Federal investigators have released images of two suspects in the Monday Boston bombing and are asking for the public’s help in identifying them.
Here’s a video of the suspects:
Federal investigators have released images of two suspects in the Monday Boston bombing and are asking for the public’s help in identifying them.
Here’s a video of the suspects:
In case it wasn’t already obvious that political correctness has reached the height of utter absurdity, here’s some cringe-worthy news from the real estate world: Evidently, the term “master bedroom” has fallen out of fashion — because, obviously, it conjures excruciatingly painful images of male slaveholders in the antebellum South for homebuyers.
According to a survey of Washington, D.C., area homebuilders conducted by Baltimore Business Journal, six out of 10 currently opt to describe the largest sleeping room in the house as the “owner’s suite,” “owner’s bedroom” or, in one case, “mastre bedroom.”
From the article:
Why? In large part for exactly the reason you would think: “Master” has connotation problems, in gender (it skews toward male) and race (the slave-master).
Enter the owner’s suite.
“I imagine it’s not only a more accurate description but also a more politically correct term of art,” said Steve Nardella, senior vice president of operations for Bethesda-based Winchester Homes Inc.
Either way, the “master suite” has been linguistically shoved aside.
No word yet on what the kinder, gentler name for the Masters Golf Tournament will be or what we sensitive Americans are going to do about all of those obviously racist, sexist jerks who opted to attain master’s degrees.
An organization calling itself Moms Demand Action is one of the latest nonsensical formations conceived from the highly emotive national debate over gun control. A study of some of the group’s recent efforts to influence public perception reveals a strategy that packs a one-two punch that’s equal parts “do it for the kids” and utter fallacy.
Personal Liberty Digest™ tried unsuccessfully to reach Shannon Watts, the organization’s founder; so in fairness, we will assume that the woman is a well-meaning mother who is genuinely concerned about the welfare of her children (as almost any parent is at almost any moment in time).
Because we didn’t have a chance to pick her brain in an interview in time for this article, consider the following statement pure speculation from the perspective of a conservative gun nut: Watts must be one of the most hopelessly misguided and reactionary human beings on the face of the Earth. One also might venture to cogitate about the likelihood of her being a true, true believer in hope and change and the liberal idea of American utopia in which all people frolic in fields of flowers with no threat of danger.
Of course, maybe she’s just a bored soccer mom taking up the hobby of being a busybody — a hobby she justifies by hinting that it is borne out of her care for her own children and the danger that a 2nd Amendment-enabling society poses to their well-being.
Here’s how Moms Demand Action describes the situation:
Horrified and heartbroken by the events in Sandy Hook, mothers of the United States are coming together to fight for tougher gun control measures. The group’s founder is Indiana mother of five Shannon Watts. Now thousands of moms have joined her. We’re growing by the day with more members and dozens of state and local chapters.
Together, we hope to prevent more moms from experiencing the pain and heartache of those moms in towns whose names are etched forever in our memories: Littleton, Paducah, Blacksburg, Aurora, Tucson, and now Newtown.
We understand the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms—just not ALL arms. Let’s make our country a better, less violent place for them.
Preventing mothers around the Nation the heartache of losing a child is a noble enough cause. The only problem is that Watts’ organization’s true agenda is an absolute assault against any American who wishes to exercise Constitutionally guaranteed rights without being fettered by the fears of panicky meddlers.
The group’s agenda is as follows:
1) Ban assault weapons and ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
2) Require background checks for all gun and ammunition purchases.
3) Report the sale of large quantities of ammunition to the ATF, and ban online sales of ammunition.
4) Make gun trafficking a federal crime with serious criminal penalties.
5) Counter gun industry lobbyists’ efforts to weaken gun laws at the state level.
The President of the United States and Congressional Democrats have made it clear: After Newtown, anything goes in the fight to disarm — or at least complicate gun ownership to the extreme — for American citizens. Outright lies are fair. Gesticulating wildly about the dangers of guns while figuratively standing atop the graves of children murdered by a mentally insane psychopath is acceptable. And making false associations between guns and unrelated objects is encouraged.
Moms Demand Action has opted for that last approach, with its latest ridiculous anti-gun advertisement campaign. In the ads, two children sit side by side, one holding a gun and the other holding either a book, a dodgeball or what appears to be candy.
“One child is holding something that’s been banned in America to protect them,” the ads read. “Guess which one.”
See for yourself:
“We keep ‘Little Red Riding Hood’ out of schools because of the bottle of wine in her basket. Why not assault weapons?”
“We ban the game dodgeball because it’s viewed as being violent. Why not assault weapons?”
“We won’t sell Kinder chocolate eggs in the interest of child safety. Why not assault weapons?”
Aside from the fact that oversensitive parenting, the everyone’s-a-winner mentality and bans on things like dodgeball and certain books are likely largely to blame for the increasingly pusillanimous demeanor of America’s younger generations (perhaps even partly to blame for the creation of monsters that shoot up schools), these ads are so ridiculous that one would be forced to assume they couldn’t possibly be taken seriously. Do you recall ever hearing of children having the ability to check guns out of the library, shooting at one another with semi-automatic rifles in gym class or being given access to weapons as readily as they are candy?
