On The Racist Blogger Willis Hart Criticizing Beyonce (Using Foul Language) For "Buck-Dancing & Jiving with Some Idiotic Blond Weave"

Another racist post from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, this time his ire directed at the incredibly successful singer/performer Beyoncé Knowles.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Beyonce Can Do One Fucking Minstrel Show After Another (Buck-Dancing and Jiving with Some Idiotic Blond Weave) and Not Be Called a Coon (Her Fist in the Air Stunt Evidently Giving Her Some Street-Cred) but Ben Carson, a Noteworthy Pediatric Neurosurgeon, Gets Called One Simply for Having an Opinion. Yep, this unfortunately passes for logic among groups such as the New Black Panther Party, Black Lives Matter, etc.. And the thing is, they don't even understand what cooning is, for Christ sakes (the fact that it involves behavior and NOT opinions)! How embarrassing and quite a drop-off from Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Ed Brooke, Thomas Sowell, etc., wouldn't you say? (3/7/2016 AT 3:44pm).

Actually, no, I would not say. Ben Carson is being criticized for saying ridiculous things... such as comparing women who get abortions to slaveholders, saying ObamaCare is worse than slavery, Jews could have prevented the Holocaust if they had guns, being gay is a choice because prison turns people gay, there's no such thing as a war crime, and many more (source).

As for Willis saying "they don't even understand what cooning is"... first, who the hell is this "they"? Sounds like he's implying that the New Black Panthers (who are unaffiliated with the "old" Black Panthers) and Black Lives Matter (or affiliated individuals) have referred to Carson using this slur? Who knows? I Googled (and results were returned), but when I searched the pages for the word "coon", I found it was not present.

Perhaps if I looked harder/longer I could find something, but I'm honestly not going to waste my time with such bullshit. Bullshit because Willis is the one who doesn't know what "cooning" means. According to a 10/7/2015 Mediaite article "within the black community... Coonery [applies when] poor Blacks embarrass bourgeoisie Blacks".

So, Carson, being a "bourgeoisie Black", CAN'T be guilty of "coonery". Neither can Beyonce, as the term applies to poor Blacks only. When used by middle class & wealthy Blacks. When used by Whites "they are slurring all black people". So, when Willis suggests Beyonce is a coon, he's slurring BOTH Beyonce and Ben Carson.

An offensive term Willis Hart uses (although he dishonestly attempts to put the word into Black mouths) BECAUSE HE'S A RACIST!

The ONLY reason he refers to Beyonce's performances as "minstrel shows" is because she is Black. The ONLY reason he describes her performances (the non-audio aspects) as "buck dancing and jiving" is because she's Black. And the ONLY reason he criticizes her "idiotic blonde weave" is BECAUSE SHE IS BLACK! I mean, does anyone think that he would level similar criticisms against a White performer? Of course not.

As for the criticisms of Ben Carson "for having an opinion", the criticisms (such as I noted above) have to do with his political statements and are not related to his career as a "noteworthy pediatric neurosurgeon", you fucking racist dumbass!

Image: Beyoncé Knowles performs during the 2/7/2016 Super Bowl 50 halftime show. It was the performance of Formation that PO'd (White racially-biased) Conservatives like WTNPH, because the music "video also featured imagery closely aligned with the #BlackLivesMatters movement". (Why the Beyoncé controversy is bigger than you think).

OST #138

Montel Williams Is Black, Therefore His Views On The BLM Versus Rancher Showdown In Oregon Are Race-Based & Montel Is A Racist

Another example of hyper racial consciousness from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart (a subject I first addressed with OST #91).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Out of Work Talk-Show Host, Montel Williams, Recently Advocated that the Government Show a "Massive Use of Force" and Institute "Shoot to Kill" Orders as a Means to Settle the BLM Versus Rancher Showdown in Oregon... Yeah, I don't seem to recall him advocating shit like this when black people were destroying a large section of Ferguson, Missouri (including a senior center and a CVS pharmacy) over what ultimately proved to be one of the most virulent lies of recent memory (the hands up, don't shoot narrative). It must have been an oversight (you know, as opposed to him being a fucking racist and hypocrite whose only goal is to denigrate white people and glorify the state). (1/6/2016 AT 9:56pm).

