Raising the Minimum Wage

Okay, if you own your own business and care about your low-level, low-skilled employees, that's great. If you want to advocate to me that similar employees working in similar businesses should be paid a higher wage, awesome.

If you, yourself, only pay your employees right at or about the legal minimum wage, you are a hypocrite.

Yee-Hah!

Posted with no further comment than Read.The.Whole.Thing:

And yet, so far no reporter has raised the possibility that Yee supported tighter restrictions on guns in order to keep gun prices high and his own services in demand. Economist Bruce Yandle popularized the idea of the “Bootleggers and Baptists” coalition. The apocryphal Baptists want to ban alcohol. Bootleggers don’t make much money when liquor can be bought legally at a grocery store or bar. So the bootleggers bankroll the Baptists’ effort to ban booze.

Now I sincerely doubt that Yee was that clever. The more likely explanation is that he believes in gun control and he’s a greedy hypocrite (and maybe not too bright either). The fact that gun-control policies are to his advantage is just a happy coincidence.

Regulate Thee, Not Me

[Wow! I'm actually getting a chance to post again...:)]

I once had to interview someone who described at great length how people always want regulations—so long as they only apply to their neighbors. How true that is.

The same can be said for NIMBYism all around. A closer-to-home example of which deals with the island I live on. There are plenty of folks at the north end of the island that would like a second crossing so that they don't have to drive so far to cross the lone bridge and then drive an almost equal distance back the same way to get out to the major business areas of our community. Can't say I entirely blame them on that. It works out to be the equivalent of driving from Sandwich to Plymouth—twice—in order to get one set of errands done for these folks. Where the NIMBYism comes into play is when they realize the most feasible areas come a little too close to their neighborhoods and properties.

"Well," they say, "we need this second crossing; just not in my backyard."

Anyhow, I digress. Where I really wanted to go was to mention how Victor Davis Hanson really takes it to these folks that wish to regulate those outside their bubbles and/or make NIMBY apply in his Let's Save California Now! post over at PJ Media. As an example:

2. The Undocumented Immigrant Equity Act
The “I am Juan too Act” would assess all California communities by U.S. Census data to ascertain average per-household income levels as well as diversity percentages. Those counties assessed on average in the top 10% bracket of the state’s per-household income level, and which do not reflect the general ethnic make-up of the state, would be required to provide low-income housing for undocumented immigrants, who by 2020 would by law make up not less than 20% of such targeted communities’ general populations.

 I caution that you do go and read the whole thing. Just look away from your computer monitor while sipping your coffee, lest you spend more time wiping the screen than reading.

Happy Labor Day! ;)

I am truly thankful for what has been accomplished in the past for the average American worker*. Now, uh...


As I said, Happy Labor Day.

*Disclaimer: due to the nature of my work, I may neither speak in favor nor speak against that which might not have been relevant for several decades and legally extorts significant sums of money from me every month and pesters me with emails speaking outright lies against that which I believe and hold dear and informs me how to vote against my conscience every election cycle and likes to rabble-rouse the proletariat every bargaining cycle only to typically leave them hanging for far less than they convinced everyone was deserved and spend 95% of time supporting those 5% who should have their sorry @$$ses fired and speaks for the common man while its leadership collect salaries comparable to many of those evil, fat-cat CEOs out there screwing us poor schlobs over every chance they get.

Dude, Maybe If You Hadn't Spent So Much Time Bad-Moutthing Bush Over The Same Sort Of B-S...

...You'd be cut a little more slack:

Hat tip to Instapundit

Well, Do You? Updated: The Telegraph Seems To.

Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur on the world stage compared to George W. Bush

So, Just Where Is The Commensurate Outrage?

Image of the Day: Remember, It Only Matters if Republicans Are Doing It

Original hat tip to the Vodka Pundit, who posts an image of a Guy Fawkes wielding this image with a statement of Posted Without Comment:

Image courtesy of the Huffington Post.

Thought for the Day: 05/11/2013

Comes courtesy of Rick Hasen:

This is not one of the best days for the IRS. Conservatives are absolutely right to call for a congressional investigation of this one, even if it turns out to be an isolated problem.

For liberals who think this is no big deal, imagine if during the Bush Administration the IRS targeted political groups that were “progressive” for special scrutiny.

Or, as the source of this hat tip often says, "Indeed." Be sure to check out Instapundit for a more thorough and ongoing round-up.

We Defend

Another one emailed to me from Shooting Buddy:

Also, see more of the Gun-Free President, courtesy of the Vodkapundit:

 Oh, yeah, check it out if you'd like to sign! Last I looked, the count was up to 32,863.

Fiedishly Felonious Felines

I make no bones about people controlling their pets—both inside and outside the home. This has hit home even harder for me after adopting a rescued border collie who developed a good case of fear aggression in response to whatever had happened to her before being rescued in southern Idaho.

