Tag Archives: Morning Joe

SAY WHAT? Pro-Choice Obama Makes Women Feel ‘Unsafe’

Fear-of-the-Dark-and-insomnia-300x180Originally posted at Clash Daily

Women – a key Obama voting bloc – in a stunning admission are now saying that the man they elected mainly because of his assurance that if they wanted to they could kill their unborn babies, makes them feel “unsafe.”

On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, journalist Tina Brown discussed with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski the president’s declining poll numbers, his enormous ego, and how, when it comes to Obama, women are now feeling insecure.

“I think [women are] feeling unsafe,” Brown said, “They feel unsafe economically. They’re feeling unsafe with regard to ISIS. What they feel unsafe about is the government response to different crises.”

Sorry to have to break it to the women of America, but when you elect a president whose claim to fame includes putting his approbation on partial-birth abortion and denying medical care to infants born alive in botched abortions – no one is truly safe.

Lest we forget, this is the man who told Jane Sturm that her 105-year-old mother, because of her advanced age and despite her zest for life, would be denied bypass surgery and given a pill.

Now here we are, six years after the Hope and Change Express pulled into the station, and lo and behold, women who wanted to be assured unfettered access to abortion are realizing that the guy who promised them that right is personally responsible for the deaths of children whose mothers wanted their children to live.

Little did American women know when they clamored for free contraceptives and government-funded feticide that Obama’s ideological quest to ”fundamentally transform the United States of America” would include killing dearly-loved children with deadly Third World diseases like Enterovirus 68, Ebola hemorrhagic fever, leprosy, MDR-TB and God knows what else.

But then again, when killing is essentially the motivating factor in voting for someone, it usually doesn’t take long for those who thought they’d be spared the horrific fate 3,000 unborn babies endure each day to find out that everyone’s life, born and unborn alike, has very little value to the man currently exercising his right to choose on a whole nation.

Want to talk “unsafe”? How about Obama’s blatant unwillingness, despite the public outcry, to ease up on the national makeover, which continues to expose 300 million people to everything from the potential to be publicly beheaded to the prospect of bleeding out of every orifice of a virus-riddled body?

Said Tina:

I think they’re beginning to feel a bit that Obama’s like that guy in the corner office, you know, who’s too cool for school, calls a meeting, says this has to change, doesn’t put anything in place to make sure it does change, then it goes wrong and he’s blaming everybody.
Unfortunately, it’s a little late for Ms. Brown and the large swathe of liberal women she speaks for to be figuring that one out.

Moreover, decrying Obama’s propensity to deflect blame is a strange sentiment coming from women who helped set the current tsunami of tragedy in motion – voting twice for the guy who was “too cool for school”, whose only real promise was to protect their right to kill their unborn children.

Nancy Pelosi’s ‘Baby Jesus’ Argument

indexOriginally posted at American Thinker blog

When she’s not out championing the right to kill the unborn, occasional devout Catholic Nancy Pelosi has become a spokesperson for unaccompanied babies and minors, and by extension, the rapists, killers, and robbers flooding unlawfully across the border from Mexico into the U.S.

Recently, in a guest appearance on MSNBC “Morning Joe,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) shared her spiritual love for the children by telling Joe Scarborough that when it comes to caring for all of the world’s children, no price is too high for America to pay.  Mrs. Pelosi shared her feeling that rather than view the thousands of waifs bringing disease, crime, and mayhem into our country, unaccompanied minors should be looked upon as “baby Jesus” who, as a refugee, fled Bethlehem to escape violence. Continue Reading →

Binder Bimbos or Benghazi?

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

A newly-formed band of Binder Bimbos is working diligently to convince America that Mitt Romney demeaned women during the second debate when he described how he, as governor of Massachusetts, went about balancing his male-dominated Cabinet with women.  Responding to a question on pay equity, Romney said, “I had the chance to pull together a Cabinet, and all the applicants seemed to be men. I went to a number of women’s groups and said, ‘Can you help us find folks?’ and they brought us whole binders full of women.”

Like salivating wolves waiting to pounce on prey, liberal women have spent lots of time lying in wait for Mitt Romney to utter anything at all that could be misconstrued to prove he’s a woman-hating troglodyte. Thus far, the best they’ve come up with is “binders.”

