Blogger Alerts


Newsmax - Carly Fiorina: Apple's Tim Cook a Hypocrite on Indiana Law

Likely GOP presidential candidate Carly Fiorina has slammed what she considers the hypocrisy of her former Silicon Valley colleague, Apple CEO Tim Cook, who has spoken out against the divisive Indiana religious freedom legislation, The Wall Street Journal reports.

Fiorina, herself a former Hewlett Packard CEO, says Cook has been selective in his outcry against Indiana in what she describes as a "ginned-up controversy by people who play identity politics that has divided the nation in a way that is really unhelpful."

She told the Journal on Thursday in an exclusive sit-down interview: "When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90 percent of the markets that he's in, including China and Saudi Arabia. But I don't hear him being upset about that." [...]

To Continue Reading click here --->

Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Read Latest Breaking News from
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!


Four Black Men were Killed Within 6 days... Where is the OUTRAGE!

Are the following non-news items evidence of the real racism of the main stream media?


Where's the outrage from the administration and the liberal media ? Why haven't we heard a word out of Jackson, Sharpton, Holder or Obama ? 


Personal Liberty Digest - Chris Christie tells New Hampshire Republicans he is who he is

Posted on February 17, 2015

CONCORD, N.H. (TNS) — New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie knows better than to attempt an extreme makeover in his bid to become the Republican presidential nominee.

Delivering a self-assured keynote address Monday at the Concord and Merrimack County Republican parties’ annual Lincoln-Reagan dinner, Christie told an audience of more than 200 people that he wouldn’t change who he was in order to get elected.

“There’s only one Chris Christie, everybody, and this is it,” he said. [...]

To Continue Rerading Click Here ---> Gov Christie Visits NH


Townhall - Study Shows Stoned Driving Safer Than Drunk Driving

Christine Rousselle | Feb 13, 2015

Before I begin, let me make this clear: if you have taken any sort of mind-altering substance, be it alcohol, marijuana, sleeping pills or prescription painkillers and have not yet returned to a sober state of mind, please, for the love of all things holy, do not get behind the wheel of a car. Impaired driving is inherently dangerous and should be avoided by everyone. Designated drivers save lives.

That being said, a new pair of studies by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration indicate that driving with marijuana in one's system is far safer than driving while drunk. After controlling for factors such as age and gender, there was essentially no increased risk to driving with marijuana in the bloodstream compared to driving sober. Conversely, drivers whose blood alcohol content was .08 (the legal limit) were four times as likely to get into an accident.

Both National Highway Traffic Safety Administration studies say the exact impact THC has on drivers is difficult to determine.

However, by surveying volunteers they found driving with alcohol in your system and driving with THC in your system had very different results.

According to one study, drivers with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 are 400 percent more likely to get into a car crash than a sober driver.

Drivers testing positive for THC are about 25 percent more likely to crash. But, when you factor in demographic information like age and gender, that number drops to about five percent.

Colorado has seen highway fatalities drop to their "near-historic lows" following the legalization of marijuana in the state. This helped to quell fears that legalization of the drug would make roadways extremely dangerous. [...]

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> Impaired Driving


Personal Liberty Digest - Want to take your country back? Here’s where it starts

Posted on February 9, 2015February 6, 2015

Under the Founders’ Constitution, U.S. senators understood for whom they worked.

Article I, Section 3, of the Constitution required that “[t]he Senate or the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislatures thereof…” As such, senators posed a barrier against federal usurpation of states’ rights.

During the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, John Dickinson of Delaware argued “that the members of the second branch (the Senate) ought to be chosen by the individual legislatures.”

George Mason of Virginia agreed. He said: “Whatever power may be necessary for the national government, a certain portion must necessarily be left for the states. It is impossible for one power to pervade the extreme parts of the United States, so as to carry equal justice to them. The state legislatures, also, ought to have some means of defending themselves against the encroachments of the national government. In every other department, we have studiously endeavored to provide for its self-defense. Shall we leave the states alone unprovided with the means for this purpose?”

Depending upon their point of view, Founders either hailed or lamented the fact that, by simply refusing to appoint senators, the states could see the central government “destroyed” (William Richardson Davie) and “put an end to” (Samuel Johnston). Or as Alexander Hamilton (who actually wanted a U.S. system similar to British mercantilism) opined: “It is certainly true, that the State Legislatures, by forbearing the appointment of Senators, may destroy the National Government.”

When bills came before the Senate, senators were compelled to understand the will of their states on the matter and vote in the best interests of their states. Several times, senators either resigned because they disagreed with their states on legislation or were recalled and replaced if they refused to vote as their states directed. [...]

To Continue Reading Click Here ---> Repeal 17th Amendment