (murder) but who decides if it's impeachable? Why the Senate does of course.
    148 replies | 4242 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 05:20 PM
    Maybe he never comes out and leaves the press alone.
    48 replies | 1006 view(s)
  • GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 04:57 PM
    What is your favorite flavor of ice cream?
    48 replies | 1006 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 03:28 PM
    Anti Federalist. The black sorority Alpha Kappa Alpha just got hundreds of gay men kicked out of a hotel because some of the were too scantily dressed. I'm guessing most of the gay men were white. Does that count as taking things from white people? :D http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?567325-Kamala-Harris-gives-AKA-convention-speech-days-after-sorors-got-hundreds-of-gays-evicted-from
    2440 replies | 186961 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 03:25 PM
    You can't make this stuff up! So the same time that the Biden administration is trying to force hospitals to provide so called "gender affirming care" to minors, his VP is attending an even for an organization that pushed a hotel to discriminate against gays? It's wrong for DeSantis to pass a law saying children can't be at drag or trans strip shows but gay men can get kicked out of a hotel because of how they're dressed? Imagine if a Republican or Christian group did this, let alone of one of the most prominent Republican politicians came to speak to the group days later? https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-gives-aka-convention-130952632.html?guccounter=1 Kamala Harris gives AKA convention speech days after sorors got hundreds of gays evicted from Dallas hotel Christopher Wiggins Thu, July 11, 2024 at 8:09 AM CDT·3 min read Kamala Harris gives powerful speech at AKA convention days after sorors complaints got hundreds of gays evicted from Dallas hotel Kamala Harris gives powerful speech at AKA convention days after sorors complaints got hundreds of gays evicted from Dallas hotel On Wednesday morning, Vice President Kamala Harris delivered a powerful and resolute speech in Texas at the Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority’s 75th Boulé.
    2 replies | 184 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 01:52 PM
    I think the qualities he's looking for go like this: Someone who is loyal to ME and will do what I say Someone who could do the job of President, but nobody wants as President Someone who can ward off the threat of Michelle Obama joining the race I don't know that there's anyone who fits all 3 criteria. Maybe Byron Donalds??
    187 replies | 10463 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 09:33 AM
    She can read well from a teleprompter. There won't be a debate (that's the whole point of this Biden farce, so she won't have to be scrutinized). And the media will paint (as they already have) a glowing picture of her charisma. Again, she doesn't have to "win" - she just needs to be plausible. The deep state will take care of the rest. Remember, they stole the last election when Trump was in charge of the Executive machine. Now, the Obama acolytes are in charge - and they don't want to risk their power going to some other appointees. Things will look MUCH different in October.
    222 replies | 7055 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 08:56 AM
    That's interesting. Memphis' problems sound a lot like Birmingham. And Birmingham attempted to have a Metropolitan government like Nashville but it failed by 1 vote.
    1 replies | 78 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 07:15 AM
    I do love watching the younguns trying to make change. :D If you really want to throw them off, (and get yourself some extra money) try giving them an extra few cents to round up after they've already rung up the items.
    10 replies | 304 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 07:05 AM
    Swordsmyth, even Trump's team acknowledged that the core powers doctrine didn't protect him from impeachment! Their argument was that he couldn't be held liable for official acts unless he was first impeached! From the opinion. Trump asserts a far broader immunity than the limited one we have recognized. He contends that the indictment must be dismissed because the Impeachment Judgment Clause requires that impeachment and Senate conviction precede a President’s criminal prosecution. Brief for Petitioner 16. The text of the Clause provides little support for such an absolute immunity. It states that an impeachment judgment “shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States.” Art. I, §3, cl. 7. It then specifies that “the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The Clause both limits the consequences of an impeachment judgment and clarifies that notwithstanding such judgment, subsequent prosecution may proceed. By its own terms, the Clause does not address whether and on what conduct a President may be prosecuted if he was never impeached and convicted. Historical evidence likewise lends little support to Trump’s position. For example, Justice Story reasoned that without the Clause’s clarification that “Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment” may nevertheless follow Senate conviction, “it might be matter of extreme doubt, whether . . . a second trial for the same offence could be had, either after an acquittal, or a conviction in the court of impeachments.” 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §780, p. 251 (1833). James Wilson, who served on the Committee that drafted the Clause and later as a Justice of this Court, similarly concluded that acquittal of impeachment charges posed no bar to subsequent prosecution. See 2 Documentary History of the Ratification of the Constitution 492 (M. Jensen ed. 1979). And contrary to Trump’s contention, Alexander Hamilton did not disagree. The Federalist Papers on which Trump relies, see Brief for Petitioner 17–18, concerned the checks available against a sitting President. Hamilton noted that unlike “the King of Great-Britain,” the President “would be liable to be impeached” and “removed from office,” and “would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment.” The Federalist No. 69, at 463; see also id., No. 77, at 520 (explaining that the President is “at all times liable to impeachment, trial, dismission from office . . . and to the forfeiture of life and estate by subsequent prosecution”). Hamilton did not endorse or even consider whether the Impeachment Judgment Clause immunizes a former President from prosecution. The implication of Trump’s theory is that a President who evades impeachment for one reason or another during his term in office can never be held accountable for his criminal acts in the ordinary course of law. So if a President manages to conceal certain crimes throughout his Presidency, or if Congress is unable to muster the political will to impeach the President for his crimes, then they must forever remain impervious to prosecution. Impeachment is a political process by which Congress can remove a President who has committed “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Art. II, §4. Transforming that political process into a necessary step in the enforcement of criminal law finds little support in the text of the Constitution or the structure of our Government.
    148 replies | 4242 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 06:20 AM
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 06:17 AM
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 06:16 AM
    Need to add the US to that list. Our Intel agencies have done all 3 of those things here, too. Pic tax:
    71727 replies | 1804454 view(s)
  • CaptUSA's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 06:01 AM
    Yeah, and if you believe that, you'll probably believe the other line that Biden won't be dropping out. Her portrayed reluctancy is just one more ploy to gain a couple of poll points.
    222 replies | 7055 view(s)
  • jmdrake's Avatar
    07-11-2024, 05:36 AM
    SCOTUS said it had no authority to question the constitutionality of the Senates impeachment decision. No authority to question constitutionality means no authority to question constitutionality. All of this shows your glaring contempt for the separation of powers. The only reason that its okay to give the executive branch immunity for prosecution in the judicial branch is that the legislative branch has full sole authority on impeachment. If there had been the political will to impeach President Obama for the killing of American Citizen Anwar Al Awlaki or for spying on the trump campaign that would have been a good thing. But there wasn't the political will to do that.
    148 replies | 4242 view(s)
More Activity

