Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Mornac

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 53
In The News / Re: Senate Dems kill Born alive infant act
« on: February 26, 2019, 03:49:37 PM »
The issue is already covered by the 14 Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Anyone who kills (or pays someone else to kill) a person born in this country is guilty of murdering a U.S citizen who, of course, is guaranteed equal protection under the law.

The Trump Administration / Re: Making America great again
« on: February 22, 2019, 11:29:57 PM »
BREAKING: Trump admin cuts $60 million from Planned Parenthood

Calvin Freiburger
Feb 22, 2019

WASHINGTON, D.C., February 22, 2019 – The Trump administration’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released its final rule changing funding regulations under the Title X family planning program, a long-awaited action expected to reduce Planned Parenthood’s federal tax subsidies by almost $60 million.

President Donald Trump announced the move last May, which will require facilities providing Title X services to be physically separate from those that commit or refer for abortions. Under the previous rules, Title X services and abortions could “co-locate” in the same center, as long as the abortions were privately funded. Now, the money will be redirected to Women's Qualified Health Centers that are not involved in abortions, which dramatically outnumber Planned Parenthood locations across the United States.

According to an HHS press release and fact sheet released Friday, the finalized language requires “clear financial and physical separation between Title X funded projects and programs or facilities where abortion is a method of family planning,” bans “referral for abortion as a method of family planning,” eliminates a “requirement that Title X providers offer abortion counseling and referral,” and requires “more complete reporting by grantees about subrecipients and more clarity about informal partnerships with referral agencies.”

“The final rule amends the Title X regulation, which had not been substantially updated in nearly two decades, and makes notable improvements designed to increase the number of patients served and improve the quality of their care,” the department’s press release says. “The Department received and carefully reviewed more than 500,000 comments, and made certain changes to the final rule as a result of its consideration of the comments.”

“We thank President Trump for taking decisive action to disentangle taxpayers from the big abortion industry led by Planned Parenthood,” Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser responded. “The Protect Life Rule does not cut family planning funding by a single dime, and instead directs tax dollars to entities that provide healthcare to women but do not perform abortions. The Title X program was not intended to be a slush fund for abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood, which violently ends the lives of more than 332,000 unborn babies a year and receives almost $60 million a year in Title X taxpayer dollars.”

While the rule change comes as welcome news to pro-lifers, Planned Parenthood remains far from defunded. The abortion giant is still expected to take in more than $500 million in tax dollars next year, based on its latest annual report. Its $563.8 million in funding for the most recent fiscal year was actually a $20.1 million increase over the previous year, despite the Trump administration reinstating and expanding the ban on foreign aid money to abortion groups.

The former GOP majority’s failure to defund Planned Parenthood during the president’s first two years remains a source of frustration among pro-lifers, particularly now that the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives can block defunding legislation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused House pro-lifers’ calls to reconsider Senate filibuster rules to pass pro-life bills, and National Review reports that former House Speaker Paul Ryan downplayed defunding Planned Parenthood during budget negotiations.

For the next two years, the pro-life agenda in the federal government is largely focused on confirming hopefully-pro-life judges in the Senate, introducing legislation that cannot pass but can put pro-abortion politicians on the record, and whatever administrative actions the executive branch can take to regulate and investigate the abortion industry.


To encourage stopping the killings of people in dark places of the world just because they're gay? If that doesn't qualify for public funding -- I don't know what does.
--The only things that qualify for public funding are those things outlined in the Constitution that require public funding. Encouraging t stopping the killings of people in dark places of the world just because they're gay is not one of these. 

Our nation has always stood against human rights abuses
--Our country allowed for the legal ownership of slaves until the mid-nineteenth century.

- we even went to war over them in WWII to stop the killings of Jews. The amount of money it took to fund the WWII troops -- the sacrifices made by those who remained at home -- and the ultimate sacrifices made by those who fought and didn't return --  that's what made America great.
--WWII was not engaged "to stop the killing of Jews". In fact the allies had no idea what was going on in Nazi concentration camps until they stumbled upon them in liberated territory.

To say we no longer need to support stopping human rights abuses is not in line with the nation we once were -- the nation we can be again.
--I would never say that we no longer need to support stopping human rights abuses. I'm all for it. It's simply not something that our Constitution allows the government to do unless it pertains to our own citizens.

Killing people because they're gay, whipping them until the skin flays from bodies, or cutting their noses off (because they're different), is a violation of everything we hold dear.
--I couldn't agree more. That's why we don't don't allow for those things here.