Getting quickly to my point, she's a wonderful, polite, and usually sweet-natured pooch until she's in a strange, tense situation (usually involving another dog whom she doesn't know). It's been a huge adjustment for me and Tulip, having to always be on the alert for her warning signs and trying to maintain control of various circumstances where all 37 enraged pounds of the Weewolfe could live up to the blog name I've given her. It's tough but we do it. We take responsibility for our dog and what she may do.

Wish that so many others would do the same...

And I emphatically, almost zealously, include our feline companions in those thoughts.

Yeah, cats'll probably not bite children as a dog might; however, it's not just biting people that I worry about. Most wildlife agencies are authorized to put-down dogs that harass and kill wildlife. Why aren't we doing this for cats?

It's slightly gross when Socks brings home the headless mouse or sparrow but that's just Socks being Socks, right? That headless sparrow might have just left behind a clutch of hatchlings that'll now starve and die.

Although I'm hair skeptical on the overall magnitude of their estimates, this article that I caught over at Drudge doesn't surprise me one bit:

Cats are one of the top threats to US wildlife, killing billions of animals each year, a study suggests.

The authors concluded that more animals are dying at the claws of cats in the United States than in road accidents, collisions with buildings or poisonings.

...

Their analysis revealed that the cat killings were much higher than previous studies had suggested: they found that they had killed more than four times as many birds as has been previously estimated.

Birds native to the US, such as the American Robin, were most at risk, and mice, shrews, voles, squirrels and rabbits were the mammals most likely to be killed.

Dr Pete Marra from the SCBI said: "Our study suggests that they are the top threat to US wildlife."

The team said that "un-owned" cats, which they classified as strays, feral cats and farm cats, were killing about three times as many animals as pet cats, but that their owners could do more to limit the impact.

I'd love to see more on their study methodology as some have questioned earlier studies.

Even if Socks isn't killing as many critters as some studies suggest, if he's an outside cat, she's still probably killing. That may have been fine and dandy back on the farm; however, if Socks is an actual house pet, you have no business letting her out that door unsupervised and uncontrolled.

Hey, if my Rover goes and kills your Socks, he's just doing what any instinctual dog does. Sorry, but that's the way it is...

Ban the Black Beasts of Death!

Got this through an email from one of my shooting buddies:

The Peons Certainly Don't Need 'Em

I caught this through Alphecca (who could use a good visit to his tip jar, by the way):

Media Matters for America gave bodyguard illegal weapons to guard founder David Brock

A staffer at left-wing Media Matters for America committed numerous felonies in the District of Columbia and around the country by carrying a firearm to defend the organization’s founder, David Brock, The Daily Caller has learned.

According to a knowledgeable source, multiple firearms used to protect the Media Matters founder were purchased with Brock’s blessing — and apparently with the group’s money.

...

Brock, whose struggles with mental health have seen him hospitalized in the past, became increasingly concerned by late 2010 that he was being targeted by right-wing assassins.

TheDC has learned that by that time, Brock had armed his assistant — who had no permit to carry a concealed firearm — with a Glock handgun.

...

Price-Morris was regularly armed when accompanying Brock on trips around the country, according to a source, and his firearm possession in Washington, D.C. constituted multiple felonies.

 As the Instapundit is wont to say, "Laws are for the little guys." Sounds like yet another case of our liberal betters trying to create their own version of the manorialism we shed so much blood to shrug-off about 236 years back.

Only Republicans are Child Molesters, Whoremongers, or Both

Initial hat-tip to Ace of Spades HQ.

Emails show FBI investigating Sen. Bob Menendez for sleeping with underage Dominican prostitutes

Documents published online for the first time Thursday indicate that the FBI opened an inquiry into New Jersey Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez on August 1, 2012, focusing on repeated trips he took to the Dominican Republic with longtime campaign contributor and Miami eye doctor Salomon Melgen. TheDC reported in November that Menendez purchased the service of prostitutes in that Caribbean nation at a series of alcohol-fueled sex parties.

The documents, which The Daily Caller had obtained hours earlier from an anonymous source, also indicate that Carrie Levine, research director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), was alerted on April 9, 2012 to Menendez’s habit of paying for sex while outside the United States.

See also: ABC Gives Sen. Menendez Six Minute Interview With No Questions About FBI's Hooker Investigation

Despite this, when Menendez was given a six-minute interview with Martha Raddatz on ABC's This Week Sunday, he was not asked one question about the investigation or the allegations (commentary follows with full transcript at end of post):

Raddatz began the interview asking Menendez about what Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had previously said on the program concerning immigration. She followed this up by asking Menendez what he wanted to hear from the President about this issue.