First of all, what a freaking surprise that Willis finds an angle to write about this story which doesn't have him criticising the law breaking ranchers while going after African American protestors. No, wait, that the racist Hart would refuse to criticise the White ranchers isn't a surprise at all.

Another non surprise is the fact that a Conservative opinion site had the exact same thought... while Googling for some more info, I found a story on the "Independent Sentinel" titled "To Be Fair, Montel Williams Must Want Shoot to Kill Orders in Ferguson and Baltimore Too" (the author of this article, Sarah Noble, describes herself as an "ex-liberal").

By the way, "protest leader Ryan Bundy told Oregonian politics reporter Ian Kullgren that he was willing to kill and be killed if necessary to sustain the occupation" (Extremist Group Calls for Oregon Militants to Be Willing to Die). My guess is that this statement is what Montel was referring to and that he did not mean what he said literally.

If he did mean it literally? I don't agree. Unless the militants start going through with Ryan Bundy's call for them to be "willing to kill", the law should seek to end this peacefully.

In any case, it's obviously because Montel Williams is Black that the hyper racially conscious Willis concludes he is a "fucking racist". I mean, what if a White guy had said this? I was watching the Stephanie Miller show yesterday and Stephanie read a news story about Bundy saying they were willing to die... and the Mooks (her co-hosts) all said "OK". I did not take this "OK" literally. Nor did I think they said it due to them being racist (against Whites).

As for Willis not seeming to recall what Montel said when "black people were destroying a large section of Ferguson, Missouri"... I did not recall either. So I Googled and found what he said.

Ferguson‬ – is this really how you think your going to raise the LEGITIMATE issue of the disconnect between law enforcement and the black community? By burning down a pizza restaurant and looting a beauty shop IN YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD! ... THIS IS NOT HOW TO DO THIS – you've badly damaged the chances of making progress on the issue you so badly want to raise. ... This is insane. There is NO JUSTIFICATION. (Montel Williams blasts Ferguson riots by Jennifer Brett. The Atlanta Journal Constitution‎'s Buzz Blog 11/25/2015).

OK, so he didn't call for the use of lethal force to stop the protesters, but neither was he defending what they did. But Willis probably doesn't recall that. Why? IMO it's because Montel is not someone expressing his opinion as someone who is a part of the "we're all fucking humans" group. He's a "fucking racist" because he's a BLACK MAN expressing his opinion (via tweet) on (presumably all) White law breaking ranchers illegally occupying a bird sanctuary (and threatening to kill federal officials/other representatives of the law).

Finally, how the hell does Willis come to the conclusion that Montel's call for the ranchers to be dealt with using lethal force (if serious) means Montel wants this done to "glorify the state"? Also, so the eff what if Montel is "out of work"? As far as I know Montel has plenty of money (not on welfare), so what business or concern is it of Willis Hart's whether or not Montel Williams is currently employed?

By the way, I don't consider myself a Montel Williams fan. I don't care for the fact that he's "a paid spokesperson for MoneyMutual, a lead generator for a payday lending service" (Wikipedia/Montel Williams/Payday loan controversy). I also have no idea what his politics are. I'm not defending Williams, only pointing out that I think the evidence shows that it's Willis Hart who is a "fucking racist and hypocrite". And that the Willis post I'm responding to is yet another example of the Hartster's hyper racial consciousness.

OST #92

Black Men Are Killing Each Other Over Half Eaten Hershey, 3 Musketeer & Snickers Candy Bars?

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has made this assertion on a number of occassions. Without ever providing any citations that would prove what he's saying is happening on a regular basis. Or ever.

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.)... (6/25/2015 AT 4:11pm).

To this claim I say WTF is Willis talking about? Perhaps he is referring to things that have actually occurred, but the way he tells it, Black people killing each other for stupid reasons is something that happens on a regular basis. I mean, he has referred to murders over half eaten candy bars (etc) more than once.

Willis Hart: On the "Black Lives Matter" Movement... Maybe it's just my crowd but I don't know a single white person who doesn't think that black lives matter just as much as Caucasian ones do. The folks who HAVEN'T gotten the message are young, black gang-bangers; Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, etc. who continue to kill and maim each other over foolishness; half-eaten 3 Musketeer bars, a pair of Air Jordans, some big butted heifer, etc.. Those are the people who we most need to convince. (10/7/2015 AT 8:36pm).

