July 7th, 2012
Well, if Obama's not the first Black President, then how can the Tea Party be racist, Morgan? You can't have it both ways; well, unless you live in La-La land most of the time, one should surmise.
You see, ten months earlier Morgan made big news by smearing the Tea Party as racist and even stating that racism was much worse under Obama than it was before. So, what exactly, has changed in the last ten months?
Has Obama pulled a Michael Jackson and started dying his skin a paler shade?
Here is the quote from Freeman according to the Politico:
During an interview that airs Friday, CNN’s Piers Morgan asked the actor, "Has Obama helped the process of eradicating racism or has it, in a strange way, made it worse?”
“Made it worse. Made it worse,” the actor replied.
So, is it somehow lodged within the inconvenient truth that Obama's policies have failed, and miserably, so much so that Obama is now White? Interesting, it is, how the rats always tend to leave the ship first, is it not?
Below is the story from MSN:
Morgan Freeman has one of the best, most recognizable voices in Hollywood. The words that come out of his mouth always sound amazing — even if what he says is totally from another planet. In an interview with NPR, Freeman expressed his opinion about Barack Obama's heritage, saying that he's not black enough to be America's first black president.
"Barack had a mama and she was white, very white American, Kansas, middle of America," Freeman said. He later added, "America's first black president hasn't arisen yet ... [Obama] is America's first mixed-race president." Freeman also criticized the Republican Party for "purposely [thwarting]" Obama. Morgan, how 'bout sticking to words that other people write for you?
Here, at Conservative Refocus, it's elementary; the simple fact is that "red or yellow, black or white," he's a Marxist in our site.
This is what motivates the Tea Party, who incidentally, loved Herman Cain, and still do, despite the fact that the Obama machine and the media took Cain down like a soggy pinata'.
By the way, Morgan, how did that marriage thing go with your 27 year-old grandaughter, anyway?
June 29th, 2012
Now we are beginning to see exactly where the right to kill the unborn can lead; in the below story from the AP, a couple actually sue because of the doctor's failure to detect disease in the womb, and their alleged inability to abort the fetus absent of this knowledge.
The simple fact is, there are so many diseases that can afflict the unborn, it is virtually impossible to predict with any certainty whether a child will or won't eventually develop some malady.
But to lay this predisposition at the feet of a doctor and then sue the Doctor for the childs living birth?
Do the parents not understand that, if the guilt can be construed to lie with a doctor for failure to detect, then the parents themselves must also be guilty for passing the genetic predisposition along to their infant? In fact, if any guilt actually lay with the doctors, then perhaps a lawyer should come forward to represent the child for the tort of its parents having perpetrated the crime of mating with a knowable predisposition for passing along this genetic malady.
However, once the child reaches his or her formative years, how might he or she feel about the parents having actually sued for their usurped right to have killed the child in the womb in the first place?
That scenario might make for some very interesting birthday situations, to say the least, especially if the child was also born with a genetic predispostion towards sarcasm.
However, I personally know several people, one in particular, who have Cystic Fibrosis and can easily be counted as God's gift to us all and to his little ones.
Below is the story; God help us all:
AP) A District Court judge in Gallatin County says a Montana couple who say they would have terminated a pregnancy if they had known their daughter would be born with cystic fibrosis can move forward with their lawsuit against their health care providers.
The Bozeman Daily Chronicle reported District Judge Mike Salvagni ruled that Kerrie and Joe Evans’ claims should be heard in court.
The couple claims their medical providers failed to conduct genetic testing to determine if their child would have cystic fibrosis when they tested for other chromosomal abnormalities.
The lawsuit, filed in October, seeks damages for emotional distress and medical costs.
The defendants had asked Salvagni to dismiss the case.
In denying the dismissal, Salvagni said the case was about Kerrie Evans’ lost right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.
More From Barry Secrest
June 29th, 2012
By Barry Secrest
So, the Obama administration thinks it has locked out Arizona from being able to identify illegals after decoupling itself from Arizona's 287 (g) programs?
Oh, ye of smallish bureaucratic minds.
It would probably be less than undifficult for the state law enforcement officers to set up under-the-radar programs with neighboring states, which will stealthily utilize their 287 (g) portals into the Federal bureaucratic system, which will allow the Arizona officers to continue their work in identifying those who don't belong.
Not only that, they might also be able to utilize these "friendly states" to draw off the illegals that Obama has refused to deal with in Arizona.
You see, the issue is simply the fact that Arizona's border, for numerous reasons, is a magnet for illegals looking to "cross-over." So, it would stand to reason that these neighboring states of Arizona's, and numerous others, might truly be interested in helping Arizona staunch the flow, so to speak, that will eventually only end up within these other state borders anyway.
Not to mention even those Red States, which diametrically oppose everything that the White House has perpetrated to date; do you think they might actually toss Arizona to the wolves?
You see, there are numerous, empathetic law enforcement offices dotting the landscape, profusely in the southwest US, if not in many other places. Not to mention the fact that human ingenuity always finds a way around ridiculous bureaucracy, and Sheriff Joe is what we can easily tout as being existentially adored across Obama's contiguous 58 states.
So, while El Magnifico and his borderless disciples might think they have found an original way around the checks and balances of an equal branch of government, being the Supreme Court, their disingenuous elation is premature, at best.
But what if the Feds find out and decide to take action against these neighboring states for aiding and abetting the Constitutional enforcement of US law?
Those states might literally say, "Go ahead, make our day."
Regardless of all, Obama's move after the SCOTUS decision will probably ring the final departing bell of a completely out of control administration that simply can't even buy a win in November, especially after all of this.