Next, Raddatz asked Menendez about the controversy surrounding the attack on our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last year - in particular, how he felt Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did during her testimony before Congress last week.

The next subject Raddatz chose was whether Menendez felt Chuck Hagel would be confirmed as Obama's Secretary of Defense.

Raddatz concluded the interview by asking Menendez about the looming senatorial race in New Jersey between incumbent Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D) and Newark Mayor Cory Booker (D).

Remember, comrade citizens, it's all a-okay so long as the good guys are doing it!

It's Only Bad When It Happens to Them

Caught this AP article off the daily newsfeed for a local AM station back on January 23rd [emphasis mine]:

The Senate majority leader plans to introduce legislation defining a "medically necessary" abortion.

...

The Alaska Supreme Court has held that the state must fund medically necessary abortions if it funds medically necessary services for others with financial needs. A legislative legal opinion last year said it's not clear what constitutes medically necessary, and that it's likely only further litigation will provide greater clarity.

An official for Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest said any restriction on access to abortions would be "blatant government overreach."

How Far Have We REALLY Come?

[Quick note that my original drafting of this post intended to end with Dr. King's speech. As I began to write it, I felt that it was more appropriate to lead off with.]

This is something that I had begun to mentally draft a year ago, before I'd begun to blog. Unfortunately, I'd not written most of those thoughts down and I've found myself struggling to recapture them for this post as they'd first been...

Back at New Year's, I'd linked a video of and provided the lyrics for Creed's One in my post An Earworm to Start 2013 With. Perhaps, I should have saved it for this post?

Believe it or not, for this white boy, growing-up on Cape Cod in the middle of the middle class, MLK Day and, recognizing the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement in the 50's and 60's, was important and motivating. Despite being a household of supposedly evil conservatives, we're all firm believers in "judging a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character." Possibly, were it the 19th century, we would have been on the front lines of the Abolitionist Movement.

I still get goosebumps every time I hear the words of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.



We're not always perfect in our applications but, then again, none of us on any side of any issue ever are.



Being staunch supporters of judging by the content of our characters also means that we cannot hide calling things as we see them behind that charade of censorship, the PC Movement, which has so intrinsically embedded itself into our culture. I've almost allowed that sense of political correctness, so nearly beaten into my head in my waning college years (I matriculated just as the movement was gaining solid momentum in the 90's), to stop me from writing this specific post for this specific day.


We are all god's children and if I shuffle my feet and fail to to look you in the eye and address my concerns directly with you, that means that I don't truly see you as my equal and vice versa. And, yes, Mr. Holder, we are a nation of cowards for not having these difficult conversations; however, the cowardice come not in the way you intimated. I fear that in our drive to reddress past wrongs, we have succumbed to offering solutions based on guilt, self-loathing, anger, and a perpetual sense of victimization.



Ms. Parks may no longer have to fight to sit at the front of bus but, now, in our hearts, are we all not still thinking of each other as that "other"?


Overall, we are probably at the most integrated and equalized point in the history of our republic and, yet, every continuing turn yields discussions about and accusations of racism. It all continually has to come back to race, race, and yet more race until it is quite obvious that there are those of us all too willing to perpetuate past grievances and leaving us all still saturated and wallowing in the evils of racism.


The fact that any of us who dare state this are quickly shouted-down on confirms it. We are a nation of cowards for allowing this perpetuation.



As loathsome as any segregationist may have been, s/he was direct and you knew the content of that person's heart. Today, we hide ourselves in either shamed self-censorship and avoidance or direct manipulations to convince others of the continuing grievances in order to benefit ourselves, positions, or partisan affiliations.


The actions of anyone of any race—and, I don't care if you're a white politician or journalist throwing the term "racist" at anyone who dares criticize our current president (it's part & parcel of holding the office folks, get over it), preaching the inequalities instead of steps taken towards equality in order to keep interest in your political party,  or a two-bit hustler trying to provoke the us & them mentality at every turn in order to keep his/her name in the news—to intentionally provoke the perpetuation of racial divides instead of truly seeking ways to heal them is just as despicable as any hooded Klansman. One needs look no further than the manner in which minority Republicans are treated by members of their own race and supposedly liberal and tolerant members of the other party.

Let's face it, if you do these things you wear a similar hood; only, yours is all the more evil for you profess to do so for everyone's good.


A while back, Julia from Mininerd really hit the nail on the head regarding thoughts and feelings I've had for a long while  regarding race and partisan identity. In her post, The Democrat plantation, Julia fisks this NY Times article by U-Penn Professor Adolph L. Reed, Jr.

Reed doesn’t even attempt to disguise his belief that black people belong to the Democrat party–and that any black person who leaves his or her owners’ plantation must be shamed and disowned by the black community.

...