Erica Payne, progressive public policy expert, commentator, author, and founder of the Agenda Project, appeared on the Bill O’Reilly show where she stretched the Binder Bimbo idiocy so far that she likened Romney’s debate comment to an Arab sheikh flipping the pages of a binder looking for women to stock his harem. After she said it, even Erica looked a bit embarrassed for proposing such a ridiculous analogy.

Meanwhile, the Binder Bimbos are in full attack mode.  Yet oddly enough, they have not condemned the women’s groups who delivered the “binders full of women” to the Massachusetts governor. Worse yet, while out trawling for GOP offensive words and actions, these same women seem to have zero problems with Barack Obama calling the brutal slaughter of four Americans “not optimal.” But then again, these are the same soulless individuals who protest “binders full of women” and applaud bio-hazard bins full of aborted babies.

Barack Obama’s now infamous “not optimal” comment was made recently during a Jon Stewart interview.  Stewart posed a question that began, “I would say and even you would admit it was not the optimal response,” about the Obama administration’s muddled communication after the deadly attack in Benghazi, to which the president coldly retorted with what he no doubt thought was a clever twist on Jon’s use of the word “optimal” by saying, “If four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.”

Anyway, to Barack Obama’s detriment, his emotionless response has now married the carelessly thought-out words “not optimal” with dead Americans in much the same way Romney-hating women are now associating themselves with three-ring binders.

Yet, amid all the binder blather is a broken-hearted woman named Pat Smith who lost her son.  Pat is the mother of Sean Smith, one of four diplomats that included former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty and Ambassador Christopher Stevens, all of whom were killed during the raid on the consulate in Benghazi.

Mrs. Smith welcomed her son home in a coffin at Dover Air Force Base and continues to maintain that the truth about what really happened to her child is painfully slow in coming.

Speaking from her home in California, Mrs. Smith, 72, who actually has something more serious than binders to be upset about, described herself as being in “pure hell” since she lost Sean. Expounding upon Obama’s “not optimal” comment, Pat said “It was a disrespectful thing to say and I don’t think it’s right. How can you say somebody being killed is not very optimal? I don’t think the President has the right idea of the English language.”

Pat Smith may be too respectful to admit it, but Barack Obama lacks the right idea about a lot more than the English language. However, what Mrs. Smith did do was take the President to task by saying, “It’s insensitive to say my son is not very optimal – he is also very dead.” Then the distraught mother admitted that “I’ve not been ‘optimal’ since he died and the past few weeks have been pure hell.”

Sean Smith’s mother concluded her comments by offering a candid assessment of Barack Obama’s Comedy Central interview when she said “There’s a lot of stupid things that have been said about my son and what happened and this is another one of them.”

In light of Obama’s callousness, a question needs to be posed to indignant Binder Bimbos everywhere: In the scheme of poorly chosen words, which is worse, “binders full of women,” or the Commander-in-Chief describing the death of four men in service to America as “not optimal?”

The answer to the question is clear. Instead of pointing out the ongoing insensitivity being shown toward a San Diego mother mourning her dead son, on Joe Scarborough’s MSNBC “Morning Joe” talk show Binder Bimbo Mika Brzezinski chose to blast Mitt Romney for the “binders full of women” statement. Brzezinski, who is likely planning to vote “like [her] lady parts depend on it,” fumed at Romney about his attempts to recruit female cabinet members in Massachusetts. Mika told a disagreeing Joe that “It just happens to be a little bit insulting that he had to make up a story about trying to help women because he couldn’t find one on his own,” she said. “That’s kind of a problem.”

No – Mika, if you and the rest of the Binder Bimbos are so desperate to find a problem, how about focusing on a dishonest president who, for political expediency, told a made-up story to cover up a terrorist attack in Libya on 9/11?  Now, as a result of that deceitfulness, Barack Obama’s once optimal prospects for reelection have been downgraded to “not optimal.”

Barack ‘Bad Fruit’ Obama Redefines Christianity

Originally posted at American Thinker

Jesus told His followers that the way to recognize Christian brethren is by inspecting fruit.  Jesus said, “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit.”  Thus, “by their fruit you will recognize them.”

At the National Prayer Breakfast, partial “bitter clinger” Barack Obama, missing only a gun, tried to tell the crowd of 3,000 that he was a Scripture-quoting, Bible-toting Christian.  Using the Word of God to justify the advancement of liberal policy, the president linked left-wing economic policy with obedience to Scripture and, by doing so, dared critics to disagree with God.

As the foundation of his faith, Obama referenced a key Scripture from Genesis wherein God asked Cain, after Cain killed his own brother, “Where is your brother Abel?” to which Cain replied, “I don’t know, am I my brother’s keeper?”