Same claim a 3rd time, although the brand of candy bar is again different.

Willis Hart: On Black Lives Mattering... There's never been an argument from me. IN FACT, being that the black murder rate is fully 6 times that of whites (17.5 per 100,000 versus 2.6 per 100,000) with the perpetrators being 93% other black people, I'm actually quite insulted that this bullshit is being placed not just at my doorstep but the law enforcement community's, too... STOP BLOWING YOUR FUCKING BRAINS OUT (much of it over foolishness; half-eaten Snickers bars, Air Jordan sneaks, some big-butted heifer, a slight, etc.), PEOPLE. BLACK LIVES MATTER!!!!!! (11/18/2015 AT 5:07pm).

So, these gangbangers (Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, or some other stereotypical Black man's name) all have pretty serious sweet tooths, I gather. I mean, given the fact that they're killing each other on a regular basis over (differing brands of) chocolate bars. And they're always half-eaten too (which is quite odd, no?).

Perhaps this happened once, twice, multiple times even. But I have an incredibly hard time believing this kind of thing happens on a regular basis. Frankly I find the assertion (never with any citation) offensive as well as racist. It isn't as if a White person has never killed someone for "foolishness".

Yet it's "gangbangers" (a substitution for the n-word?) who have a monopoly on "foolishness" apparently. In Willis' mind, at least. And they REALLY like candy. Is this Willis' way of infantilizing African American men? And, if so, perhaps instead of "gangbanger" he really means "boy"?

OST #83

On How The Willis Hart Strawman Construction Went Down

This commentary concerns a recent strawman argument from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart...

Willis Hart: On How the Shit Went Down... a) A bunch of surface-thinking liberals and neoliberals take the South Carolina church shootings and idiotically extrapolate from them that there is this full-scale war on black people in which white racists/rednecks (wearing sheets and carrying the Confederate banner) are going around shooting them en masse. b) I point out that interracial violence is actually very rare but to the degree that it does exist, black on white violent crime is approximately 25 times more likely (per capita) to occur than the opposite (I also pointed out that research is advanced by examining aggregates and not by looking at anecdotes but that apparently went over their noggins, too). c) I get called a racist by these folks... That's it, in a nutshell, people. (8/2/2015 AT 4:24pm).

The "shit" that went down in this commentary is bullshit, in that Willis is bullshitting himself in regards to his racism. Which caused him to construct this strawman in which he lies about what the "surface-thinking" Liberals were "extrapolating" as well as what he was saying about "interracial violence" and "anecdotes".

The strawman is that Liberals (Octopus, I'm guessing) and Neoliberals (rAtional nAtion, I presume) ever said there was a "full-scale war on black people in which White racists/rednecks are going around shooting them en masse". Or that this racist redneck army is "wearing sheets and carrying the Confederate banner". This is an utterly over-the-top and completely ridiculous characterization of what was actually said... which is that the current situation that involves police shooting unarmed Black people and racially motivated shootings are cause for concern.

And that the Confederate flag represents racism, in that it was the banner of the Southern seceding states which wanted to leave the union because they were worried about Abe Lincoln getting elected and the Republican Party being opposed to slavery. Lincoln told the South "you think slavery is right and should be extended, while we think it is wrong and should be limited. That, I suppose, is the trouble. It surely is the only important difference between us". But the Southern states disagreed, thinking the difference was important enough for them to worry about Lincoln seeking to end slavery. Or cause them trouble, at least.

Although the neoliberal would disagree on this point; the neoliberal being in agreement with Willis that the Civil War being fought because of tariffs (although they are wrong).

But I'm pretty sure he agrees that most African Americans view the flag in a negative light and would prefer it would be removed from the grounds of government buildings... due to the fact that Southern State governments are now supposed to be representing everyone (including Black folks who view the flag as a sign that perhaps Southern State governments aren't working for them equally).

But the primary issue would be the police shootings, you know, because there is no "full-scale war on black people in which white racists/rednecks are going around shooting them en masse". And ZERO liberals and neoliberals ever said there was. At least in the discussion Willis refers to... there MIGHT be some morons out there who have said such a thing.

