Double Standard? NAH.

Please welcome Evil Blogger Lady to TIPB, because this.

Given his stance on Chick-fil-A, would Mayor Tom Menino grant permits to a group that has counted among its leaders a man who has repeatedly called homosexuality a “crime that must be punished” by death?

Actually, he has done that  . . . and more! Menino effectively gave away city land valued at $1.8 million to the organization, and he gave a speech at its ribbon-cutting ceremony.

It’s the Islamic Society of Boston’s mosque, and when it comes to anti-gay sentiment, one of its early supporters makes Chick-fil-A look like the Provincetown Men’s Chorus.

Someone explain to me why, in the obviously psychotic Oppressive worldview, disagreeing with gay marriage is more offensive than murdering people for being gay?  Just asking.

A Willy Wonka Moment of Truth

If any leftist can answer this question in a somewhat coherent manner, I'll be amazed.

A quote

Read this comment at American Thinker.  Then read the post that inspired it.

The way that establishment Republicans treat Sarah Palin is exactly what they think of you, the fly-over, bible-toting, pick-up truck driving, blue collar working American Conservative.

They don't like us any more than they like the moonbats over at DailyKos.

Sarah Palin represents my politics almost to a T. I am Sarah Palin, (although I do not look good in a skirt and pumps and you'd be right to call the police if you saw me wearing them).

I would roll in broken glass, douse myself in epsom salts, stick my head in a hornet's nest and go on a date with Roseanne Barr for the opportunity to vote for this woman for national office. (Strike the Roseanne Barr comment. As Dirty Harry said, "A man has to know his limitations".)

There are plenty of us Conservatives that are rightly scared of what a second Obama administration would do to this great Republic, would gladly vote for Mitt Romney and know that he would run a clean, honest White House and would be a very good president.

But believe me that I will not be passionate about it. If Sarah were either on the ticket or poised to hold a cabinet position I would certainly be just a wee bit more excited.

The moral and ethical rot in this nation is not solely on the left in America. There are plenty of Republican enablers to the progressive cabal, men and women who see the evil right in front of them and engage in all manner of moral rationalizations to justify not confronting it.

Sarah Palin is not vexed in this way whatsoever and she is unafraid to tell them that.

She calls them out in no uncertain terms. She lays down her argument so that everyone understands exactly what she means, in language that is unambiguous and carries the power of a heavyweight's right hook. She is the E.F. Hutton of American politics: When Sarah Palin Talks People Listen.

The Sarah Palin that stood in the rain in Wisconsin bravely confronting the union goons who were shouting her down, undaunted in her attack against their tyranny - that is the kind of woman that would both inspire a silent majority of Americans to rise up and throw off this progressive cancer once and for all.

Although the red text is something with which I vehemently disagree, this is one of many reasons why we're not voting our way out of this.  The GOP is as much our enemy as the Communist Democrat Party.

Wake up and smell the gunpowder.

RED ALERT: STEALTH GUN CONTROL

Predictably, the Oppressives infesting DC are at it again, this time attempting to tack their idiocy onto the Cybersecurity Bill.

Shortly after the Cybersecurity Act gained Senate approval to proceed to filing proposed amendments and a vote next week, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), a sponsor of the gun control amendment, came to the floor to defend the idea of implementing some "reasonable" gun control measures.

 The amendment was sponsored by Democratic Sens. Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Bob Menendez (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Schumer and Dianne Feinstein (Calif.). S.A. 2575 would make it illegal to transfer or possess large capacity feeding devices such as gun magazines, belts, feed stripes(sic) and drums of more than 10 rounds of ammunition with the exception of .22 caliber rim fire ammunition.

Emphasis mine.  Anyone surprised by the list of this amendment's sponsors, please stand on your head and whistle 'Dixie' while juggling five running chainsaws. 

Please spread this far and wide and fast.

A braver man than I

Mr. Monster Hunter his ownself, Larry Correia, has an Uberpost up, tearing apart a Communist News Network editorial which is full of more twisted logic, half-truths and absolute bullshit than Hollywood, Washington DC or even the trucking industry.

The reason nobody wants to talk about your gun policy is because your gun policy is stupid. This is one of those debates where most of the country has looked at your stupid way of doing things and said that it doesn’t work and we don’t want to do it anymore.

Your inner-cities are hell holes, and you blame us for the crime. Crazy people shoot innocents and you blame people who had nothing to do with it. You declare places like schools and movie theaters to be gun free zones, and they you blame us when nobody is there to defend them.

In fact, your single most reliable defense against this sort of attack is an immediate violent response, and since the police need time to get there, that means the immediate response has to come from the victim pool or not at all. Yet your policy is to kick us and our guns out of those places, that way the bad guys can work unmolested until the cops arrive.

See, I can rarely do this kind of thing.  I get about a third of the way through articles like this piece of crap written by the ironically-named Daniel Webster, and I become so absolutely outraged by the complete and utter lack of respect for anything resembling truth or objective reality that I end up beating my head against the wall, foaming at the mouth and downing triple shots of Oro Azul in a desperate attempt to make the evil go away.

Yes, I said 'evil,' not 'stupid.'  I'm done giving these pathetic excuses for humans the benefit of the doubt.  By every single rational criteria, what Mr. Webster is saying is wrong.  And I cannot believe he does not, on some level, know that.  If he doesn't, he needs some really good drugs, an I-love-me jacket and an extended stay in a room with bouncy wallpaper.