“It’s this idea of juxtaposing the absurdity of what America is so worried about harming our children, yet we do not have an assault weapons ban. We have such lax gun laws in this country and yet we pretend to be so concerned about our children,” Watts told ABC News.
Watts and her ilk have already earned some fans, and she recently attended a news conference with Vice President “Shotgun” Joe Biden.
Conservatives are going to have to double down if there is any hope of protecting our own children from the in-your-face liberalism encouraged in the fallacy-ridden propaganda of morons like Watts.
It looks as if Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is getting serious about a bid for the Presidency in 2016.
If the context clues (the drone filibuster, tough language aimed at the President and being a near-constant thorn in the side of both old guard Republicans and Congressional Democrats) weren’t enough, the Tea Party darling has clearly stated that he’s considering running for President in the next election.
“We’re considering it,” Paul told attendees at a recent breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, adding that his summer schedule is packed with visits to key primary States like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
The Senator said that, regardless of whether his team determines a Presidential run is viable, he will remain engaged in the conversation about issues of national importance. During the breakfast Wednesday, Paul touched on polarizing issues including gun control and immigration reform.
Paul said he believes that guns are a fair topic for political debate but lamented that the President’s politically opportunistic approach to forcing a gun-control debate following the tragedy in Newtown, Conn., was wrong. He also noted that much of the gun legislation being pushed would not solve the problem of mass shootings. Instead, he sides with the National Rifle Association’s suggestion that teachers should be encouraged to carry firearms.
The Senator also touted “trust, but verify” as a solution to immigration issues. The Paul immigration plan would put heavy focus on securing the U.S. border and avoid creating a “new pathway to citizenship” to make it easier for illegal aliens to remain in the country.
Here is a collection of some of the stories that Personal Liberty staffers will be keeping an eye on throughout the day. Click the links for the full stories.
On your next visit to your family doctor, upon informing the sawbones of your most unbearable afflictions, it’s likely that the prescription pad will come out and you’ll find yourself on a daily regimen of the latest wonder drug promised to make your existence more comfortable. But, not so fast — for all of the benefits your physician may tell you about a new drug, he may be ignorant of some ghastly side effects.
It’s no secret that doctors in the United States, and many other developed nations, are heavily swayed in their likelihood to prescribe one drug over another (or even any drug at all) by the promotional efforts of pharmaceutical companies. It has even been noted that most medical providers are courted by Big Pharma before they even finish training for their careers.
Unfortunately for you, the patient, the pharmaceutical reps that visit your primary care provider really don’t have your best interest in mind. Rather, they are interested in sweetening a deal with the doc to ensure that as much of the product pushed by their respective company is prescribed as possible. And a new study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine confirms that Big Pharma reps, like any good salesmen, generally focus only on the positive to close the deal.
A questionnaire filled out by doctors in Canada, the U.S. and France about how drugs were pushed by Pharma reps and the information that was provided showed that information about common or serious side effects and the type of patients who should not use certain medicines was left out 59 percent of the time.
“Laws in all three countries require sales representatives to provide information on harm as well as benefits,” said lead author Barbara Mintzes of the University of British Columbia. “But no one is monitoring these visits and there are next to no sanctions for misleading or inaccurate promotion.”
While Food and Drug Administration regulations required warning labels listing the potential dangers of 57 percent of the medications pushed on doctors, fork-tongued pharmaceutical salespeople only verbally went over risks with doctors 6 percent of the time.
So, next time your physician offers you a solution to your health problems in the form of a magical pill, salve or shot — be sure to ask for a verbal rundown of possible health risks. Because in the end, you’re the only person whose bottom line is your personal well-being.
A recent open-ended national poll conducted by Gallup indicates that the average American is less likely to care about issues recently mired in Congressional controversy such as gun control and immigration than the mainstream media and Beltline punditry would have you believe. Instead, Americans want lawmakers to do something about the economy, unemployment and legislative incompetence — issues that bureaucrats are notoriously inept in tackling.
Gallup asked a random sample of 1,005 Americans contacted by telephone the following question: “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?”
Here are the results:
|Economy in general||24 percent|
|Dissatisfaction with Government||16 percent|
|Federal budget deficit/Federal debt||11 percent|
|Ethical/Moral/Family decline||5 percent|
|Immigration/Illegal aliens||4 percent|
|Guns/Gun control||4 percent|
|Situation with North Korea||4 percent|
|Lack of Money||3 percent|
|Lack of respect for each other||2 percent|
|Foreign aid/Focus overseas||2 percent|
Despite media saturation on gun control and immigration in recent months, the polling data indicate that the hierarchy of American concerns has remained relatively unchanged since February. In previous years’ polling data, gun control failed to even register a mention.
Unfortunately, Gallup’s numbers are unsurprising and the general public’s concerns for the Nation are often very different from the legislative agenda of the elected class.