The police shootings, no, do not stack up against the number of African Americans who are killed by other African Americans.... HOWEVER, there is an important point that Willis seems to overlook, which is that the police are supposed to "serve and protect", while criminals (whatever their race) do violence. Police are supposed to only do violence to criminals, and then only if necessary. They are NOT supposed to be gunning down (or choking) unarmed people! Even if they are committing crimes.

The proliferation of "I think he had a gun, I feared for my life and so I shot the suspect dead" excuse points to... panicky cops, panicky racist cops, or racist cops... IMO. And NONE of these possibilities are good. Nor should the cops be using excessive force... like (for example) choking a Black man to death for selling loosies, kneeling on the back of a young teen at a pool party, arresting someone and throwing them in jail (where they later die) for not signaling a lane change.

It is ridiculous and has to stop! Yeah, and we think that racism is probably a factor in many (perhaps not all) of these cases. That is all the "surface-thinking liberals and neoliberals" are saying. That these cops obviously need to be better trained. And screened for racists or people who get off on exerting power over others. We don't want those types as police officers. We are NOT saying what the strawman-constructing Willis sez we are saying. What Willis is saying is total BS. Which is why he sez it! (it's an easy strawman to refute).

Willis' "nutshell", is a racist one, I believe. One reason being everything I just mentioned apparently going over his noggin. Because "black on white violent crime is approximately 25 times more likely (per capita) to occur than the opposite"... that makes the fact that cops are killing Black people OK in his mind... I guess (it's "anecdotal" in comparison).

Yes, I have noticed on his blog that he has (not one time that I'm aware of) said, "OK, it's obvious this time that the cop was in the wrong to kill that Black person". Not once. A cop shoots a Black man in the back as he flees, then plants his taser on him... and crickets from Willis. Although he often writes multiple posts (per "anecdotal" incident) of a Black person getting killed... when he thinks they deserved it.

Image: Slow motion GIF shows former cop Michael Slager allegedly planting his taser near the body of Walter Scott. (Image attached to a 4/9/2015 "Opposing Views" article by Dominic Kelly).

OST #66

The Canardo That Quacked

File this under the category of "interesting". An observation I made some time ago that was (at the time) referred to as "quacking". by "quacking" this person meant I was lying about the subject I posted on, which was an extremely hostile reaction I got after I submited a comment (as a joke) to the blog of the Libertarian Willis Hart.

Dervish Sanders on 9/29/2013: In an anti-creationist post (a position I actually agree with him on, as I believe in science over creationism, as all intelligent people do) Willis Hart wrote that there are "NO reputable scientists who still DON'T believe the earth is less than billions of years old". This, you may note, is a double negative, which means that Mr. Hart was actually saying that reputable scientists believe the earth is less than a billion years old. Another Blogger (Jerry Critter) pointed out to him that "general consensus (I know you don't like those words) puts the age of the earth at over 4 billion years". Given the double negative, Jerry thought Willis was saying the earth is less than 4 billion. But Willis said no, he had made an error (with the double negative) and he corrected it. Then I, as a joke - and as a test to see if Mr. Hart was reading comments from me... something he previously said he was not doing (he banned me from his blog and said he was deleting my comments without reading them) - submited a comment in which I said "Will tried to slip a lie by and Jerry called him on it... again!". In response to my accusation of a lie, an ANGRY Willis posted the following two comments... Willis Hart: What are you fucking talking about, you fucking piece of shit (yeah, my eyes wandered on this one)? I made a grammatical error (and even so BB knew what I was talking about) and I fixed it. What's the mother-fucking lie, you mother-fucker? (9/28/2013 AT 8:54pm) Willis Hart: See, this is the difference between you and Jerry (and why we all seem to like him and detest you). He accepts it when a person makes a mistake and doesn't go looking for some ulterior motive (probably because he isn't mildly retarded and/or paranoid) like you constantly do. You really do need to get some attention, fella'. (9/28/2013 AT 9:02pm).

Willis posted my joke comment, but went back to ignoring me after that. So I decided to respond on my own blog with the following observation.