Mr. Correia has more mental fortitude than I will ever possess, to be able to read and dissect these insane ramblings without losing it.  Kinda like paying R'lyeh a visit, taking a few pictures and leaving with a souvenir postcard, while remaining perfectly calm and sane.

Well done, Mr. Correia.  Well done, indeed.

WHAT media bias?

Fascinating that a man shouting “Allahu akbar” as he mows down 35 people on an army base isn’t motivated by Islam…but a guy who has the same name as hundreds of others—and says nothing as he fires—is obviously a Tea Party zealot.

(HT GayPatriot)

It's not a four-letter word.

For those of you Oppressives who use the term "individualist" as an insult:

1)  Bite my crank.

2)  Read this, or have someone translate it into monosyllabic terminology punctuated with generous amounts of profanity so you can understand it.

3)  Try to come up with a rebuttal.  I'll likely find your pathetic, illogical rantings a source of tragicomic amusement.

There may be no "i" in "team," but neither is there a "we" in "achievement." Just as "we" did not vote ourselves into this mess we're in, "we" did not invent the light bulb, develop mass production of motorcars, devise the protocols of the Internet, or put a man on the moon.

All of those things were done by individuals, and -- to the extent that public monies were appropriated to pay for those things -- the vast majority of those forced to pay did not willingly give up the money, nor did even a plurality of them favor the projects. They were forced into supporting them -- unjustly -- by government which had no brief, no right, and no lawful authority to engage in the activity.

And, although the accomplishments are noteworthy, it is also worth noting that, to date, the government has done nothing worth mentioning with these wonderful initiatives. It took a British programmer working at a UN project in Switzerland to develop the mechanism that made the Internet a viable mass medium. It took an entrepreneur in Seattle to make it a viable commercial marketplace. And, now, all government can think to do with it is kill the golden goose with taxes.

 Yep, I'm an Individual, an Individualist, an independent, autonomous, self-aware, self-governing sentient being.  You should try the whole thing out sometime...once you get used to it, it's pretty cool.

NOW do you get it?

SF in Babylon(in one of the least-offensive posts I believe he's ever written)explains why this Obamacare fiasco actually germinated almost a hundred years ago, in Cut It Out, Goddamnit.  The slippery slope was obvious to anyone with the slightest understanding of principles.

But most people were too stupid to comprehend the eventual destination of the path they were headed down, so we wound up with the consequences of Prohibition, the War On Liberty Drugs, and now we've reached the obvious culmination of the insane idea that your life and body are other peoples' property:  Obamacare.

Did you (or do you) agitiate for mandatory seat belt laws, life-preserver laws or helmet laws?  Did you (or do you) cheer whenever another SWAT team smashes down a door and confiscates everything someone owns, for the simple act of using or possessing a substance you disapprove of?  Did you (or do you) support bans on smoking, guns, fatty foods, sugar, salt or anything else that--in your opinion--people "shouldn't" do?

This is the result.  When you establish the precedent that some people get to tell others what peaceable activities they can or cannot engage in; when you concede that Person A's body and/or life is now the de facto property of Person B...this is what it leads to.  Now, your life and health are the government's business, because you told them so.  If not by the words you said, then by the principles you clearly espoused through your support of laws that should never have even been contemplated in any "free" country.

Remember, many of you supposedly liberty-loving 'Conservatives'...YOU ASKED FOR IT.

Amen.

RTWT.

Yes. WE DID BUILD THAT.

Still trying to beat the Writers' Block into submission, but it must have been into some hardcore UFC training, 'cause it's kicking my ass.

Meanwhile, I submit to you a post by Marko, who somehow wasn't stunned into speechlessness by the galactic-level stupidity of Obummer's latest pile of crap:

By the time Bob’s Fried Opossum House finally opens its doors, a whole lot of people have gotten paid by Bob, and he has written a lot of tax and fee checks to government at all levels. Oh, and don’t forget that as a business owner, Bob gets to pre-pay his taxes on his expected income every quarter—something that should be a familiar to writers, a lot of whom file their freelance and fiction writing income taxes in the same fashion. And all the while, Bob has been working 100-hour weeks for a year and a half to get his Fried Opossum House off the ground.

Nobody builds a business alone, that’s true. But Bob didn’t make all those people work for free, and he didn’t make use of public resources without writing hefty tax checks for the privilege. Bob paid everyone, including his local, state, and federal government, before he even got to make his first dollar of profits. And Bob carries all the risk here. If his business tanks, his contractors aren’t going to return the money he gave them for their work, his employees aren’t going to give back their wages, and the government isn’t going to return the taxes and fees he paid. So why is it OK that when he’s successful enough to make a profit, some populist asshole politicians can stand up and say that “he hasn’t paid his fair share to society yet”?

There’s another thing that bothers me about the notion that just because Bob had his stuff delivered over a public road, and because Bob has hired publically-educated people for his business, that that somehow means that Bob owes society now. Like I said, Bob paid for the privilege—and suggesting that it’s not really his achievement because he used a resource which he’s been forced to subsidize all your life with taxes is tantamount to claiming that all business endeavors are therefore really a public accomplishment.

I admire TMW's ability to parse the "logic" involved in this concept.  I keep trying to make sense of Leftists, but I just can't drink that much without slipping into unconciousness.