Willis Hart Misogyny Re Female Pay Discrimination (An Issue The Obama Admin Took Up With The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act)

In regards to gender pay discrimination, blogger Willis Hart (WTNPH), of course, buys the discredited Rightist meme that it does not happen. There is no pay disparity according to these people (many whom are misogynists). And most women shouldn't make the same as men (for doing the same work) anyway. Because some choose to have babies and stuff.

Willis Hart: On Patricia Arquette's Oscar-Winning Speech in Which She Dusted Off that Thoroughly Discredited Meme About Gender Pay Inequality... How many times do we have to deal with this shit? [blah, blah, blah, Libertarian BS that goes on for quite some time.] [This is] NOT because of anti-female discrimination... Please, I'm begging you, can we finally put this sucker to bed? (5/27/2015 AT 8:13pm).

"Dusted off"? This argument REALLY does not need any dusting off, as the present Presidential Administration views its action on this issue as one of it's accomplishments. Apparently Willis has forgotten all about Lilly Ledbetter.

In 1979 Lilly Ledbetter, the plaintiff, began work at the Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company in its Gadsden, Alabama location, a union plant. She started with the same pay as male employees, but by retirement, she was earning $3,727 per month compared to 15 men who earned from $4,286 per month (lowest paid man) to $5,236 per month (highest paid man). (Wikipedia/Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co).

In response to the Supreme Court dismissing the case because the statute of limitations had passed (not because she hadn't been discriminated against), the Obama administration urged Congress to amend the law, which they did when passed the passed (and president Obama signed) The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. The act is a federal statute in the United States that amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

So there is an example right there of the discrimination occurring and Congress and the White House agreeing that women should be able to sue for this kind of discrimination (even if they don't find out about it until later).

But aside from the Lilly Ledbetter case, the Obama White House has more to say about female pay disparity discrimination.

The White House (under the Obama administration): Despite passage of the Equal Pay Act of 1963, which requires that men and women in the same workplace be given equal pay for equal work, the "gender gap" in pay persists. Full-time women workers' earnings are only about 77 percent of their male counterparts' earnings. The pay gap is even greater for African-American and Latina women, with African-American women earning 64 cents and Latina women earning 56 cents for every dollar earned by a Caucasian man. Decades of research shows that no matter how you evaluate the data, there remains a pay gap... ...even after factoring in the kind of work people do, or qualifications such as education and experience — and there is good evidence that discrimination contributes to the persistent pay disparity between men and women. In other words, pay discrimination is a real and persistent problem that continues to shortchange American women and their families. (Your Right to Equal Pay Understand the Basics, WH website).

Yeah, and many of the facts the Hartster throws up in his commentary that HE says accounts for the (justified) pay disparity? The WH says that they account for those things (2nd paragraph), and that the disparity is not justified, it's based on discrimination. Discrimination based not only on gender, but on the race of the woman (none of Willis' excuses for why pay disparity is justified explanation why a non-white woman should earn less).

So, am I going to believe Willis, or am I going to believe the Barack Obama White House? Yeah, I think you know the answer. By the way, Willis (I'm guessing in response to me linking to his commentary on my Facebook page), authored a "quick addendum" in which he refers to my citing the Lilly Ledbetter case as proof of his wrongness as "surface thinking"... because "this of course isn't to imply that INDIVIDUAL women haven't been discriminated against".

So, Willis' response after I called him on his BS was to say that the pay discrimination Lilly Ledbetter sued over was an isolated incident and not the norm. However, I again point to the statement on the WH website that says otherwise. In any case, should we really be punishing women for the biological reality that they bear children? [1] Or is this not the kind of anti-female discrimination Willis claimed was not a factor? I mean, if women take time off to have children (and ONLY women can have children), and they're being paid less for doing so, isn't this anti-woman? That might be something Willis needs to think about... although I seriously doubt he will.

So, is Willis a misogynist? Yes, I think the case is fairly strong that he is. Or a case could be made that he has some stronger than normal anti-female biases. Seeing nothing wrong with punishing women for having babies (and thinking it is perfectly fine to reward men for not having them, when a man giving birth is a biological impossibility), as well as calling male privilege "supposed" (something Willis did multiple times) are yet two more reasons to believe I'm on the right track here, IMO.

Footnote
[1] Sentence excerpted/modified from "Debunking the Myth of a Mythical Gender Pay Gap by Joshua Holland. BillMoyers.com 4/8/2014.

Video1: Patricia Arquette delivers a powerful feminist message after winning the Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for her role in Boyhood. Published 2/23/2015 (1:22).