Of course we should step up to the plate and fund a program that stops the degenerates that would take part in this sort of evil.
--If by "we" you mean private citizens who agree with that sentiment, I'm all for it. However, the government has no authority to do the same.

Grenell's opinion is backed by the opinions of all Americans.
--Most Americans, probably. All Americans - not a chance. I take it you've heard of the Westboro Baptist Church?

Or, of the vast majority of Americans at any rate.
--Without a doubt.

This isn't the Dark Ages anymore -- we have no moral high ground if we do not oppose such atrocities.
--We can oppose it through our Churches and secular institutions. Even if it were Constitutional, the government would be the worst thing to rely on for action.

The Media / Fake News Update
« on: February 20, 2019, 11:22:48 PM »
‘Go get them Nick’: Trump backs Sandmann’s $250 million lawsuit against Washington Post

Feb 20, 2019
Calvin Freiburger

President Donald Trump has offered his moral support to Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic High School junior suing the Washington Post for its role in the false narrative that he and his classmates harassed an elderly Native American at the March for Life.

“‘The Washington Post ignored basic journalistic standards because it wanted to advance its well-known and easily documented biased agenda against President Donald J. Trump,’” the president Tweeted Wednesday morning. “Covington student suing WAPO. Go get them Nick. Fake News!”

Following the March, the press erupted with claims that a video showed Sandmann and his classmates harassing Nathan Phillips outside the Lincoln Memorial. But additional extended video and firsthand accounts soon revealed that Phillips was the one who waded into the group waiting for its bus and decided to beat a drum inches from Sandmann’s face while members of the Black Hebrew Israelites fringe group shouted racial taunts at the kids.

Last week, an independent investigation commissioned by the Diocese of Covington (which had initially condemned the boys) cleared them of wrongdoing, confirming the students’ explanation that they had been performing chants to drown out the Black Hebrew Israelites, and did not respond to their abuse in kind.

Many who ran with the original narrative just as quickly deleted their initial condemnations, but as some try to keep it alive, attorneys representing the students have threatened to sue numerous media figures and Phillips himself for defamation. Yesterday, attorneys representing Sandmann announced a $250 million defamation suit against the Washington Post.

“The Post rushed to lead the mainstream media to assassinate Nicholas’ character and bully him,” they argued, fanning the “flames of the social media mob into a mainstream media frenzy of false attacks and threats against Nicholas.” Sandmann “suffered substantial reputational and emotional harm,” they continued, because the left-wing newspaper saw him as “an acceptable casualty in their war against the President.”

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has expressed solidarity with the Covington students. Trump, who famously has his own adversarial relationship with the mainstream media, also tweeted a more general jab at the media Wednesday morning.

“The Press has never been more dishonest than it is today. Stories are written that have absolutely no basis in fact,” he said. “The writers don’t even call asking for verification. They are totally out of control. Sadly, I kept many of them in business. In six years, they all go BUST!”


General Discussion / Re: An appeal
« on: February 19, 2019, 12:12:40 AM »
You wing nuts killed it with your unrelenting crazy outrageous bullshit.  You were warned, so it shouldn’t be a huge surprise.
--No surprise here, believe me. I've learned from years of experience that if you confront a liberal with reason, he will invariably finish by running for the hills. You need only look around you to see the results.

General Discussion / Re: An appeal
« on: February 18, 2019, 02:48:03 PM »
I do believe this forum has died a natural death.
It has exposed the ugly truth about the extreme
left wing agenda that normal average people reject.
--It hasn't died. It's just going through a cyclical slump. If Trump were to loose the next election to a democrat, they'd all come swarming back here like flyboys to shit. I fully expect to see a resurgence for one reason or another.

General Discussion / An appeal
« on: February 17, 2019, 11:53:30 PM »
Some of you here from time to time mention other forums you visit. I wonder if you'd mind givin' me a link to some of those places. Don't get me wrong. I'm not lookin' to get out of here. This place is pretty much my home base at this point. It's just that I have so much common ground with those left here that I can't get the mental stimulation I crave. There must be a forum with some sane liberals on it that are capable of carrying on a conversation without havin' a meltdown. I promise that if you just give me a link I'll keep it entirely confidential. No one will have to know that you let me in.

Thank you.