49 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    Please stop trying to "out" Erowe1. Let it go.
  2. I know. Like I said I was going to yank your chain but realized that in the current circumstances it would be bad taste even for me.
  3. View Conversation
    At least until every county or so willingly decided to submit to Christ, which I think will happen eventually because I'm a postmillennialist.
  4. View Conversation
    I wish things were a lot more local too. I'm really not looking for a country of 300 million at all. I think that's too big. Those who didn't want to live by Christian law could live somewhere else and choose God's judgment over his blessings.
  5. View Conversation
    And while I do believe the BIble requires civil authorities to punish homosexuality, and with death as the maximum penalty, I don't think it would be legitimate even for the government to just round up people in a gay bar.

    My reasons on the bearing arms bit are much closer to yours (resistance against tyranny.)
  6. View Conversation
    To be perfectly clear, I absolutely oppose vigilantism. I know you were joking around but I just want you to be clear on where I stand.
  7. View Conversation
    Will you kindly give a tongue lashing to the racist of the board, AmericanSpartan? Thank you. I'd like to see it.
  8. Sorry, but you have failed. That verse does not contain the words "Grace is irresistible." You can interpret it that way, but that's not what the verse says. You had to admit there was "relational language" in the Bible. Yet you have stuck to your guns that there isn't a verse that says "Have a relationship with Jesus." Likewise there is no verse that says "Grace is irresistible." If you were honest you would simply admit that. But you aren't honest.
  9. View Conversation
    Acts 13:48
    And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 49
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
About jmdrake

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Select if you "Stand with Rand":
I Stand with Rand (This will add a "Stand with Rand" badge by your name badge by yourr name in all posts.)
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Signature


9/11 Thermate experiments

Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
49,426
Posts Per Day
7.91
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
49
Most Recent Message
11-05-2016 03:40 PM
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 04:00 PM
Join Date
06-06-2007
Referrals
5

41 Friends

  1. affa affa is offline

    Member

    affa
  2. billjston4 billjston4 is offline

    New Member

    billjston4
  3. bobbyw24 bobbyw24 is offline

    Banned

    bobbyw24
  4. bv3 bv3 is offline

    Member

    bv3
  5. Cap Cap is offline

    Member

    Cap
  6. Captain Shays Captain Shays is offline

    Member

    Captain Shays
  7. CaptUSA CaptUSA is offline

    Member

    CaptUSA
  8. Christian Liberty
  9. cjm cjm is offline

    Member

    cjm
  10. Crowish Crowish is offline

    Member

    Crowish
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 41
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
View jmdrake's Blog

Recent Entries

How Ron Paul could smack down Iran critics

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:34 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
Ron needs to quit playing defense and go on offense. It's not enough to say "the Soviet Union was worse than Iran." If he could point out the following documented facts it would shut the naysayer up for good or at least make them back-peddle.

1) In 2003 Iran was the only Muslim country to help us fight and remove the Taliban from power.

See: Jane's Defense Weekly India joins anti-Taliban coalition. "India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

The new bill of rights.

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:33 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
This parody is an attempt to "rewrite" the bill of rights in keeping with the current application by our criminal government. Original text will be in italics followed by a list of possible options.


Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Federal Reserve advised gold standard for Russia

by jmdrake on 05-15-2013 at 08:32 AM
Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
I ran across this information by accident (providence?) while looking for something else. The first link is an essay from Jude Wanniski who went with fed governor Wayne Angell to Moscow right after the collapse of the soviet union. Note that Angell advocated the new Russia to go to a gold backed currency! The second link is an online Google book from the Mises institute that talks about the same essay. I've excerpted the essay bellow. (It's too long to post directly). It's interesting to note

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized

Washington Post 2002 : The U.S. pushed jihad on Afghan schoolchildren.

by jmdrake on 09-13-2011 at 01:15 PM
Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
From U.S., the ABC's of Jihad
Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts


By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01

In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.

Read More

Categories
Uncategorized
Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

07-11-2024


07-09-2024


07-07-2024


06-22-2024


05-29-2024


05-27-2024


05-22-2024


05-16-2024


05-14-2024


05-09-2024


05-03-2024


05-02-2024


05-01-2024


04-22-2024


04-16-2024


12-12-2023


08-29-2023



Page 1 of 12 12311 ... LastLast

11-17-2017


Page 1 of 439 1231151101 ... LastLast

07-13-2024


07-12-2024


07-11-2024


07-10-2024



Page 1 of 439 1231151101 ... LastLast