Video2: President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act on January 29, 2009. In this video, Lilly shares her story. Uploaded 1/29/2012 (6:22).

OST #48

On People Who Insist That Anyone Advocates For "Make Work" Given The Fact That There Is Actual Work That Needs To Be Done

These people are total morons/idiots and/or liars. Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart is one such person. In a recent commentary on his blog the Libertarian said "make-work advocacy... is only advocated by those who fail to understand the text".

So, WTF is "the text"? Damned if I know. I do know, however, that make work is really just a phrase used to push the concept of the government putting people to work when jobs are scarce. You've heard of it. Supposedly Person A digs a hole and Person B fills it. But there is actual work that needs doing (and this idiotic hole digging and filling scenario has never actually happened).

Yet the Willises of the world who hate the idea of Government stepping in and (in order to put money in people's pockets and jumpstart the economy) hiring unemployed folks to participate in worthwhile and needed public works projects (etc), vilify it. And lie, or buy into the fable that anyone has actually ever been hired to dig a hole and another person hired to fill it (or other similar pointless work).

Although the Hartster may actually be stupid enough to think this has ever actually happened. Or is a huge liar and spinning another of the strawmen he loves so much. I suspect he falls somewhere in between the two (he's a stupid liar).

Out of work Americans could be work on needed infrastructure projects right now, if not for the obstruction of the Republican Congress (which got worse after the last midterm). These would not be pointless hole digging and filling jobs, but needed work, given the state of this country's infrastructure.

Infrastructure is vital to our country's economic growth and development. It's the fundamental system we rely on to move people, goods, and services. Every business, large and small, depends on it... Infrastructure includes the essential pieces of our transportation network like roads, rails, and ports, and it also includes water facilities, our electrical grid, and high-speed broadband networks. There is no part of the economy that infrastructure does not touch. World-class, state-of-the-art infrastructure can boost growth, create opportunities, and spark innovation. Crumbling, outdated and inefficient infrastructure can be a serious drag on the economy, creating barriers to success and mobility. Unfortunately, whereas once the US could easily boast of having the most sophisticated, modern infrastructure in the world, today we are rapidly falling behind. We simply have not been making the kinds of investments that are required to even maintain the system we have now, let alone improve and update it. Instead of maintaining and investing in a more efficient and effective system, our infrastructure has deteriorated because of insufficient funding... (Repairing Our Infrastructure Senate Budget Committee. Bernie Sanders, Ranking Member).

And as economist Robert Reich points out...

Robert Reich: ...it's cheaper than ever for the United States to borrow. Deferred maintenance is taking a huge toll. ... Now connect the dots. Anyone with half a brain will see this is the ideal time to borrow money from the rest of the world to put Americans to work rebuilding the nation's infrastructure. (Why This is Exactly the Time to Rebuild America's Infrastructure 9/26/2011).

There is no need to "make" work. Work that needs to be done exists, which is why nobody is advocating we "make" any, you idiot Willis! But it's entirely possible that Willis is one of those who does NOT have "half a brain", which might explain why the deluded fool buys into Libertarian nonsense as strongly as he does.

OST #47

Unbreaking News: Willis Hart is Still With Us

In my prior commentary I reported that the Libertarian blogger who goes by the Blogger ID Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart, but whose real name is Willis Hart, had passed away. Although I said I did not know for certain that Willis had croaked, but was only guessing that he kicked the bucked due to the lack of activity on his blog.

I thought the lack of activity was extremely odd, given the fact that Willis is an extremely prolific blogger. On a normal day he will post multiple commentaries. Then Willis went completely silent for 2 full days (his last post was on 5/19/2015, and he resumed posting on 5/22/2015).

Because of this (the two days with zero posts) I concluded that Willis had passed away. Gone to the great beyond. Or, given the fact that he is an atheist, was currently rotting in the ground. But it turns out I was wrong. Willis roared back with a vengeance. On 5/22/2015 he posted 3 new commentaries. On 5/23/2015 he posted 4 commentaries. 4 on the 24th, 2 on the 25th, 3 on the 26th, and 2 on the 27th. Although, today, on the 28th, he has (so far) posted none. Although I expect a couple new ones before the day is out.

In any case, my prior report of Willis' Hart's demise was (obviously) premature. Willis Hart did not buy the farm. He is alive and kicking and busy authoring dozens of posts in which he spews Libertarian BS, argues in favor of oligarchy, race baits, bashes poor people/endorses corporate welfare, and participates in the misogyny-based war on women by justifying the fact that women earn less than men for doing the same work.

