1) Sleep Train
2) Quicken Loans
3) Cleveland Cavaliers
3) Citrix (Go To Meeting)
4) Carbonite
5) AutoZone
6) Legal Zoom
7) Sleep Number
8) Heart and Body Extract
9) Oreck
These are companies who promote prostitution and are against the truth. Lets give it back to the liberals who try and destroy freedom.
sandra Fluke: Welcome to the world of whoredom………..
Rush Limbaugh has apologized for labeling 30 year old “reproductive justice” activist Sandra Fluke with two derogatory names.
As of Sunday night, seven companies have stopped advertising with Mr. Limbaugh. I doubt that any of us could talk nationally for three hours a day spanning 20 years and avoid the same fate.
Mr. Limbaugh’s apology signifies a mistake, but perspective on this issue is in order. These companies are free to act as they wish, but their rash conclusions give me pause.
Does our Constitution matter at all to these companies? Does it matter to them that Obama by decree is attempting to force an agenda on religious institutions that violates their freedom of religion?
Does a sense of decency reside in these companies? Our federal government is promoting tax payer funded contraception on a religious college campus which by default also promotes promiscuity. Do these companies think it is proper to advocate the wholesale sexual degrading of young women?
Do the CEO’s of these companies really think this spectacle is about access to healthcare and women’s rights? Or is Obamacare starting its takeover of 1/5th of the economy?
Are any of these companies thoroughly upset with liberal senators Frank and Dodd who totally trashed the real estate market and sent untold masses of families packing into foreclosure?
Are any of these companies upset enough to retaliate against Nancy Pelosi who used her position as a public servant to profit from insider trading?
And did any of these companies pitch a white hot fit when Democrat Diane Feinstein of California used her clout as a U.S. senator to direct government contracts to a firm that her husband is involved in?
Do any of these companies care that the Democratic Party, which is advancing this contraceptive spectacle, promotes abortion which has snuffed out 53 million American lives since 1973? Do these companies have any idea whatsoever about the evil of the abortion holocaust as compared to the mistake of calling someone a derogatory name?
Read more here.
Prior to his passing, Andrew Breitbart said that the mission of the Breitbart empire was to exemplify the free and fearless press that our Constitution protects–but which, increasingly, the mainstream media denies us.
“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” – “Who guards the guardians?” Andrew saw himself in that role—as a guardian protecting Americans from the left’s “objective” loyal scribes.
Andrew wanted to do what the mainstream media would not. First and foremost: Andrew pledged to vet President Barack H. Obama.
Andrew did not want to re-litigate the 2008 election. Nor did he want to let Republicans off the hook. Instead, he wanted to show that the media had failed in its most basic duty: to uncover the truth, and hold those in power accountable, regardless of party.
From today through Election Day, November 6, 2012, we will vet this president–and his rivals.
We begin with a column Andrew wrote last week in preparation for today’s Big relaunch–a story that should swing the first hammer against the glass wall the mainstream media has built around Barack Obama.
***
In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama claims that he worried after 9/11 that his name, so similar to that of Osama bin Laden, might harm his political career.
But Obama was not always so worried about misspellings and radical resemblances. He may even have cultivated them as he cast himself as Chicago’s radical champion.
In 1998, a small Chicago theater company staged a play titled The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, dedicated to the life and politics of the radical community organizer whose methods Obama had practiced and taught on Chicago’s South Side.
Obama was not only in the audience, but also took the stage after one performance, participating in a panel discussion that was advertised in the poster for the play.
Recently, veteran Chicago journalist Michael Miner mocked emerging conservative curiosity about the play, along with enduring suspicions about the links between Alinsky and Obama. Writing in the Chicago Reader, Miner described the poster:
Let’s take a look at this poster.
It’s red—and that right there, like the darkening water that swirls down Janet Leigh’s drain [in Psycho’s famous shower scene], is plenty suggestive. It touts a play called The Love Song of Saul Alinsky, Alinsky being the notorious community organizer from Chicago who wrote books with titles like Reveille for Radicals and Rules for Radicals. On it, fists are raised—meaning insurrection is in the air.
And down at the very bottom, crawling across the poster in small print, it mentions the panel discussions that will follow the Sunday performances. The panelists are that era’s usual “progressive” suspects: Leon Despres, Monsignor Jack Egan, Studs Terkel . . .
And state senator Barack Obama.
Read more here.
Could protestors unknowingly run afoul of the Feds and face prison for exercising their First Amendment rights?
Yes, according to some analysts, and all that‘s needed is President Obama’s signature for a new law to give the Secret Service powers more befitting the Praetorian Guard.
Congress Effectively Outlaws Protests Anywhere Secret Service Deems Off Limits.
Even former 15-year Secret Service veteran Dan Bongino has raised alarms, as he told the Blaze that House Resolution 347 creates an America in which ”you could accidentally be in a cordoned off secret service controlled area and find yourself in jail.”
“This was done to send a message to both sides,” Bongino said, “Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party” could be affected by this. “It’s a very serious issue.”
Bongino, who is a candidate for Senate in Maryland, added that ”you have to ask yourself as an American, do you believe in liberty or not? You cannot have it both ways. You cannot empower government bureaucrats to take your liberty.”
The concern about the new authority stems from the quietly-passed resolution, which according to Bongino and others has created a legal grey area that infringes upon freedom of speech. The devil, of course, is in the details.
Read more here.
U.S. Constitutional Free Press 