Can we have a sane liberal only subforum, free from right wing cult garbage?
--I'd have no objection - as long as the liberals came out of their self-imposed segregation from time to time to engage the others here. Your biggest problem at the moment is that there are next to no liberals left here, having all fled since the last presidential election. I find that peculiar. I for one would like them all to come out of hiding. They have nothing to fear from me (unless they have a problem with reason).

You would need to block the morons. If you want to block me from their garbage I have no problem. In fact I have them all on ignore.

Thank you.
--A first rate example of liberal tolerance and diversity.

Thank you, BaGua.

After El Chapo conviction, use seized $14 BILLION to build border wall?

FEBRUARY 12, 2019

Could El Chapo’s seized drug money be used to build the border wall?

That’s one of the questions many are asking on Tuesday following news of the former drug kingpin being found guilty on all counts.

Mexico’s most notorious drug kingpin, Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, will spend the rest of his life in prison after a jury found him guilty on all 10 counts following a three month trial.

According to Breitbart, the United States has seized $14 billion from the former drug lord, which gave Sen. Ted Cruz a brilliant idea.

The Texas Republican introduced the Ensuring Lawful Collection of Hidden Assets to Provide Order (EL CHAPO) Act in April 2017, which calls for the use of the $14 billion seized from the cartel drug lord to be used to pay for the wall.

“Fourteen billion dollars will go a long way toward building a wall that will keep Americans safe and hinder the illegal flow of drugs, weapons, and individuals across our southern border,” Cruz said in a statement.

“Ensuring the safety and security of Texans is one of my top priorities,” he added.

Cruz said using criminally forfeited assets from El Chapo and other Mexican cartel members and drug dealers can “offset the wall’s cost and make meaningful progress toward achieving President Trump’s stated border security objectives.”

“The U.S. Government is currently seeking the criminal forfeiture of more than $14 billion in drug proceeds and illicit profits from El Chapo, the former leader of the Sinaloa drug cartel who was recently extradited to the U.S. to face criminal prosecution for numerous alleged drug-related crimes, including conspiracy to commit murder and money laundering,” Cruz added.

Wisconsin Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner proposed similar legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives, which would use money seized from drug cartels to fund a border wall.

“This is a way to fulfill the president’s desire to have Mexico pay for the wall,” Sensenbrenner, a member of the Judiciary Committee, told the Washington Examiner. “Having the money seized from Mexican drug cartels would mean that the bad Mexicans would end up paying for the wall, and the bad Mexicans have been terrorizing the good Mexicans with crime and kidnappings and murders within Mexico itself.”…

“The [Drug Enforcement Agency] has estimated that the gross receipts of the Mexican drug trade or somewhere between $19-$29 billion a year,” he said. “We don’t have to be 100 percent efficient to get the the money we need to completely pay for the wall relatively quickly.”

El Chapo’s $14 billion would fund well over half of the proposed wall along the southern border between the U.S. and Mexico.



--Ya mean he was growin' the GNP by being investigated??!? The guy's more talented than I've given him credit for. This really belongs in the Trump prosperity update thread.

Politics / Occasional-Cortex hands Donald Trump a second term
« on: February 12, 2019, 12:23:03 AM »
What the Dems need is more wigged-out millennial twits. They're giving hope for the future of the country:

Pat Buchanan says AOC's plan 'reads like it was written by the college socialists club'


After reading an especially radical platform agreed upon by the British Labor Party, one Tory wag described it as “the longest suicide note in history.”

The phrase comes to mind on reading of the resolution calling for a Green New Deal, advanced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and endorsed by at least five of the major Democratic candidates for president.

The Green New Deal is designed to recall the halcyon days of the 1930s, when, so the story goes, FDR came to Washington to enact the historic reforms that rescued America from the Great Depression.

Only that story is more than a small myth.

The unemployment rate when FDR took the oath in 1933 was 25 percent. It never fell below 14 percent through the 1930s. In June 1938, despite huge Democratic majorities in Congress, FDR was presiding over a nation where unemployment was back up to 19 percent.

World War II and the conscription of 16 million young men gave us “full employment.” And the war’s end and demobilization saw the return of real prosperity in 1946, after FDR was dead.

Yet this Green New Deal is nothing if not ambitious.

To cope with climate change, the GND calls for a 10-year plan to meet “100 percent of the power demand of the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”

This appears to require a phase-out by 2030 of all carbon-emitting power plants fueled by coal and oil and their replacement by power plants fueled by wind and solar.

Will natural gas be permitted? Will nuclear power? There are 60 commercially operating nuclear power plants with 98 nuclear reactors in 30 states. Will they be shut down? Will the greens agree to dam up more U.S. rivers to produce renewable hydroelectric power?

Air travel consumes huge quantities of carbon-producing jet fuel. What will replace it? Perhaps progressive Democratic candidates will set an example by not flying, and then by voting to end production of private aircraft and to ground all corporate jets. Let the elites sail to Davos.

The GND calls for an overhaul of the “transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transport sector … through … clean, affordable and accessible public transportation; and high-speed rail.”

Gas-powered cars are out. How long will that train trip from D.C. to L.A. take? And if China continues its relentless rise in carbon emissions until 2030, as permitted by the Paris climate accord, while the U.S. spends itself into bankruptcy going green, where would that leave America and China at midcentury?

“By the end of the Green New Deal resolution (and accompanying fact sheet) I was laughing so hard I nearly cried,” tweeted the Wall Street Journal’s Kimberley Strassel: “If a bunch of GOPers plotted to forge a fake Democratic bill showing how bonkers the party is, they could not have done a better job. It is beautiful.”

The Green New Deal, say its authors, has as a goal “stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, the elderly, the unhoused, peoples with disabilities, and youth.”

Fifty years after the Great Society, apparently half the country consists of victims of oppression.

Who are their oppressors? Guess.

Among the endorsers of this Green New Deal is Sen. Cory Booker, who compares the battle to stop climate change to fighting the Nazis in World War II. Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren have all endorsed it. Sen. Bernie Sanders, who calls climate change “an existential threat,” was an original co-sponsor.

Nancy Pelosi has more sense. Interviewed last week, the speaker batted the Green New Deal aside: “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”

With her own agenda and priorities, Pelosi does not want to be dragged into having to defend a document that reads like it was written by the college socialists club.

The question, though, is why Democrats, who, if nominated, are likely to face Donald Trump in 2020, are signing on to so radical a scheme.

In a presidential election, the “out” party candidate usually has an advantage. No record to defend. He or she can choose the terrain on which to attack the incumbent, who has a four-year record.

Rarely does an out party present a fixed and stationary target as exposed as this, as out-of the-mainstream as this, as vulnerable as this.

The only explanation for the endorsement of the Green New Deal by candidates with a prospect of winning the Democratic nomination is that they are so fearful of Ocasio-Cortez and the left for whom she speaks that they must endorse her plan.

That British Tory got it right. This thing reads like a Democratic Party suicide pact.


The Trump Administration / Re: President Trump's accomplishments
« on: February 10, 2019, 11:26:40 PM »
Christians Bet on Trump and Won
He has vindicated their support.


In 2016, critics of Trump warned his Christians supporters that as president he would revert to his secularist New York roots. He hasn’t. The confidence the religious right placed in him has been largely vindicated. He has turned out to be the most reliable defender of religious freedom since Ronald Reagan.

Barack Obama had spent his presidency marginalizing Christians in his quest to “fundamentally transform” the country. Had Hillary won, she would have intensified that assault. Trump has given Christians some breathing room in the culture war, as evident in his remarks during last week’s National Prayer Breakfast. He made a point of defending the Vice President’s wife, Karen Pence, who has been attacked for simply teaching at a Christian school blacklisted by the LGBT movement.

Trump also spoke strongly in defense of the pro-life movement. “All children, born and unborn, are made in the holy image of God. Every life is sacred and every soul is a precious gift from heaven,” he said. “I will never let you down. I can say that. Never.” The frequency with which Trump speaks on abortion has rankled the media, which had hoped he would go soft on the issue like other moderate-leaning Republicans. Instead, Trump speaks about it directly and without apology. He devoted an important passage of his State of the Union address to the subject: “Lawmakers in New York cheered with delight upon the passage of legislation that would allow a baby to be ripped from the mother’s womb moments before birth. These are living, feeling, beautiful babies who will never get the chance to share their love and dreams with the world.”

Trump shows far more reverence for the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian culture than those who have cast him as the callous, amoral plutocrat. His common sense and patriotism lead him to show a respect for America’s theistic traditions and he recognizes that America’s decline is tied to straying from them. He speaks about God in an uncomplicated manner, with far less hedging than modern churchmen. To Trump, it is obvious that rights come not from government but from God. The whole secularist project, consequently, makes no sense to him and he has no qualms about letting Christians live on their own terms without government harassment.