The president said his faith is based on “[l]iving by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need.”  He maintained that those values are the ones that define his “faith journey,” which has also translated into “policies that support research to fight disease and support foreign aid.”

Seems the president hasn’t read the Scripture that says, “Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much,” because Obama-style Christianity is yet to acknowledge the glaring contradiction in wanting to be trusted with the world’s poor while disregarding the “very little” needs of a blood brother, impoverished and living in squalor in a Kenya slum.

Nonetheless, the president said that his faith also inspires him to voluntarily “give up some of the tax breaks” he enjoys.  If Obama has his way, the rest of America will not be afforded the gratification of similar voluntary charitable contributions.  In essence, establishing governmental mandates to support liberal causes is a religion unto itself, whose dogma redirects tithing from the faith community to the federal government, where alms gathered under compulsion are distributed through benevolent bureaucracy.

After the collection plate is filled, give-up-the-tax-break proceeds fund brother’s-keeper essentials like abortion, contraception, sterilization, and fighting disease with an ever-expanding food stamp program.

Barack Obama deciding to openly declare that Jesus applauds the “yes we can” brand has opened him up to public scrutiny.  By exploiting biblical Christianity for political gain, he has invited examination from, among others, Republican presidential hopeful and devout Christian Rick Santorum, who dared broach the subject of the president’s innovative “theology.”

More recently, on Morning Joe, Reverend Franklin Graham, son of evangelist Billy Graham, a man Obama allegedly prayed with, also compared the president’s words against the backdrop of his actions.  Based on the condition of some wormy fruit, as diplomatically as he could, Graham cast serious doubt on the state of Barack Obama’s tree and expressed uncertainty as to whether the latter is really a Christian.

Graham did confirm his belief that Rick Santorum was “a man of faith … because his values are so clear on moral issues.”  About Santorum, Graham said, “I just appreciate the moral stances he takes on things,” a sentiment Reverend Graham did not express when speaking about Barack Obama.

Under close examination, America’s self-described “Christian” president’s fruit includes anti-Christian stances such as condoning and supporting gay marriage, calling Romans 1:26-27 an “obscure passage,” and being vehemently pro-choice.  The president even opposes saving the lives of infants born alive during botched abortions, which translates into infanticide.

To Christian brethren who deem contraceptive and abortion anathema, in lieu of God’s will, Obama has instituted governmental doctrine by foisting his will on people of faith, denying those with whom he supposedly identifies the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

Someone should remind the president that immediately following the “my brother’s keeper” verse in Genesis, when Cain claimed he didn’t know the whereabouts of the brother he had murdered, the Lord knew and said, “What have you done? Listen! Your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground.”

Besides the blood of unborn children crying out from the ground, in addition to being a champion of choice, the “peacemaker” president has condoned and helped spread racial division.  While claiming to be a follower of Christ, Obama criticizes, disrespects, and has all but turned his back on Israel, the “apple of God’s eye.”  Against Isaac and the nation of Israel, Barack Hussein Obama has sided almost exclusively with Ishmael.

On his first Christmas in the White House, Barack Obama requested that the Nativity scene be removed from the East Room — a request that was overridden.  Shockingly, when speaking in Christian venues, he has also requested that the crucifix, the universal symbol of Christianity, be obscured from view.  On more than one occasion, the president has misquoted Scripture, and while he often decries injustice toward Muslims, he has yet to speak on behalf of Christians being persecuted worldwide.

Franklin Graham rightly pointed out that under close inspection Obama appears to have some problematic fruit.  Graham said, “Under President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems more concerned about them than the Christians being murdered in the Muslim countries.”

Caring for the poor, fighting disease, supporting foreign aid, and publicly declaring the sanctimonious attitude of being willing to give up tax breaks are the noble aspirations that President Obama claims define his pick-and-choose religion.  Barack Obama’s customized Christianity is such that it discounts and mockingly downplays the Sermon on the Mount and then, in order to advance gay rights, resurrects and convolutes Jesus’ teaching of the Beatitudes.

Clearly, the President feels at ease redefining everything from “fairness” to the “American dream” to “traditional marriage,” all the way to the foundational tenets that define America.  But fear not — in due time, the God of the Bible will surely expose the folly of those who, in an attempt to justify a liberal agenda, exploit Scripture and attempt to redefine Christianity.

%d bloggers like this: