Friday, July 31, 2015

Willis Hart Joins Anti-Choice Radicals Lying About Planned Parenthood

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, while not being opposed to a woman's right to choose per se, has, in the past, argued positions that align with the Right's War On Women. Misogynist posts denying the fact that we live in a White male dominated patriarchal society, in addition to posts that would make it harder for women to obtain birth control as well as harder to obtain the health care they need.

At least for lower middle class and working class women. As a Libertarian of course Willis does not give a shit about them. Middle and upper middle class (and rich) women can obviously afford to pay for whatever medical services they need.

In regards to these recent attacks on Planned Parenthood with James O'Keefe style deceptively edited videos, the Hartster has shamefully come out on the side of the liars.

Willis Hart: Note to Planned Parenthood... I need about a dozen spleens and eight small intestines. Can you hook me up here? Volume discount maybe? (7/29/2015 AT 4:14pm).

Does Willis Hart work in the medical research field? No, I think not. He's simply denigrating PP and (in the process) dismissing the benefit to society this kind of research brings. For no stated reason - which is why I assume his idiotic commentary is simply his way of jumping on the "lie about PP by playing up the factually incorrect narrative that PP is doing something wrong" bandwagon. For which I say - shame on you Hart.

Did PP do something wrong? Did they break any laws? Willis does not address this question. He simply implies they are, by going along with this LIE. Which it is., in an article titled "Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video", refutes the lie that that "selling body parts" is a profit center for PP. Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that "$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue". In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have "no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit". (article from 7/21/2015).

So, ZERO profit. In fact they're losing money. PP is a non-profit organization. Fact is, the reason they do this (in addition to the research being beneficial to society), is to recoup some of their costs. As the person who was videoed without her knowledge, Deborah Nucatola (the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood) notes... "really their bottom line is, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get".

Yet Willis (a Libertarian who isn't even anti-choice per se) participates in this aspect of the War On Women with commentaries perpetrating lies (and the sicko frames his lie-assist as a frigging joke). Why? It's because he simply does not give a shit about poor women. And because he HATES Progressives. I mean, check out his blog if you don't believe me.

And this dumbass actually used to consider himself (or present himself, at least) as a "liberal". YES, you read that right! Eight years ago on the Media Matters site, Willis, (posting under the ID wvhart6757) wrote "I'm a liberal and that offends ME!" (he was referring to Keith Olbermann).

BTW, this is the same Willis Hart who, in regards to political 180s, sez "never been a big fan of them and tend to view those who engage in such actions suspiciously". Now he's a fiscally conservative Libertarian. Does Willis view himself with suspicion?

Although here (on the PP deceptively edited video issue) he sides with the SoCons (Social Conservatives). Similar to how he sides with the pro-discrimination side when it comes to businesses OPEN TO THE PUBLIC discriminating against patrons who are gay. In one commentary (for example) titled On "Bake Me a Cake with a Statue of Two Little Dudes on it or You're Going to Jail", Willis says YES, bigot business owner SHOULD be able to discriminate. Not because he approves (OF COURSE he does not), but because he's against government force.

Whatever. The end result is the same. Gay people get discriminated against (with the blessing of Willis). And with this PP case, Willis gives his blessing to the War On Women. This aspect of the war being making it next to impossible for a woman to not be able to access LEGAL medical care if they choose (or need) to access it.

Which is what the effect this War is having on women. Although abortion services represents a very small portion of PP does (3 percent). MOST of what they do involves offering other NEEDED medical services to lower income women (and men). And, given the fact that the radical anti-choicers goal (with these deceptively edited videos) is to defund PP, the Willis hypocrite (this is the a-hole who has the balls to scold me re Libertarians being "mostly pro-choice on abortion") is contributing to the effort to take away that choice.

And, yes, Willis did come out explicitly in favor of defunding PP.

Willis Hart: Yes, continue to provide poor people with birth control but do it in a different way and let PP get their cash the old fashioned way; by earning it and through private donations. (7/29/2015 AT 10:15pm).

PP is non-profit and provides needed medical services to lower-income women (as well as men), you MORON! Yet, with his post implying PP makes a profit from selling fetal tissue for medical research (and denigrating them for this "fact"), Willis sez they need to go from nonprofit to making enough profit to replace their federal funding (40 percent of their budget). Or get the money from "private donations" (which they already accept).

"The old fashioned way" he sez... as if PP is a business, as opposed to a charitable nonprofit. Although by "old fashioned" I think the misogynist is really referring to the old fashioned idea that women are inferior to men.

OST #62

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Willis Hart Sez I Am A Jackass With A Minuscule Mind B/C I Said Libertarianism Has Infected The Republican Party

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart sez, in a 7/27/2015 commentary from his blog, that I am a jackass with a minuscule mind because I said "Libertarianism has infected the Republican party".

Willis Hart: On the Idiotic Claim that Libertarianism Has "Infected" the Republican Party... The jackass who made this claim has said a myriad of stupid things in the past but this one takes the cake... (7/27/2015 AT 9:12pm).

I was speaking of Libertarian economics, but Willis slams me because the infection does not include being "opposed to war and foreign entanglements, mostly pro-choice on abortion, mostly pro immigrant, mostly in favor of marriage equality, mostly opposed to warrantless wiretaps, mostly opposed to the drug war, etc".

Mostly pro-choice? Perhaps, but two of our nation's most prominent Libertarians, Ron and Randal Paul, both ran as Republicans and both oppose abortion. Randal Paul, a Libertarian, believes in "fetal personhood" and introduced a bill to outlaw abortion.

What about the fact that THREE Libertarians - Ronald Paul, Gary Johnson and Jon Huntsman - all ran in the 2012 Republican presidential primaries? Also, Ronald's son Randal (who calls himself "Rand" in honor of Ayn Rand) is running in the 2016 primaries as a Republican. Yet Willis argues that Libertarians are vastly different than Republicans??

"I'm basically a libertarian", Koch brother David said (on 12/14/2014). Although Dave the Libertarian "cares much more about fiscal issues and the economy than about social issues"... which explains why the Kochs are enthusiastically supporting the Republican Scott Walker for prez (infecting our political process with 1 BILLION in campaign spending to support their puppet).

Obviously Libertarianism and Republicanism align STRONGLY when it comes to fiscal matters. So much so that the Kochs can overlook the social regressiveness of Scott Walker, who "opposes abortion, even in cases of rape and incest [and] swore an oath to uphold the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage [and supports] marriage between one man and one woman".

Regarding war and foreign entanglements, the Libertarian Koch man Scott Walker says "American troops should play a larger role in the fight against [ISIS] and that... for political reasons, President Obama isn't willing to expand the role of American troops...".

The Libertarian Randal Paul describes himself as a "social conservative" and sez he does not endorse same-sex marriage... although he supports marriage contracts for same-sex couples. "I'm an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage... that being said, I'm not for eliminating contracts between adults" Randal sez. So he favors a second class status for same-sex couples (so that would be NO on marriage equality).

Regarding war and foreign entanglements, the Libertarian Randal Paul sez he supported the war in Afghanistan and opposed rapid withdrawal from Iraq (although he says he would have voted against the invasion of Iraq to begin with). According to the Huffington Post, unlike his more stridently non-interventionist father, Paul sees a role for American armed forces abroad, including in permanent foreign military bases (so YES, on foreign entanglements).

In regards to being "pro immigrant", Randal supports granting legal status in the form of temporary visas to illegal immigrants but opposes a "special" path to citizenship.

Conclusion? The only reason "this one takes the cake" is because I dared to tell the truth about Libertarianism, which is that the greed of the oligarchs takes center stage with this ideology. Everything else is secondary, and can be easily set aside in pursuance of the primary goal.

The fact is that "Libertarianism" was created by the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), which is the very first Libertarian think tank. FEE itself was put together as a big business PR project by GM, Ford, Chrysler, US Steel, Gulf Oil, Standard Oil, Dupont, Monsanto, Con Ed, BF Goodrich, Eli Lilly, Merrill Lynch, General Electric and other fortune 500 companies to lobby for special governmental favors.

FEE and the MANY other "think tanks" (actually plutocrat-funded propaganda machines) exist to serve the interests of big business and the uber wealthy. Yes, they attempt to influence public perceptions, but they also lobby government for special favors, belying their stated opposition to crony capitalism.

According to Mark Ames of NSFWCORP (article via AlterNet) if you "pull up libertarianism's floorboards, look beneath the surface... you'll start to get a sense of its purpose"... which is to serve the interests of the billionaire class.

In this regard Libertarianism ABSOLUTELY has infected our political process. Although, concerning the objectives of both the Republican party and Libertarianism... perhaps it is more of an alignment of objectives as opposed to an "infection".

Regardless, I stand by my characterization. The proliferation of "think tanks" has most certainly had a HUGE impact on the Republican Party. Willis Hart deludes himself when he sez "how can libertarians be pro big business when they are opposed to ALL bailouts and ALL corporate welfare?".

What Willis doesn't realize is that the plutos are playing both sides! So what if it's hypocritical to SAY they're opposed to bailouts or welfare via their "think tanks" but send lobbyists to the Hill to bribe the politicos in exchange for these gifts?

Willis is being fooled by the plutos who are speaking out of both sides of their mouth! They'll tell the true-believers and dupes what they like to hear (via their "think tanks") while doing what is best for their bottom lines (via their lobbyists).

How Koch Industries Makes Billions By Demanding Bailouts And Taxpayer Subsidies (excerpt from a 3/1/2011 ThinkProgress article by Lee Fang) Koch Industries, the international conglomerate owned by Charles and David Koch, is not only the second largest private company in America, it is the most politically active. ...over the last three years, Koch groups have spent tens of millions to influence government policy — from financing the Tea Parties, to funding junk academic studies... to a large network of state-based and national think tanks.

Charles portrays himself as simply an ideological advocate, and says his money to political groups is only meant to "enhance true economic freedom". He chides special interests that have "successfully lobbied for special favors", claiming "crony capitalism is much easier than competing in an open market". But in reality, the focus of the Koch political machine is geared toward crony capitalism - corrupting government to make Charles and his brother David Koch richer. Koch's Tea Party libertarianism is actually a thin veneer for the company's long running history of winning special deals from the government and manipulating the market to pad Koch profits...

Dupes like Willis (a jackass who has said a myriad of stupid things in the past and continues to say stupid things) have been totally fooled by this "Libertarian" BS. So, yeah, in that regard Libertarianism ABSOLUTELY is an infection. An infection I suspect is responsible for his Libertarian brain disease.

OST #61

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Willis Hart Strawman In Defense Of Koch Plutocrats & Slander Of The Left

Yet another strawman from the strawman-loving Libertarin blogger Willis Hart. This one utterly amazing in it's stupidity.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Hard Left Goes Bonkers Even When the Koch Brothers Spend Their Money on Good (AKA, Nonpolitical) Things; $100 Million to New York's Presbyterian Hospital, $15 Million to Weill Cornell Medical Center, $30 Million to Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, $25 Million to the Hospital for Special Surgery, $100 Million to Lincoln Center, etc... How small and spiteful that the new left has become... Now, if only they, the Kochs, had spent that money toward ginning up racial animosity, pushing a discredited narrative, etc... (7/11/2015 AT 8:20pm).

First of all, WTF is Willis talking about? I'm guessing he read some unidentified news story about Koch Brothers charitable contributions and some Leftists criticism of it? Who knows. As usual the idiot assumes that anyone reading his blog consumes the same media he does and will therefore know what the hell he's talking about.

That, or he thinks this is a huge story that everyone should be aware of. Well, I have no effing clue what he's referring to... but I can tell you this - that the Koch brothers donate money to worthy causes is a good thing... although I'm sure they do it to aggrandize themselves as well as to buy good will. And as a tax write-off, of course. Another reason for the donating might even be them viewing themselves as good people and liking doing good things with their money.

I know that one aspect of Willis' worship of wealth is his great admiration for wealthy individuals doing just this sort of thing. He'd much rather wealthy benefactors bequeath a portion of their wealth for the charitable causes of their choice than We The People deciding these priorities (and paying for what We think is important with our tax dollars).

Of course, as a Progressive, I view this reliance of society on the largess of wealthy benefactors to address societal needs as both anti-democratic and a sign of oligarchy (and therefore at least a little troubling). But Willis takes the opposite view. According to him, this is the preferred method by which to accomplish good (and he has written a number of commentaries on his blog praising wealthy people's charity... both past and present).