Dervish Sanders on 9/29/2013: Wow, this Will Hart fella certainly has a temper, doesn't he? Maybe Mr. Hart should get some attention... before he hurts someone and gets in trouble with the law (I can easily see him escalating a verbal altercation into violence). In any case... the comment surely got his attention (so, the joke worked). Also (for the record) this joke is not one I'd have made normally (that is, if I were not banned from Mr. Hart's blog). So, when Mr. Hart says "this is the difference between you and Jerry", he is wrong. Back when Mr. Hart actually permitted me to comment on his blog... this isn't a comment I would have made. The comments I submit now (for the most part) are the same as when I wasn't banned, but some aren't. Hart couldn't have made this distinction (why "they" like Jerry but detest me) before because I wouldn't have made this comment before.

In reaction to my joke comment getting posted (because Willis' eyes wandered onto it), the commenter I previously mentioned (after Willis' tirade of profanity), submitted (to the blog of Willis) the following (which was published).

Rational Nation USA: Now Will, we've discussed this before. It does no good to allow Mr. Canardo Sanders to drag you down to his level. Simply accept him for what he is, make your point respectfully, and then ignore him. He is demonstrably and certifiably off his rocker. (9/29/2013 AT 6:33pm).

And on my blog (in response to me commenting on this incident) he submitted this...

Rational Nation USA: Keep quacking Mr. Sanders, keep quacking. (9/29/2013 AT 9:38pm).

I did not know what he meant by "quacking", so I said "quacking in the context above means? I'm going to guess telling the truth". In response to my guess as to what he meant by quacking, the following remark was forthcoming...

Rational Nation USA: No Canardo, more like in telling lies. But really Canardo, who gives a f**k? (10/06/2013 AT 11:16pm).

Note that "Canardo" is a liar (as decoded here). He was saying I lied about something. What, exactly, I am not sure. Did I lie about my comment being a joke? Did I lie about Willis losing his temper and launching into a heavy-on-the-profanity response? Who knows? The individual in question never explained what I was quacking/lying about. Only that I was quacking.

If the quacking was in regard to Willis losing his temper, perhaps now there is some agreement in regards to that?

The following comment from this same person (approximately 21 months later) on this blog in response to a post in which I asked why Willis called out Randal Paul for his "temper" in regards to the "dust up" between Randal and Chris Christie during the Fox Nooz Repub "debate".

Rational Nation USA: It is curious that my once friend Will jumped on Paul for temper, It is quite possible that Will himself has a temper when questioned. (8/11/2015 AT 7:58pm).

Huh. Remember that I said (21 months ago) that "this Will Hart fella certainly has a temper". At the time Mr. Nation said (about me) "He is demonstrably and certifiably off his rocker"... on Willis' blog. On my blog he accused me of "quacking".

Now he makes the same observation himself (re Willis' temper). Does this mean that Mr. Nation is "quacking"? I do not know, as I was never sure what I was quacking about. It does seem, however, that my comments about Willis' temper are now being met with some agreement. Perhaps I was not so "off my rocker" after all?

OST #65

Disgusting Muslim Bigotry From Libertarian Blogger Willis Hart

Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's latest commentary defending fellow Muslim bigot Pamela Geller.

Willis Hart: On Pamela Geller... Like it or not, the Constitution was written to protect the speech of people exactly like Geller (and Eugene V. Debbs, the KKK, etc. before her) who don't go around saying, "I like kittens" or "gee, that rose is pretty". And if the Muslims don't like it, they can go fuck themselves... or at the very least turn the channel. Boom, done. (5/9/2015 AT 6:54pm).

Spot the bigotry? No, it isn't Willis pointing out that free speech is protected by the Constitution. He is absolutely correct that speech, no matter how repulsive, is protected. The bigotry (and profanity) comes in when he says "if the Muslims don't like it, they can go fuck themselves". And then "Boom, done".

No, not "boom done". Muslims don't have to "go fuck themselves" if they don't like it. They can use THEIR free speech to point out that Geller is a bigoted a-hole who is deliberately attempting to provoke a media response for attention and $ (and the idiot might expect violence). So, why go there? Why not respect other religions?

But the bigoted Hartster, while perhaps not as bad as Geller, LIES. First of all, Willis is referring to Muslims living in the United States (he refers to the Geller event held in Texas), and US Muslims (by and large) defend the first amendment rights of Geller.