Obama imposed a contraceptive mandate on Christians; Trump has lifted it. One of his finer moments was inviting the Little Sisters of the Poor to the Rose Garden to assure them that their “long ordeal was over.” Only the Obama administration could have been secularist enough to get into a lawsuit with the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Under Obama, the Justice Department and Health and Human Services routinely harassed the religious. Now those agencies have adopted specific policies to protect them. “The sun is shining right now in America when it comes to our First Amendment freedoms,” Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council has said.

The State Department has also undergone a major transformation. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton had brought in the NARAL crowd to push abortion rights around the world. Now social conservatives like Sam Brownback work there. Yet the media still pretends not to understand why the religious right supports Trump. Articles continue to pour forth about the impropriety of the alliance. But it reflects the prudence of conservative Christians, who see in Trump an obvious protector. Since when has imprudence been a virtue? Why are Christians obligated to surrender to the other side? They shrewdly placed their bet on Trump and won. Had they placed it elsewhere, they would be in Hillary’s crosshairs at the moment.

Many Republicans, supposedly far more “respectable” than Trump, turned out to be unreliable defenders of the religious right and would often subject Christians to lectures about “adjusting to the times.” Trump has refrained from that kind of brow-beating. He doesn’t join the PC mob in calling them “intolerant.”

His most enduring contribution to the defense of religious freedom is likely to come in the form of an improved judiciary, upon which he has placed a significant number of originalists. This last week on the Supreme Court we saw a Bush appointee, John Roberts, vote to block a pro-life Louisiana law while Trump’s appointees, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, voted to let it go forward — a reminder of why the religious right lost any confidence in the establishment GOP and was willing to give Trump a chance.

The secularist forces continue to gather strength around the country, but Trump has undeniably bought Christians some time. They needed a Constantine and he emerged as one.


Politics / Re: Mueller is a coward and liar
« on: February 09, 2019, 01:45:57 PM »
Yes, I do.

--Wow. Can you do me a favor and tell him I'm trying to defend his reputation here and I'd appreciate it if he just stopped by, logged into his old account (it's still active in the memberlist), and just said 'hello' to everyone, thereby exposing the fraud for what he is. Shouldn't take more than five minutes of his time and I think he owes me that much.

Politics / How a Democrat games the system
« on: February 07, 2019, 01:11:51 AM »
2020 hopeful wrote 'American Indian' on Texas Bar application

Feb. 6, 2019

Considered a front-runner for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination, U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has deflected the controversy over her claim to be Native American by declaring she never used the identity for professional advantage.

But in an application to the Texas Bar in 1986 she wrote in her own hand that her “race” was “American Indian.”

That appears to conflict with Warren’s declaration in an address to the National Congress of American Indians one year ago:  “I never used my family tree to get a break or get ahead. I never used it to advance my career.”

The latest revelation means Warren cannot beat President Trump in 2020 and should drop out, contends Boston Globe associate editor and editorial board member Joan Vennocchi.

“When you’re calling out a president as racist, you can’t make excuses for one of your own,” she wrote Wednesday.

The revelation of the Texas Bar application was buried in the eighth paragraph of a Washington Post story, pointed out Powerline blogger Steven Hayward.

“This ought to finish Warren, but probably won’t,” Hayward wrote. “The next step ought to be a release of Harvard Law School’s records to see whether they relied on representations from Warren about her bogus native American heritage in her personnel file, and counted her as such for ‘diversity’ purposes.”

Already, it’s known that in 1996, the Harvard Crimson campus paper described Warren as a woman of color and Native American. And in 1998, Harvard touted her as a Native American, the only minority tenured woman on its faculty.

But Warren recently released the results of a DNA test that showed she may be as little as 1/1,024th Native American and overwhelmingly of European descent. In any case, experts have pointed out that there is no DNA test for being Native American, because culture and identity are the key factors.

Last week, she apologized to the chief of the Cherokee Nation and told the Post she’s sorry for “furthering confusion.”

“I can’t go back,” she told the paper. “But I am sorry for furthering confusion on tribal sovereignty and tribal citizenship and harm that resulted.”

The DNA test indicated she might have had some Native American blood six to 10 generations back, as do many Americans. But she has claimed her parents had to elope because her father’s racist parents rejected their son’s Cherokee girlfriend. And she said her grandfather’s high cheekbones were evidence of Native American descent.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 53