Oh, and more about how much he hates dead Commies. Not that I disagree with him in regards to totalitarian dictatorships being horrible (because the dictator lied about bringing Socialism to the populace, which they yearned for, and then starved/imprisoned/killed them instead), but what about the oligarchs and our rigged economic system? That he disputes is even reality. Not surprising, given his strong desire for American to go completely neo-feudal.

Anywho, what was the reason for his absence? Turns out he was out of town enjoying some gross-flavored saltwater taffy. Licorice/anise and cloves are his favorites? How disgusting. Just thinking about these revoltingly nauseating and foul flavors makes me want to barf. As does thinking about the impact his political views have on our country and the world.

Although, as previously mentioned, no commentaries so far today. Maybe he ate some more of that taffy and can't post because he is vomiting continuously? I mean, I would be if I ate taffy that was "clove" flavored. Yuck. But it figures his palate would find something distasteful tasty, given that is how he leans politically; toward that which is distasteful to all but the oligarchs.

OST #46

Breaking News: Willis Hart Has Passed Away

You heard it here first folks. The Libertarian blogger who goes by the Blogger ID Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart, but whose real name is Willis Hart, has passed away.

Actually, I do not know this for certain, but I am guessing this is what happened based on the fact that there has been no activity on his blog at all since 5/19/2015 at 9:04 PM.

Which is extremely odd, given the fact that Willis is an extremely prolific blogger. On a normal day he will post multiple commentaries. Now nothing for 2 full days? The only conclusion that can be reached is that Willis is no longer with us.

Now, while some people may think that this news has me overjoyed, given my dislike for this fellow, that simply is not true. Willis, even though he held a lot of insane Libertarian ideas and was quite racially biased, was (I'm sure) not that bad a fellow.

His friends will likely miss him. I know he has friends, BTW, because he has (in the past) remarked on how he told them about me and these friends all remarked on how crazy they thought I was. Or so Willis said. Perhaps he lied.

In any case... RIP Willis Hart. You will be missed. I'm guessing. Lester, Dennis and Rusty will miss you here in blogistan, and in the real world some others will shed a tear. Again, I'm guessing. Perhaps there will be some people who will be overjoyed and throw a "good riddance, Willis" party where everyone will dance a jig to celebrate Willis' departure from this world. But that would be extremely insensitive.

Obviously this is the final post on OST. Because continuing on with commentaries refuting Willis' nonsense (which was my sole reason for starting this blog) can't be done if there are no new Willis commentaries to refute.

I suppose I could go back and refute some old commentaries, but would that be appropriate now that Willis is deceased? I'm guessing the readers of this blog would say no, that would be in very bad taste.

So, with this post I say goodbye. I will leave this blog standing as a tribute to Willis. And close by saying that I harbor no hard feelings toward the man. Not that I am too sad, as Willis lived an extremely long life. I've heard that he was approaching his 100th birthday.

Or that he was in the 80 to 90 year-old range. So he lived a very long life. Which is all any of us can hope for. Without any major health issues (I think. He was employed as a hospital orderly and not retired, in any case).

Comments from any who want to wish Willis a bon voyage into the great beyond will be published. Although I believe Willis is rotting in the ground (if he has been buried yet). He was an atheist, after all, and atheists can't get into heaven.

But this does not make me sad, as any atheist I've ever heard speak does not seem that concerned that when death takes them there is nothing but darkness and oblivion awaiting them.

Given this fact, I wish Willis a nice oblivion. If that's a thing. At least he won't be aware of it as the worms do their work breaking down his body. That might sound grim, but that's the reality of atheism. But this is not an anti-atheism screed. If you are, like Willis was, a non-believer, please do not take offense.

Comments that speak of what a douche Willis was will be rejected, as speaking ill of the dead is not generally accepted as being something decent people do. Which I am, of course. A decent person. Even if Willis was not always decent in return (like when he banned me from his blog for an extremely stupid reason).

I know that Willis would say (were he alive) that I was not decent to him while he was among the living. Claims of sending "unwanted" comments to his blog that frightened him greatly would likely be made. I know he made them while he was alive.

And sure, I did submit comments to his PUBLIC blog, but were they "unwanted"? I say no, given the fact that his blog was PUBLIC, indicating that viewing of his blog (as well as commenting to said blog) was something that anyone could do. Look at it and submit a comment. Because the blog was public. Unfortunately Willis did not seem to understand the concept.

But now that Willis is gone that is a moot point. At least he no longer has to fear receiving an "unwanted" comment from yours truly. No longer does he have to live with the terror of possibly viewing a comment from me that would shatter his echo chamber (causing extreme anger and the necessity of having to dash off a rebuttal while enraged), given the fact that he has kicked the bucket and bought the farm.