Dean Obeidallah: Anti-Muslim advocate Pam Geller has the absolute right to draw any cartoon she wants of the Prophet Muhammad. That was not just the response from Muslim-American leaders I spoke to after news broke Sunday night of a shooting outside a Garland, Texas, event that Geller had organized—offering $10,000 for people to draw images of Muhammad - but before that event as well. (Muslims Defend Pam Geller's Right to Hate. The Daily Beast, 5/4/2015).

Secondly, US Muslims ALSO have free speech rights and can exercise them in response to Geller's ugly exercise in bigotry.

Dean Obeidallah: I'm not saying that some Muslims (and even people of other faiths) aren't offended and/or disgusted by the idea of Geller offering $10,000 for people to draw despicable cartoons of Muhammad. This is akin to offering a prize for people to draw the most anti-Semitic or racist images imaginable, with the true goal being to stoke the flames of hate versus Jews or Blacks. But the reality is American Muslims deeply value freedom of expression. (Muslims Defend Pam Geller's Right to Hate. The Daily Beast, 5/4/2015).

OK, so above I said Willis lied, but I actually think it's far more likely that he's simply unaware that Muslim-American leaders said Geller has the right to hate. However, I am convinced him not being aware of this fact is deliberate.

He hates Muslims so much that he does not bother to seek out the truth. In his bigoted mind the actions of a small number of radicalized crazies represent ALL Muslims and that it is a typical response for an offended Muslim to react violently.

But he thinks this because he's a bigoted hater. Also because he's a pompous ass who enjoys lecturing inferior groups of people from on high (and, in his mind, almost everyone is inferior to himself).

See also: SWTD #269 and TADM #54.

OST #42

Pr0fane Language In Support Of Destroying American Jobs

Yes, you read that right. Libertarian blogger Willis Hart hates American workers SO MUCH (and desperately wants to see their good paying jobs sent outside the US) that the idea of some progress made in that direction not panning out causes him to use profane (h0mophobic?) language.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Federal Income Tax (as Proposed in 1913) was Supposed to Be a Replacement for the Tariff (to the Point of Eliminating it)... Yeah, the c0ck-suckers lied. Big surprise, huh? (5/7/2015 AT 10:12pm).

OK, so I read the Wikipedia page for the Revenue Act of 1913, and it says absolutely nothing concerning the income tax replacing tariffs. Likely because nobody "lied" about this, because it would have been a very bad idea. Up to this point "customs duties (tariffs) and excise taxes were the primary sources of federal revenue".

Tariffs being lowered after industry in the United States was established (and therefore not as much protectionism was necessary) was not necessarily a bad idea, but eliminating them entirely would have opened up American workers to competition to workers in the lowest of the low wage nations. Which is more relevant than ever today, given the more recent development of sending jobs to third world countries.

Wikipedia/Offshoring: After its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001, the People's Republic of China emerged as a prominent destination for production offshoring. Another focus area has been the software industry as part of global software development and developing global information systems. After technical progress in telecommunications improved the possibilities of trade in services, India became a country leading in this domain, though many parts of the world are now emerging as offshore destinations.

Offshoring is becoming ever more prevalent. Back in the day genuine trade was more the issue; US companies trading with foreign companies; as opposed to US companies moving production (and white collar jobs) to low wage countries. But this is what Libertarians like the Hartster want, because then all our manufacturing (and more white collar) jobs would go away.

And, when it was first instituted the income tax only applied to 1 percent of Americans. Now it applies to everyone. But Willis hates American workers so much that he'd rather he (as well as those in the upper classes) pay an income tax (although he strongly opposes that tax going any higher than it is). Because (the now trans-national) companies (run for the benefit of the plutocrats) not being able to maximize profits by screwing American workers is a nightmare Willis finds abhorrent.

Those third world workers don't make out so well either. Yeah, they get some jobs where before there may have been none, but they're back breaking slave wage jobs performed in unsafe conditions. But this is another bonus for the Libertarians who hate these workers as well. Not as much, perhaps, as they're easier to exploit, being more desperate and not used to a higher standard of living like American workers.

But American workers will eventually become used to living with less. Sure, it will take some time to knock down their expectations, but our wealthy overlords are working on the brainwashing.