So let me get this straight.  The “how far we have come” narrative does not apply to minority Republicans, because they are all just “tokens,” trotted out to cover up the fact that Republicans hate minorities.  You know, for a group of people who supposedly hate minorities so much, we sure do support a lot of them for leadership positions.  I mean, really, if we hated these people, why in the world would we be happy that an Indian governor appointed a black Senator?  Unless . . . we’re just happy because she gave us another token on the game board?  I think maybe Reed is claiming to have psychic powers, if he can read our minds and determine that we are all lying.  (Hint: we’re not. We love Tim Scott because he is an authentic conservative with strong values.  His race is utterly irrelevant, and only the Democrats bring it up)

...

Republicans can’t prove they are not racist by supporting minority candidates, of course, because everyone knows they are just tokens.  Now, I doubt this professor would have the guts to call Lt. Col. Allen West a “token” to his face, but still, all tokens that we only pretend to support.  No, no, in order to win the black vote and prove that we aren’t huge racists, we must “take policy positions that advance black interests.”  What are those positions?  Well, not being “anti-tax, anti-union and anti-abortion,” to start, I guess.

What it boils down to is that anyone who does not toe the Democrat line on policy issues either isn’t authentically black (if outwardly black) or must be a racist (if white).  The indicator of blackness or tolerance is adherence to . . . what?  Keynesian economics?  Unlimited abortions on demand?  Disarming the public and leaving them at the mercy of armed criminals?  And if you disagree with those things?  Well, you aren’t black, and you’re probably a racist.

Definitely read the whole thing!

And, go back and listen to Dr. King's words again and try to think on what it means to "judge a man not by the color of his skin but by the content of his character."

Quote of the Day: 01/21/2013

This comes to us courtesy of Meredith Jessup, over at The Blaze [emphasis mine]

Oh my: Eric Holder calls for ‘tough penalties’ for gun traffickers
Too bad the attorney general wasn’t talking about getting to the bottom of Fast & Furious, his own gun trafficking scandal.  No, no — he was encouraging the federal government to crack down on Americans’ gun rights, not those of the Mexican drug cartels.  And he said it with a straight face.

If you want an assault rifle, you’ll just have to get it from your local ATF office from now on.  Tell them the Zetas sent you to get your 20%-off cartel coupon.

Hat-tip to Katie Pavlich, over at Townhall.com.

Nothing more to see, here. Move along. Move along...

Kids, You're Joking, Right?

Over at Hot Air, Allahpundit notes a Pew poll that indicates that a  Majority of 18-to-29-year-olds don’t know which issue Roe v. Wade dealt with. Or, as he puts it...

From the people who brought you Barack Obama’s second term:

If I both remember and looked this up correctly, Roe v. Wade determined by a 7-2 vote that "a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion..." It was an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. There was no definitive declaration within the Constitution that defined the specific right to an abortion but, boy-oh-boy, don't you ever dare attempt to delimit this right within earshot of any of these upstanding, socially-conscious young folks who celebrate the liberal laying-off of hands to their bodies (except for when it's for our own good).

Okay, all these younger folks who preach about the Republicans' War on Women and how it's a constitutional right, don't really know what landmark case before the Supreme Court of the United States interpreted this constitutional right. Way to go, sports!Way to go, forgetting the basis of your rights and turning them into an expected entitlement that costs how many potentially loved and loving lives each year?

Please look more closely at yourselves in the mirror the next time you have to pause in your ceaseless texting, provided you can figure out where the freaking power switch on a bathroom mirror is.

Uh-Huh. No Sugar-Honey-Iced-Tea!

Caught this in an email from one of my shooting buddies:

Just imagine the outcry to take everyone's driver's licenses if 20 children were killed because their bus driver was drunk.

How Dare We...

Take Vice President Biden's words from yesterday and Drudgetapose?!And, because we all did, rumor has it that all proper-thinking libs apparently have their panties in a bunch.

I guess my more proper side has to ask myself if such comparisons should've been made. Hmm, let me think for a mom-

Oh Hell Yeah!

Does it all look familiar, my overly liberal readers? That's because it is and payback's a real bitch. You all set that tone for us.

Anyhow, I also liked Ron Capshaw's less-impassioned thoughts on the matter over at PJ Media:

The Obama administration has greeted the response to president’s threat of an executive order to bypass Congress and implement gun control measures as reminiscent of dictators, as hysteria.

But such comparisons are not easy to dismiss. Lenin stated “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” Stalin, his successor declared, “If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.” When the Kulaks refused, Stalin instituted his own “executive order,” and they were helpless as the state mowed them down.

But this disarming of the population was not exclusive to the Russians. Mao Tze Tung declared “All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.”

Fair play is fair play, folks—especially, when history supports comparing such actions to such monsters.