But what a horrible thing it must be to live one's life cringing in fear of comments that refute an ideology you hold near and dear... despite it being (almost all) completely wrong and utter bullshit.

OST #45

On The Racist Idea That Black Leaders Are "Race Hustlers"

Yet another race baiting commentary from Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, this one dealing with the issue of referring to Black leaders are "race hustlers".

Willis Hart: On When White Folks Say Something Racially Insensitive, Apologize for it, and STILL Crawl on Their Hands and Knees to Minstrels Like Sharpton and Jackson for Absolution... I consider this an insult to black people times two; a) you have to hear some jerk-off fool insult you and b) you have to suffer the added indignity of some moronic white person thinking that these two buffoons speak for and represent you. It's disgusting and the fact that these two race hustlers have cashed in one episode after another makes it even harder to stomach. (5/13/2015 AT 7:53pm).

Only idiots like Willis think that anyone agrees that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson speak for and represent ALL African Americans (A 2013 Zogby Analytics poll found that one quarter of African Americans said that Sharpton speaks for them). These two gentlemen are, however, leaders in the African American community and definitely NOT "race hustlers". This is a term invented by racist Conservatives to demean these leaders and the good work they do. I mean, Al Sharpton frequently donates his time when is asked to intervene (proving his motivations aren't 100 profit-based).

Past Black leaders are frequently disrespected, although nobody (or significantly fewer people) would ever refer to Martin Luther King as a "race hustler". But Willis did recently write a commentary that was negative in regards to MLK.

Willis Hart: On Martin Luther King Being "Nonviolent"... I'm going to go with 75% true on this one. Yes, he marched and advocated for his positions in a peaceful manner and for that he should be commended. But it also must be pointed out that King insisted that there be laws, and whenever there are laws their is force, and whenever there is force this is at least the spectre of violence (do as I say or go to jail, etc.). (5/11/2015 AT 4:15pm).

I'm going to go with 100% bullshit on this one. I don't even understand WTF he's talking about. Is he referring to people possibly being arrested for marching and violence done against them (by the police)? Is that what he refers to? So... MLK was responsible for police violence against protestors in marches he lead? Seriously, I don't know what the hell Willis is criticizing MLK for.

That being the case, I must conclude that this is naught but nonsense from the Hartster. Scratch that. It's racist nonsense. Especially given the following comment from Willis in response to his own post.

Willis Hart: I agree with Rand Paul before he flip-flopped... 80% of the Civil Rights Act was appropriate but the part that forced private businesses was not. (5/13/2015 AT 8:29am).

Willis is referring to Randal Paul's response to a question from Rachel Maddow that concerned the portion of the Civil Rights legislation signed by LBJ that dealt with "desegregating lunch counters". Randal indicated that he would have opposed the portion of the Civil Rights legislation that forced private businesses to serve everyone if he had been in Congress at the time.

But Willis is wrong. It is 100 percent appropriate that businesses be forced to not discriminate. That they are "private" is not relative, as these businesses are open to the public and therefore must serve the public. If they refuse the public has the right to rescind their business license. Discrimination is WRONG as it infringes on a person's RIGHT to live their life free from it. But Libertarians like Willis concern themselves more with the "right" of bigots to discriminate. Nice.

Also, I don't know that Randal "flip-flopped". I think he caved to public pressure and said he'd have voted for it. Because this was a hypothetical question anyway and he loses nothing by saying he'd have voted for it. I very seriously doubt he actually changed his mind (so you can rest easy Willis. I'm sure Randal still agrees with your bigoted stance on this issue).

And NO DOUBT there would be businesses that TO THIS DAY would discriminate against African Americans if they could. And Willis thinks this is OK? Obviously he does. He spins it as a matter of principle, in that private businesses should be able to do with their property (and labor) as they wish (the standard Libertarian argument). But I quite frankly DO NOT buy it.

I mean, why is Willis publishing all these race baiting commentaries on his blog? IMO the reason has something to do with Libertarians thinking racism is a good thing if it leads to lower wages for African Americans (or other minorities). Because any excuse a plutocrat can find to pay a lower wage to a worker is a good one.

And Black leaders who are continuing the fight for Civil Rights are to be denigrated. Past leaders like MLK as well, although the racist Willis treads more lightly when criticizing him. Which isn't the case with present leaders like Sharpton and Jackson. Those leaders he goes after full bore, using the disgustingly racist term "race hustler".

(See SWTD #281 for a commentary concerning Willis' attack on Sharpton's MSNBC program Politics Nation using the vile racist pejoritive "Minstrel Show". Yeah, that's right... UNBELIEVABLY he refers to Sharpton using a term that involves White people putting on blackface to ridicule African Americans!)