The numbers do, however, indicate good news for Americans pushing to change the status quo in Washington. The only issues mentioned over 10 percent of the time are, incidentally, heavily underscored by advocates for the emergence of a new libertarian-leaning Republican Party. Responsible fiscal policy and smaller government appear to be the main wishes for most Americans as attempts at social engineering — key to the legislative agendas of mainstream Republicans and Democrats alike — continue to fall out of favor with American voters on both sides of the ideological divide.
States throughout the Nation appear to be lightening up with regard to marijuana laws a faster rate than ever before on the heels of Colorado and Washington State’s decisions end prohibition against the plant late last year.
In Vermont, one of the latest States to rethink harsh marijuana laws, Representatives approved a bill 98-44 on Friday to decriminalize possession of limited amounts of marijuana. The bill will move on to the State’s Senate with support from Vermont Attorney General William Sorrell and Public Safety Commissioner Keith Flynn, both of whom testified in favor of the bill, as well as an endorsement from Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin.
“Vermont is another step closer to adopting a more sensible approach to marijuana policy,” said Matt Simon, a legislative analyst for the Marijuana Policy Project. “The support demonstrated by members of the House reflects that of the state’s top law enforcement officials and the voters.”
Colorado and Washington are expected to reap economic reward for legalizing the homegrown drug later this month as thousands of people are expected to travel to the States to celebrate April 20, a sort of counterculture holiday for pot users.
Marijuana remains Federally prohibited, but the Justice Department has yet to take drastic actions against marijuana-enabling States in the most recent round of legalization efforts. Regardless of your views on marijuana use, recent State-level legalization of the plant is nothing but good news for States’ rights.
Here’s your tug-at-the-heartstrings-less-than-true quote of the day from President Barack Obama.
“I think we’ve got a good chance of seeing it pass if members of Congress are listening to the American people,” Obama said during a “Today Show” interview that aired on Tuesday. “The notion that Congress would defy the overwhelming instinct of the American people after what we saw happen in Newtown, I think, is unimaginable.”
The President went on, “I think that all of us had to reflect on what we did or didn’t do after Newtown. If the question is ‘is this potentially difficult politically because the gun lobby is paying attention and has shown no willingness to budget?’ Then the answer is yes, that’s a given. Now, if the question is what’s the right thing to do and what the American people believe in, overwhelmingly. If that’s what’s guiding members of Congress during the next couple of weeks, then this will pass.”
A recent Gallup poll indicates that only about 4 percent of the American public is concerned with the passage of new gun laws.
The only way we can figure to reconcile the President’s aforementioned quotes is to replace key words as follows:
“I think we’ve got a good chance of seeing it pass if members of Congress are listening to the American people me,” Obama said during a “Today Show” interview that aired on Tuesday. “The notion that Congress would defy the overwhelming instinct of the American people my wishes after what we saw happen in Newtown, I think, is unimaginable.”
While the most Americans spent Tuesday searching for answers about the events leading up to the tragic events that occurred during the Boston Marathon earlier in the week, a handful of Democratic lawmakers seized the tragedy and fear as an opportunity to tout big-government legislative agendas.
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D- Mass.) took an opportunity to lavish praise upon the President: “The President of the United States has pledged his full support in all efforts to keep the city safe and to find the person who did this and bring them to justice. We did not have to reach out to the president. The president reached out to us,” Warren said at a news conference.
“He called the governor, he called the mayor, he called the members of the (congressional) delegation, because the president is actively involved here and responding,” she went on.
Well, it’s a national tragedy, and he’s the President. Isn’t that his job?
Former Democratic Representative Barney Frank, also from Massachusetts, praised big government.
He said: “In this terrible situation, let’s be very grateful that we had a well-funded, functioning government. It is very fashionable in America, and has been for some time to criticize government, belittle public employees, talk about their pensions, talk about what people think … of [their] health care. Here we saw government in two ways perform very well. … I never was as a member of Congress one of the cheerleaders for less government, lower taxes. No tax cut would have helped us deal with this or will help us recover. This is very expensive.”
Later, Frank doubled down and brought up the evil sequester: “I’m saying that if the sequester had gone through, as we had not had enough money, we couldn’t be able to do this. Yeah. I’m making an argument about reality. And I think that’s the only sensible response. We are spending a great deal of public money here. I am glad that we are.”
He went on to suggest the tragedy was a “teaching moment.”
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) also used the tragedy to beat the dead sequester horse, telling a reporter, “I think there are multiple reasons for ensuring that we invest in our security — both domestic and international security. That we invest in the education of our children. That we invest in growing jobs in America. And don’t pursue an irrational, across-the-board policy of cutting the highest priorities and the lowest priorities essentially the same percentage…. I think this is another proof of that — if proof is needed, which I don’t think frankly it is.”
And Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) added his two cents: Tragedy. What tragedy? We’re trying to take gun rights here, that’s not the sad story we need this week.
“We’ve got to get back to work to make sure we can listen to the American people who still want us…to pass a background check,” Murphy said on MSNBC.