The reference to spending money "ginning up racial animosity" and "pushing a discredited narrative" is a call back to another commentary on his blog in which he claims that it's a fact that "George Soros has purportedly spent $33 billion million financing protest groups in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Other Racially Charged Hotspots". And that in Ferguson we ALL KNOW that "hands up, don't shoot" was a "damned lie".

To which I say BULLSHIT. We do NOT "all know" that "hands up, don't shoot" was a "damned lie". This "lie", as I understand it, came from his friend Dorian Johnson. Several other witnesses say Brown raised his hands briefly. Frankly I think it is more likely that Johnson, in shock from seeing his friend murdered in front of him, wrongly remembered what happened. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. This, IMO, is an example of this, and not a "damned lie".

And, in any case, I do not think it matters whether Brown had his hands up in surrender or not. The fact is that Brown was 148 f*cking feet away from Wilson. Something the cops lied about, claiming the distance was only 35 feet. While Brown was running away Wilson should have ducked behind his car and called in the incident. Instead he shot Brown in cold blood, murdering him [1].

Willis' focuses on the "damned lie" to distract from this fact. Just as he distracts from the fact that the Koch plutocrats are attempting to buy the next presidential election by pointing to some worthy causes they are throwing money at (not necessarily for altruistic reasons).

And Willis present ZERO proof that the "hard left" is going "bonkers" over these donations. NONE. He saw or read it somewhere (presumably), but WHERE? How am I supposed to know if this happened or not if Willis is not clear WTF he's talking about? And notice that first he says the "hard left" went bonkers, then that changes to the "new left".

Which is it Willis? And who the hell is he talking about with this reference to the "new left"? Seems to me that the "new left" is anyone who identifies with the Left of today. The Left of the present and not the Left of the past. Which would include ALL Democrats and ALL Progressives, as well as everyone else who identifies with a left-leaning political ideology (Greens, Democratic Socialists, Socialists, etc).

Which is a TOTAL strawman. For example, I watched a segment on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman the other day in which a man working for the Koch brothers and Van Jones appeared. Seems they are joining forces to do something about the fact that the United States prison population is one of the largest (if not THE largest) in the world. Van Jones (who I am POSITIVE Willis would consider a part of the "hard left") was not going bonkers.

Mr. Jones noted that people on his side of the fence normally have problems with MOST of what the Koch Brothers do, but that in this instance they were on the same side, and that working with the opposition when there are areas of agreement is a good thing (and that it should be done).

But the strawman-loving Hart condemns everyone on the Left (or the undefined "new left"), calling everyone in this group "small and spiteful". All while NEVER revealing a source or identifying who, exactly, went bonkers. Or even what these people going bonkers entails. Were these people protesting? Did they issue a statement? What did they say?

I say that Willis can stuff his condemnation sans meaningful details. This post by Willis is nothing but hot air. Him expressing his hate of the Left/Progressives (or the "hard left" or "new left") with a commentary completely devoid of any facts to back up his accusations.

BTW, in regards to Willis' commentary "on the fact that George Soros has purportedly spent $33 billion million financing protest groups in Ferguson"... I say, which is it? Is this a "fact" or is it "purported"?

According to Snopes this rumor is a mixture of True and False. Snopes points out that "a grantmaking network founded by George Soros provided funding to some groups that engaged in Ferguson-related protest activities" but that Soros did NOT give "money to various groups for the express purpose of promoting Ferguson-related protests and riots".

So Willis lies, and that is a FACT. I am not alleging it, I am proving it. You can not call protesting a police shooting of an UNARMED Black man "ginning up racial animosity", you racist piece of shit!

Even if you disagree with the protestors... they still have the right to protest. And they were protesting what they saw as an unjust shooting, NOT "ginning up racial animosity". The "racial animosity" Willis refers to is his own (as well as the animosity of other racists).

But these people ginned it up themselves - when they viewed people legally protesting and (as Willis might put it), "got all butt hurt" at these (as Willis might put it) "assholes" having the nerve to not agree that the shooting was justified.

[1] IMO the police lying is more of a "damned lie" than Dorian Johnson (after seeing his friend murdered in front of him) saying Michael Brown had his hands up and was surrendering. 1st, I'm not 100 percent convinced this isn't exactly what happened. And 2nd, if it did not, I'm even less convinced that Dorian Johnson did still not recount the incident - as he remembered it.

OST #60

Wednesday, July 15, 2015

Another Willis Hart Minimum Wage Strawman (One That Serves The Evil Idea Of Keeping Workers Impoverished)

Willis Hart, a Libertarian blogger who hates low wage workers and loves strawmen, recently posted the following on his blog.

Willis Hart: Some Minimum-Wage Perspective... One of my friends at work posted this [see picture below] on her Facebook page and I really think that it hits the mark. The fact of the matter here is that if people want to earn more money, they have to get better skills first. And, yes, the jobs are there, hundreds of thousands of good jobs. (7/11/2015 AT 8:20pm).

Willis thinks this strawman "hits the mark" because he LOVES strawmen. The strawman here being that those who think the minimum wage should be $15 also think nobody else's wage should rise. That the EMT in the image should continue to work long hours at an extremely difficult job... while making the same amount as someone "flipping burgers".

The first individual pictured, which I am guessing is an EMT (due to the image giving a job description but no job title) has a harder job and deserves higher pay. However... the minimum wage sets a floor, and if "burger flippers" got a raise, so would the EMT (or he absolutely should, in any case).

What this Libertarian/Conservative strawman overlooks (on purpose) is the fact that the minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, the federal minimum wage peaked in 1968 at $8.54 (in 2014 dollars). Since it was last raised in 2009, to the current $7.25 per hour, the federal minimum has lost about 8.1% of its purchasing power to inflation. The Economist recently estimated that, given how rich the U.S. is and the pattern among other advanced economies in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, "one would expect America... to pay a minimum wage around $12 an hour". (5 facts about the minimum wage by Drew Desilver. Pew Research Center 5/20/2015).

The reason people like Willis ignore this reality is because they are wealth-worshiping stooges who are using ugly rhetoric like this (demonizing service industry workers) to distract from the fact that CEO pay and profits continue to rise (much faster than the rate of inflation) while wages for these workers are falling behind where they would be if adjusted for inflation.

These workers are greedy and lazy, so say these stooges/dupes. They are even "immoral".

Dennis Marks: One gets money by working for it. The other hopes to get money not by working for it, but by begging for the government to force a company to give it to them. Immoral. (7/12/2015 AT 2:44am).

What is EVIL here is that these stooges think they can get away with demonizing lower wage workers by implying that a desire for a wage that (at least) keeps pace with inflation is "immoral".

Evil, in my opinion, because, instead of a raise - when the minimum wage does not keep pace with inflation - every year low wage workers are actually getting a pay cut! And that money is going straight into the pockets of the plutocrats that people like Dennis and Willis worship (or "celebrate", as Willis sez).

Evil also is the desire of these people to do away with the minimum wage completely. Because without a minimum wage, low wage workers will be subject to the iron law of wages, which says that "that real wages always tend, in the long run, toward the minimum wage necessary to sustain the life of the worker". Note that "sustain the life" means that the worker does not die, or that all of them don't die. People can live in miserable abject poverty without dying. Or without ALL of them dying, at least.

THIS is what those who wish to do away with the minimum wage desire for low wage workers. And they also wish to depress the living standards of all other workers (because, as I said earlier, the minimum wage sets a floor and contributes to higher wages for many more workers than just those who earn the minimum).

And if that isn't evil, then I don't know what is.

Image Description: "You're not worth the explanation" you waste of skin!

OST #59

Monday, July 13, 2015

Willis Hart Sez We Should Be "Celebrating" Plutocrats?

Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a wealth-worshipping stooge. Evidence of this can be found on his blog in his various blog posts either denigrating working people or praising wealthy individuals whilst worrying that they are carrying far too large a portion of the tax burden.

Although, if called on his proclivity to worship wealth, he denies it. Recently, however, Willis made a statement that is as close to outright declaring wealthy people who use their wealth to influence government to their advantage (the definition of "plutocrat") should be... as he puts it, "celebrated".

Willis Hart: And the real plutocrats (if you go by the top 1% as your criteria) are for the most part doctors, lawyers, dentists, architects, engineers, accountants, optometrists, chiropractors, administrators, small business entrepreneurs, etc.; people, in other words, who've gone to college for 6 to 8 years and spent the better part of a decade establishing themselves by working 60 plus hour weeks. Instead of denigrating these people, we should be celebrating them. (7/6/2015 AT 11:42pm).

OK, so the "if you go by the top 1% as your criteria" is complete BS. This criteria Willis lays out has nothing to do with the dictionary definition of "plutocrat". The people he lists are not plutocrats.

So we can throw that section out. What we're left with is Willis saying that the REAL plutocrats should be celebrated.

Proof that Willis, when railing against crony capitalism, is full of shit? I think he might actually support it, as crony capitalism is one of the actions the REAL plutocrats engage in. And he said it (his own words) that the plutocrats should be "celebrated".

Yeah, he did attempt to dissemble in regards to which people fall into the "plutocrat" category (with a list of higher paid professions)... but that was a lie. Those people are not plutocrats, and all one needs to do is look the word up in the dictionary to know this.

Willis is either lying or stupid. Personally I think he lies. Willis knows who the REAL plutocrats are, and he *does* think these people - who use their wealth to bribe politicians to do their bidding - should be "celebrated".

In any case, I put a question mark at the end of the title of this post because Willis might be that stupid. But I doubt it.

OST #58

Saturday, July 11, 2015

On Not Knowing The Difference Between An Actor And The Character They're Playing

Apparently the blogger Willis Hart does not.

Willis Hart: On Eva Marie Saint's Seduction of Cary Grant in "North by Northwest"... Note to Eva (Eve in the film). He's gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that!!!! (7/8/2015 AT 8:35pm).

OK, so he does acknowledge that Eva Marie Saint had a different name in the film... because she was playing a character. But he seems to think that both Eva Marie Saint (the actress) and "Eve Kendall" (the character in the film) "seduced" Cary Grant.

And, btw, Cary Grant was also playing a character... so while Cary Grant MIGHT have been gay, "Roger Thornhill" was not.

In any case, I looked into it, and despite Willis being convinced that Cary Grant having been gay is a fact, I found information that suggests otherwise.

"My father liked being called gay", admits Cary Grant's daughter in new memoir... Cary Grant's daughter has penned a memoir about the famous actor, admitting he liked it when people called him gay. The British screen icon, who was married five times, was often dogged by rumors that he was bisexual. But his daughter Jennifer Grant... says the Hot Saturday star actually liked the mystique surrounding his sexuality because it "made women want to prove the assertion wrong".

In the memoir, Good Stuff: A Reminiscence of My Father, Cary Grant, Jennifer writes: "(You) Can't blame men for wanting him, and wouldn't be surprised if Dad even mildly flirted back". (Excerpt from a 4/28/2011 Daily Mail Reporter article).

Obviously his daughter did not believe he was gay. (Cary Grant's only child Jennifer Grant was born in 1966. Jennifer's mother is Dyan Cannon, who Cary Grant married in 1965).

So, who am I going to believe, the Hollywood rumor mill (and Willis) or Cary Grant's daughter? Yeah, that's an easy one. Verdict: probably not gay. Or bisexual... which this article says the actual rumor was... so he WOULD have been open to a seduction by Eva Marie Saint, if she had actually tried to seduce him (as opposed to her character doing the "seducing").

Four strikes and Willis is out...

Strike 1 is not knowing Eva Marie Saint was acting and thinking she actually had romantic feelings for the lead she was playing opposite when, in reality, she was (and still is) married to Jeffrey Hayden (and Grant was married to Betsy Drake).

Cary Grant was also acting, and his character "Roger Tornhill" was a straight man who was open to being "seduced"... the two characters (Eve Kendall and Roger Thornhill) were married at the end of the film.

Strike 2 is thinking Cary Grant being gay is a confirmed fact instead of an unconfirmed rumor. A rumor that Grant addressed, saying that he had "nothing against gays, I'm just not one myself" [1]. And his own daughter disputes this as well. (Randolph Scott is the actor he was rumored to have had a gay affair with).

Strike 3 is him not knowing the actual rumor was that Cary Grant was bi-sexual, and therefore, if Eva had actually been seducing him (instead of acting) he may have been open to the seduction.

Strike 4 is thinking Eva Marie Saint - or anyone else he addresses with his "notes" - reads them. Or would care if they did. If Eva Marie Saint didn't know (or had heard the rumor) back in 1959... what is she (if she were to read Willis' "note") supposed to do with that information now?

[1] Source: Wikipedia/Randolph Scott/Personal Life/Rumors about sexual orientation.

Image Description: Randolph Scott's adopted son, Christopher, challenged the rumors. Following Scott's death, Christopher wrote a book titled, Whatever Happened to Randolph Scott?, in which he rebuts rumors of his father's alleged homosexuality. The widely circulated photos of Grant and Scott were publicity stills. Both Scott and Grant were posed for the shots that were staged by an art director, to be used for an upcoming film, My Favorite Wife. The photos were stolen from the Scott family house during the last months of his father's life by a nurse who had been fired [1].

OST #57

Friday, July 10, 2015

Willis Hart Selective Focus On Burning Buildings Depending On Who Is To Blame (Or Who Willis Thinks Is To Blame) For Them Being Burned

An important news story of late is the fact that a number of Black churches have caught fire and burned.

Five predominantly black Southern churches burn within a week; arson suspected in at least three. ... Since the shooting, lawmakers and civil rights leaders have been focused on the backlash as people have been calling for the country to stop waving the Confederate flag. Now authorities are looking into the recent church fires at predominantly black churches, which the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group that tracks hate crimes, reports "may not be a coincidence". (6/20/2015 Washington Post article by Lindsey Bever).

But, while there is absolutely nothing about this on the blog of the Libertarian Willis Hart, he has authored a number of other commentaries regarding other buildings being burned.

Willis Hart: Question for the Baltimore Rioters... And the black senior citizens who relied on that CVS (yeah, the one that you assholes torched) are going to get their life-sustaining medications now and in the future how exactly? (5/12/2015 AT 4:03pm).

Willis is talking about a criminal act, so he's not out of line to be wondering why the rioters were rioting (and starting fires/burning down buildings) instead of peacefully protesting. However, these arsonists are not representative of the community. I was watching Free Speech TV program that featured a segment on the aftermath of that fire... and saw with my own eyes African American members of that community showing up and cleaning up the CVS.

CVS realizes that the community as a whole was not responsible) and they plan to rebuild. "We have a long history of serving inner city communities and are 100 percent committed to serving our patients and customers in Baltimore" a spokesperson said.

In any case, the rioters had good reason to be upset, IMO. Freddie Gray, the individual whose death sparked these riots, was obviously murdered. However (1) we're talking about criminal acts, and (2) the officers responsible have not been let off the hook... yet. They may very well be, but it hasn't happened yet. I think the protests should be kept peaceful until (at least) the cops are not held responsible. Not that I think there should be any rioting and criminal acts in response even then... only that that response would be more understandable if that is the verdict. But it isn't... yet.

In any case, it seems as though Willis' outrage is highly selective. Another example of the selective outrage of Mr. Hart as follows...

Willis Hart: On the Fact that those Rioters, Hooligans, And Looters in Ferguson Apparently Burnt Down a Predominantly Black Church Last Night... The biggest mistake last night was not arresting the first couple of trouble-makers and giving these protesters the much-needed message that lawlessness of this sort would not be tolerated. ... As for the burning of churches, how ironic is that? (11/26/2014 AT 8:04pm).

So, this is a church that Willis is concerned about getting burned? Because (he thinks) Black rioters are responsible. But did the "criminal Blacks" do it?

A Ferguson MO church gutted by fire on Monday was targeted by white supremacists because the pastor had publicly called for Police Officer Darren Wilson to be arrested, Rev. Carlton Lee alleged in an interview. Flood Christian Church was one of more than a dozen buildings and businesses damaged by arsonists in the St. Louis suburb overnight after a grand jury chose not to indict Wilson in the shooting death of a black teen.

He said it's unlikely the people protesting the grand jury's decision are responsible. Instead, racists who wanted to harm the brown family are probably behind the blaze, he said. (Ferguson church where Michael Brown's father was baptized on Sunday is torched 24 hours later by Jason Molinet. Daily News 11/26/2014).

OK, so a suspicion by the pastor of the church isn't proof that White racists instead of Black looters are responsible for the fire, but the Feds are investigating. You don't need to investigate (much) if you know who did it, as Willis thinks he does (although he did use the word "apparently" he still seems pretty convinced).

That is TWO commentaries about Black "assholes" setting fires (even if, in the case of the church fire it has not been proven that Black rioters did it) and ZERO commentaries about the burning of these Black churches... apparently in retaliation to calls for the Confederate flag to be removed from government property.

That, by the way, is something Willis has commented on... get a load of how he spins the issue...

Willis Hart: On the Removal of the Confederate Flag... So, does this (the banishing of an inanimate object) now mean that young black men are going to stop killing each other over foolishness (half-eaten Hershey bars, Air-Jordan Sneaks, a perceived dis, etc.), that the out of wedlock childbirth rate will start heading in the other direction, that inner-city black parents will start showing up more at PTA meetings, that black people will start cooperating with the Police when assassinations happen right under their collective noses... And, yes, it's a rhetorical question. (6/25/2015 AT 4:11pm).

The issue behind the removal of the Confederate flag is that it is a symbol of racism. It has nothing to do with these other issues that Willis raises. Nothing at all. So why the hell is Willis bringing them up in relationship to the removal of this flag? And why does Willis dismiss this symbol of racial animosity as "an inanimate object"? Of course it's an inanimate object, but it is also a symbol representing slavery... over which the Civil War was fought (despite Willis believing the war was fought over tariffs).

But, instead of sticking to the actual topic, the doofus spins this as yet another opportunity to bash Black people. Something he tried to do on the rAtional nAtion blog, although Octopus called him on his racism, correctly pointing out that "racial profiling is the same as racism, and Will-the-Shill has demonstrated both in this comment thread".

Which caused Willis to run back to his blog and whine (with a commentary saying that he was called a racist by Octo because he disagreed with him. As opposed to actually saying something that was racist (which he did).

Then Willis declared that he was henceforth not going to venture outside his echo chamber (and that he doesn't understand why others don't do the same... presumably a response to people coming to his blog and calling him a racist).

Huh. I say if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... maybe it's a duck? And this might explain why Willis' outrage is sooooo selective? (see OST #39 for another example of this). One does not need to be as bad as the exceedingly racially biased Radical Redneck to have racial biases that are above average. Which Willis does. He is no "thin red thread", whatever the hell that is. He's simply less of a racially insensitive buffoon (which is how he characterizes the Redneck... although I'd say Radical is a flat-out-racist while it is Willis who is the "racially insensitive buffoon").

BTW, I noticed that Willis fantasized about committing an act of vandalism himself on his blog by throwing a brick through the window of the home of someone he dislikes (as opposed to burning the hated individual's house down)... what's up with that?

Video Description: Ferguson Church Pastor Speaks out After Fire (1:13).

OST #56

Sunday, July 5, 2015

On Willis Hart Referring To African American Men Using The Racist Term "Minstrel"

Previously the minstrel was the Reverend Al Sharpton. The latest minstrel, according to the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is Tariq Nasheed. Tariq is an American author, documentary film producer, media personality, satirist, Internet radio host, relationship expert, and social commentator, focusing on the psychology of dating and African-American social history (source: Wikipedia.

Willis Hart: On the Minstrel, Tariq Nasheed, Getting All Butt-Hurt Over a Black Conservative's Contrary Opinion but Not Saying a Fucking Word When a Seven Year-old Gets Her Brains Blown Out by a Trio of Gang-Bangers in Memphis or When an Infant Gets Her Head Lopped Off by Some Degenerate Black Chick in Cincinnati... As long as assholes like this dominate the discussion, nothing will change... It won't. (6/30/2015 AT 10:12pm).

So, what, exactly is Willis trying to say when he uses the term "minstrel"?

The minstrel show, or minstrelsy, was a US form of entertainment developed in the 19th century, consisting of comic skits, variety acts, dancing, and music, performed by white people in blackface or, especially after the U.S. Civil War, by black people.

Minstrel shows lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, happy-go-lucky, and musical. (Wikipedia/Minstrel Show).

So... Willis is saying Tariq is dim-witted? Is he saying Tariq is buffoonish? I guess it's either the first pejorative or both of them. But none of the other adjectives apply, so WHY use such a racist term? (and it absolutely is racist)?

Does Willis believe he is being clever?

Also, if Tariq decides to voice his opinion on one subject, why MUST he (according to Willis) also voice his opinion on another subject? Whatever the subject is... Willis does not say. As usual, he expects people to know what the hell he's talking about. What did this Black Conservative say that caused Tariq to get "butthurt"? Who the hell (aside from Willis) knows? I did a quick Google search and no results appeared to be matches for whatever Willis is talking about. Not a single person who read his commentary knows either, I'll bet (the post has zero replies).

And, is Tariq "dominating the discussion"? I can't say that I'm aware of who the hell he is. Maybe I've heard the name before, but I can't say. Which points to no "dominating", I think. Perhaps he is "dominating the discussion" within the Black community? Possibly. Apparently his documentary films deal with racism.

But Traiq does not address Black on Black crime, apparently. Which is what Willis DEMANDS from African Americans participating in the discussion concerning the priorities of the Black community, which would include crime (all varieties), education (inner city schools), out-of-wedlock births, police violence, poverty, racism, etc. These are all topics which any participant in the discussion COULD choose to discuss.

But the thing is, Willis (a White man) is NOT a participant in this discussion! He can try to insert himself, as many White people have (with good, or ill intent), but they can only participate as outsiders. Which would be fine if Willis wanted to do this, but that he's making DEMANDS in regards to what Black participants should be discussing, and not only criticizing (when the person who he focuses in on) does not share his priorities? And criticizing using racist language? It's totally unacceptable.

Criticize it you want, but leave out the racist language (calling Black men "minstrels"). And tone down the outrage, why not? I mean, as an outsider these people you're criticizing are not likely to listen to you anyway. But, leaving that aside, the racist language must go! Or, you know, people are going to focus in on it and (rightly) label you a racist, you dummy, Willis!

And what's with Willis' use of the term "butthurt"? Is it homophobic?

OST #55

Saturday, July 4, 2015

Willis Hart Idiotic Capital Gains Tax Trickle Down Stoogery

The wealthy-worshiping stooge Willis Hart, in a recent commentary on his Libertarian blog, claimed (in regards to the economic conditions under President Bill Clinton), that "The economy was poised for a recovery in 1993 and if anything the tax hikes retarded it". Then he adds that that "the economy didn't really start to explode until the President and Congress passed the capital gains tax cut in 1996".

And, if you dare disagree with Willis? Well, that's likely because "simple minds have a tendency to seek out simple explanations (those that buttress their narrative)".

So... Willis is arguing in favor of the debunked trickle down (AKA Supply side) economic theory [1]? A theory that Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, David Stockman, admited was "a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate" (total bullshit used as an excuse to lower taxes on the wealthy, in other words).

That Willis is making this argument is strange, given the fact that he's spoken in FAVOR of increasing the capital gains tax in the past.

Willis Hart: Under my tax proposal [there would be] a 40% top tax rate of everything over $400,000 a year [and] a doing away of the special consideration for capital gains... (1/22/2012 AT 7:01pm).

Why the hell was Willis arguing for doing away with the special consideration for capital gains, if, when it was cut - by Newt Gingrich and Erskine Bowles (Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff at the time) - the result was economic prosperity?

The economy "exploded" when this tax was cut Willis sez. Still he wished to raise it (and by quite a bit) back in 2012?

And, no, Willis has NEVER authored a commentary proclaiming that he has rethought his previous position. Not a single post exists on his blog that says he changed his mind in regards to the capital gains tax. Not one that says it should stay the same nor one that says it should be lowered.

Talk about a "simple mind".

In any case, the fact is that the cutting of the capital gains tax rate has been the largest single contributor to income inequality [2]. The rich did very well as a result of this tax cut, and (as a result) the stock market did well. But when the stock market does well that does not mean the economy is doing well, given the fact the wealthiest 5% of US households own 70% of the stock, while 47% of Americans do not own any stock at all [3].

When the stock market is doing well we know the rich are doing well - but that's about it. Cutting the capital gains tax rate is actually BAD for the rest of us (as it increases inequality). And the inequality thing also destroys the "trickle down" argument, I think. When the rich do better the rich do better. The wealth does NOT trickle down - inequality increases.

But Willis, given the fact that he is a wealthy worshiping stooge, almost certainly views a stock market that is doing well as indicative of how the economy is doing for average Americans. And now he has apparently reversed his previous position.

That, or the simple-minded stooge just doesn't realize that saying "the economy didn't really start to explode until the President and Congress passed the capital gains tax cut in 1996" is a pro-trickle down argument.

[1] The 1 percent are parasites: Debunking the lies about free enterprise, trickle-down, capitalism and celebrity entrepreneurs (excerpt) The rich don't generate jobs. Rising tides do not lift all boats. And they probably built that with government help. (4/11/2015 Salon article by Andrew Sayer).
[2] Capital Gains Tax Cuts "By Far" The Biggest Contributor To Growth In Income Inequality, Study Finds (article excerpt) Capital gains and other investment income was taxed as regular wage income from 1986 until 1996, when the capital gains rate was reduced. It was further reduced as part of the Bush tax cuts, and over the last decade, it has reversed the equalizing effects of taxes and allowed for massive income gains for the wealthy that translated directly into increased income inequality... (2/20/2013 ThinkProgress article by Travis Waldron).
[3] That "the wealthiest 5% of US households own 70% of the stock" is an estimate based on 2010 figures (the Salon article this info comes from quotes economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University and says the estimate is based on "recent market developments").(Stock ownership: Who benefits? by Stephan Richter of The Globalist. 9/13/2013).

OST #54

Friday, July 3, 2015

Willis Hart Many "No Female Discrimination" Commentaries Disturbingly In Agreement With Men's Rights Movement Concerns (Addendum to OST #48)

In OST #48 I discussed a specific "females not discriminated against" commentary from the blog of the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart titled "On Patricia Arquette's Oscar-Winning Speech in Which She Dusted Off that Thoroughly Discredited Meme About Gender Pay Inequality". In this 6/27/2015 commentary Willis argues that women are never paid less than men for doing the same work.

Although he does clarify (in an addendum) that he wasn't saying "individual women haven't been discriminated against or [that] there aren't bigoted employers of every stripe out there". No, of course not! There are only "anecdotes" like Lilly Ledbetter. Such things are always anecdotes with this guy... and not real problems that need to be addressed!

If you do think that gender pay discrimination is a real problem? You are worthy of ridicule from Willis. Which he did recently on his blog with a series of 8 commentaries (see list below). The first one being the one where he expresses his outrage toward Patricia Arquette for her Oscar speech. This is the commentary for which I wrote a response (OST #48), and where I bring up the Lilly Ledbetter case

A case Willis apparently considers just another anecdote. He also considers his views on the issue as having nothing to do with "anti-female discrimination".

However, when I plugged into Google some search terms based on his 6 subsequent (in the same vein) commentaries I found that many of the complaints Willis makes point back to the Men's Rights Movement (MRM). Seems that misogynist men who loath feminists like to cite the very same stats Willis does to dispute male privilege (which Willis refers to as "supposed").

Willis goes on to echo other MRM complaints, whining that "Oh, yeah, us guys get all the breaks". Yeah, cry me a river Willis - it really is men who are discriminated against. Not!

Anyway, back to Willis' pay disparity commentary... in it he cites a number of "facts" that he sez proves women are justifiably being paid less. These Willis "facts" concern types of work (or fields) that tend to be dominated by men... but we're talking about women being paid the same for doing the same work. Men dominating a field isn't a good excuse to pay a man more - and 13 of Willis' 20 good reasons why a man should make more can be chucked immediately for this reason.

For example, Willis says that more men "major in technology and the hard sciences", but since we're talking about women being paid the same for doing the same job, we can assume that the woman majored in the field needed to get the job (people with the same job have to meet the same requirements to get said job).

Mr. Hart also laughably claims that because a man is "willing to commute longer distances" he should be paid more. What the hell does how far away you live have to do with how much you should be paid? Where you live and how far you're willing to travel isn't anything your boss really cares about. I'm positive he (or she) does not take it into consideration when determining pay.

It seems that Willis does not understand the whole pay disparity issue is based on paying people the same for doing the same work, as only 6 of his 20 excuses have anything to do with paying someone more for doing the same work.

That the Hartster's post is such a joke is one reason why I'm convinced that misogyny might be a factor here. I mean, I read an article from a "Resident Scholar" of the Conservative American Enterprise Institute titled "Wage Gap Myth Exposed (by Christina Hoff Sommers) and she did a MUCH better job of disputing gender pay inequality than Willis did with his pathetic post.

Which isn't to say Sommers convinced me of this "myth", although her article did cause me to think on the issue. Whereas I only laughed at the Willis commentary. And deduced that he may be a misogynist (based on this commentary and the 6 that followed).

For the record, I am not going to label Willis Hart a misogynist at this time with 100 percent certitude. I only strongly suspect he is. I have labeled him a racist for his strong racial biases. Or, racist-leaning, at least. There is PLENTY of evidence to support that charge.

Anyway, I think that if someone is biased against African Americans it's pretty likely they hold other biases... against women, for example. Calling male privilege "supposed" is another reason to believe I'm on the right track here, as well as his commentaries slamming Sandra Fluke for having the audacity to call for birth control to be paid for by health care insurers.

Wait, scratch that "100 percent certitude" business - I am absolutely convinced the Hartster has a misogyny problem. I mean, in addition to the other issues I already pointed to in this commentary, the dude has authored numerous posts objectifying women and numerous posts concerning lesbians. Lesbianism has nothing to do with you, Willis (as a straight male). It is only a FANTASY that they're going to let you watch (or join in). Yet Willis can't stop thinking about lesbians. Sure, I'm positive lots of straight guys have similar thoughts, but how many blog about lesbians regularly?

WTNPH "Supposed" Male Privilege Commentaries
[1] On Patricia Arquette's Oscar-Winning Speech in Which She Dusted Off that Thoroughly Discredited Meme About Gender Pay Inequality (and of How Meryl Streep Jumped Up Like a Trained Seal with Silly and Embarrassing Affirmation). 5/27/2015 AT 8:13pm.
[2] On the Fact that Women Fail to Pay Child Support at a Higher Rate than Men (32% versus 26%) and We've Never Once Heard the Term, Deadbeat Moms (Until, that is, Naomi Brunner's Book of the Same Name Last Year). 5/28/2015 AT 4:05pm.
[3] On the Fact that Men are 13 Times More Likely to Die on the Job than Women (93% Versus Just 7%). 5/28/2015 AT 5:25pm.
[4] On the Fact that Nearly 40% of the Victims of Serious Domestic Violence Are Men (with Men Being Far More Likely the Victims of Attacks with a Deadly Weapon). 5/28/2015 AT 8:59pm.
[5] On the Concept of Making Male Victims of Statutory Rape (14 and 15 year old boys) Pay Child Support to the Predators Who Got Pregnant from the Act. 5/29/2015 AT 3:51pm.
[6] On Patricia Arquette's Oscar-Winning Speech in Which She Dusted Off that Thoroughly Discredited Meme About Gender Pay Inequality (and of How Meryl Streep Jumped Up Like a Trained Seal with Silly and Embarrassing Affirmation) - Quick Addendum/Surface-Thinker Alert. 5/29/2015 AT 5:25pm.
[7] On the Fact that Women Commit 10% of the Murders but Only Comprise 1.5% of Those on Death Row. 5/30/2015 AT 2:49pm.
[8] On the Fact that (According to Author, Warren Farrell) Never-Married Women with No Children Make 117% of What Never-Married Men with No Children Make. 6/26/2014.

Image Description: Albert Calabrese believes the age of consent should be 12 years old. Does Willis agree? Probably not, but this is the kind of fellow he throws his lot in with when he posts on "Men's Rights" related topics. OK, so maybe he doesn't throw his lot in with this sort (statutory rapists), but his posts do reflect where these MRM dude's minds are at (they're convinced that men are oppressed).

OST #53

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Another Example That Points To Willis Hart Being Racist? Or Is He Just Stupid?

Libertarian blogger Willis Hart claims that he watches Fox Nooz (for the hotties, the misogynist sez). So, is it is possible that he missed it when various Fox Noozers discussed the racially motivated terrorist attack at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in downtown Charleston SC on 6/17/2015?

Willis Hart: On Leftists Like The Young Turks Charging that Conservatives Are Attempting to Deny that that Piece of Shit Murderer Down in South Carolina Was Motivated by Racial Hatred... Where do they come up with this shit? (7/1/2015 AT 6:05pm).

Where does Willis come up this shit? I have not watched the Young Turks since Al Gore cashed out and sold Current, but I have certainly heard that Fox Nooz (at least initially) denied that the attack was motivated by racial hatred.

When news broke that a young white man had gunned down nine people in a historically black church in Charleston... most people quickly seemed to infer that racial animus was a likely motivation for the attack... Not the cast of Fox & Friends. This morning the show brought on E.W. Jackson, a black pastor... known for referring to... President Obama as a "radical anti-American". Without mentioning the possibility that the killings were racially motivated, Jackson explained that he was worried about the fact that the attack happened at a church.

[Jackson said] "...I'm telling you, I'm deeply concerned that this gunman chose to go into a church, because there does seem to be a rising hostility against Christians across this country because of our biblical views. I just think it's something that we have to be aware of and not create an atmosphere in which people take out their violent intentions against Christians". From there, Jackson urged "pastors and men in these churches to prepare to defend themselves" by arming up with guns. (How Fox News Tried to Spin the Charleston Shooting as an Attack on Christianity This Morning by Jordan Weissmann. Slate 6/18/2015).

Is Willis denying reality here because this story does not fit with his narrative that, while both Fox and MSNBC are biased, "It isn't even a contest at this point, folks. MSNBC is significantly worse"?

No, Willis... suggesting a obviously racially motivated shooting was actually an attack on Christianity? That is "significantly worse", you liar. And, what a stooopid thing to lie about, as anyone who pays attention to the news has likely heard about this bullshit from Fox Nooz.

This guy is so much of a stooge that it makes my skin crawl. For instance, Willis is still going on about how this shooting is an "anecdote" and absolutely does not prove that America still has a very real problem with racism.

Five predominantly black Southern churches burn within a week; arson suspected in at least three. ... Since the shooting, lawmakers and civil rights leaders have been focused on the backlash as people have been calling for the country to stop waving the Confederate flag. Now authorities are looking into the recent church fires at predominantly black churches, which the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights group that tracks hate crimes, reports "may not be a coincidence". (6/20/2015 Washington Post article by Lindsey Bever).

I do not believe for one second these church fires are a coincidence. I believe that those responsible for these fires were almost certainly motivated specifically by the Dylann Roof church shooting - or the hubbub concerning taking down the Confederate flag. Even if a coincidence, arson at a church points very clearly to racist hate as a motivation. Which utterly destroys Willis' claim that "partisan schmucks [have] taken this one isolated incident and attempted to extrapolate from it the conclusion that America is still a racist country".

Partisan schmuck? F*ck you Willis! That is (almost) exactly what I have concluded, as this is what the facts show to be the case. Although I would not say we are a "racist country". I would only say that our country still has a very real problem with racism. The "racist country" framing by Willis is another of the strawmen he is famous for. Nobody has used this framing, you strawman-loving racist schmuck.

Yeah, you got that right... Willis' denial of this story (Fox Nooz spinning the church shooting as an attack on Christianity) plus his denial of our nation's continuing problem with racism is another example of Willis Hart's problem with racism (in my strong opinion).

By the way, in regards to the Hartster's LOVE of strawmen... get this: Willis thinks he's refuting a claim (from the Left?) that there are "vast armies of white people going around slaughtering black folks".

Even if you do not agree that Willis' ignorance of the Fox Nooz story plus his strawman framing points to racism, you absolutely have to agree that it points to him being a total dumbshit. If not, then I think you might be a dumbshit yourself.

Video Description: Video from Fox & Friends that proves Willis Hart is completely full of shit.

OST #52