[A] $200,000 ad campaign [from right-wing multibillionaire Charles Koch], now running in Kansas, starts off like one of those breathless infomercials: "Are you in the 1 percent?" a male voiceover asks. "Well, if you earn over $34,000 a year, you are one of the wealthiest one percent" -- he pauses slightly before the kicker -- "in the world". (Charles Koch on the Poor: Let Them Eat Economic Freedom by Leslie Savan. The Nation, 7/16/2013).

Obviously, for American workers to compete on a "level playing field" with the world's poorest workers our standard of living will have to go WAY DOWN. Imagine sickly American workers living in their cars or homeless shelters and obtaining sustenance from food pantries and soup kitchens being the norm. Now you've got an idea of what the Libertarian utopia would look like.

And, that we could have gotten there a LOT sooner explains why Willis is so incensed! I mean, America could be a long established oligarchy right now (instead of only being well on it's way to being one), if not for the "c0cksuckers" who "lied" when the income tax was proposed.

Published on Friday, May 8, 2015 at 10:29 AM. Profane Language In Support Of Destroying American Jobs. Labels: Willis the Profane, Free Trade BS. Image 1 original dimensions: 1196, 580.

 OST #40 

On Willis Hart Using Someone's Weight To Denigrate Them & Referring to An Overweight Person As A "Fat Fuck"

Most recently in regards to Liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore.

Willis Hart: On Fat, Stupid Michael Moore Denigrating American Sniper/War Hero, Chris Kyle, Calling Him a Coward... I can't even look at this asshole anymore... And did you see how he tried to back away from it once the shit hit the fan, saying that wasn't actually talking about Kyle? I mean, come on. (1/19/2015 AT 9:31pm).

What the hell does Mr. Moore's weight have to do with his tweets in response to the release of the movie "American Sniper"? Absolutely nothing. Willis is one of those people who judges people based on appearance. An incredibly shallow and vain person, in other words.

As for what Mr. Moore said about snipers I say "eh". He has a point. Chris Kyle killed a lot of people, some of them innocent. Although it was ex-preznit bush who illegally invaded Iraq. So, I'd say we shouldn't have even been there. Or Afghanistan. Then CK wouldn't have killed anyone.

But, naturally the Rightwing is going crazy over comments such as Mr. Moore's in regards to this film by the Republican Clint Eastwood (he who embarrassed himself at the GOP convention by talking to an empty chair).

The film is a "pro-War on Terror masterpiece" according to an article on the Breitbart site.

Yikes! I haven't seen it, but if that is an accurate description that I'd have to agree with Seth Rogan... who tweeted that he thought it had some similarity to a Nazi propaganda film (specifically the film within the film "Inglourious Basterds").

Although I've also heard the movie described as an account of the effects of war on soldiers... Kyle did feel guilt over those he'd killed and suffered from PTSD (I think, although I'm not positive).

My guess is that the Rightwing will read into the movie what they want. Although perhaps the Breitbart description is accurate given who the director is. Although some on the Left say the film shows the horrors of war and the effects of it on our soldiers... and thus is anti-war. But Breitbart claims that the movie is NOT anti-Iraq war... this is something the author of the article says the Left lies about.

That said, I haven't seen it, nor am I that familiar with Kyle's story. But I do find it odd that Willis refers to Kyle as a "war hero", given his claims of being "anti-war".

Anyway, on to the second example of Willis denigrating someone based on their weight. This time with a particularly vile (and profane) slur directed at the murdered Eric Garner (SWTD #275).

Willis Hart: he bears a huge amount of the responsibility for his death; some big fat fuck with asthma putting himself in a stressful situation (12/27/2015 AT 10:23am).

Geez... really, Willis? This guy is becoming increasingly foul-mouthed and more often than not aligning himself with the Right... this despite him believing he is an "independent". Here he's agreeing with the likes of NY Rep Peter King, who blamed Garner for his own death. Although Willis also laughly and idiotically blames politicians who support the cigarette tax.

Blaming the victim, fat shaming, and using profane language to refer to a dead man? Proof positive that Willis Hart is a piece of shit. Or, he's absolutely a piece of shit... in my book.

OST #38