Image Description: Martin Luther King III and Rev. Al Sharpton talk to reporters outside of the U.S. Supreme Court on 2/27/2013 in Washington, DC. The court heard oral arguments in Shelby County v. Holder, a legal challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

See also: SWTD #281.

OST #44

On The Racist Suggestion That Cops Killing African Americans Is No Big Deal Because African Americans Are Killing Each Other All The Time Anyway

Libertarian blogger Willis Hart latest racist commentary, this one dealing with the issue of the Police killing African Americans.

Willis Hart: On When Ray Ray Plugged Andre Who Had Just Got Done Offing Mookie... Do not these black lives matter, too? (5/9/2015 AT 9:05pm).

So, Willis is suggesting that because African Americans kill other African Americans regularly (because Black people are extremely violent), cops killing them isn't a big deal? Or African Americans should be protesting violence within their own community and accept that African Americans killed by the police have it coming?

Is it just me or does anyone else find this incredibly racist? I mean, I plugged in some words from one of Mr. Hart's latest commentaries: "a black person is 25 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around"... (Without the quotes) and what comes up FIRST in the search results? A link to The Daily Stormer, a Neo-Nazi/White nationalist Website! Yikes, right?

So, Willis shares his opinion regarding the violent nature of African Americans with White Supremacists. Although his link is to Discover The Networks, which is a website run by the David Horowitz Freedom Center. Although The David Horowitz Freedom Center is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) as a far-right organization that is (maybe?) slightly less racist than The Daily Stormer.

Chip Berlet, writing for the SPLC: [Horowitz's organization has a habit of] blaming slavery on "black Africans ... abetted by dark-skinned Arabs" and of "attack[ing] minority demands for special treatment" as "only necessary because some blacks can't seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others", rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism". (David Horowitz Freedom Center/Criticism).

Yeah, perhaps the Hartster should have checked out WHO he was quoting before quoting them? So as to avoid the embarrassment of citing a racist and bigoted "freedom center". You know, regardless of the accuracy of the statistics. We get what the message is, which is the same as that of White Nationalist groups represented by websites such as "The Daily Stormer". That message being that "Blacks are prone to violent behavior and this is why they belong in Africa". But Willis does also point out on this blog that "African chieftains traded Black slaves for trinkets".

Anyway, is it a "fact that a black person is 25 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around"? Willis, citing "Discover The Networks", says it is. He adds that this factoid is "probably a revelation to those of you who strictly get your news from the Huffington Post, MSNBC, liberal talk-radio, Media Matters, etc".

Ah, no, Willis, this is no "revelation" to me. The revelation (even if it is not much of one) is that you'd go to a racist website in order to procure the information you were looking for. In order to enforce the racist message you wanted to send.

The real reason that this stat exists is our history of slavery and continuing racism greatly enhancing poverty in the African American community. Some African Americans, being the victims of poverty enhanced by racism, react (as many people do when in poverty situations) criminally. Many by selling illegal narcotics. Others by engaging in violent criminality. I'm not saying that we need to give criminals a pass if they happen to be Black, but ignoring the root cause of this criminal activity won't fix the problem.

...do black Americans commit more crime? Some criminologists think... black people tend to offend more because they tend to be more disadvantaged, living in poorer urban areas with less access to public services, and so on. ... This study of violent crime in deprived neighborhoods in Cleveland, Ohio, found that reductions in poverty led to reductions in the crime rate in exactly the same way in predominantly black and white areas, suggesting poverty, not race, is the biggest factor. (Channel 4 Factcheck article by Patrick Worrall. 11/27/2014).

Poverty and crime are linked, as are poverty and racism.

In a report to the UN General Assembly, a UN rights expert has emphasized that poverty is closely associated with racism and contributes to the persistence of racist attitudes and practices which in turn generate more poverty. Racial or ethnic minorities are disproportionately affected by poverty; and the lack of education, adequate housing and health care transmits poverty from generation to generation... poverty does not result only from an unequal sharing of resources. "Discrimination against groups and persons based on their ethnicity, race, religion or other characteristics or factors has been known to encourage exclusion and impoverish certain groups of the population who suffer from unequal access to basic needs and services". (Poverty and Racism Inextricably Linked Says UN Expert by Kanaga Raja, who is Editor of the South-North Development Monitor (SUNS), from which this article is reproduced. Social Watch, 12/11/2013).

We need to work to decrease racism and poverty (and decreasing racism will decrease poverty). And decreasing racism and poverty will result in a decrease in crime. But does Willis mention any of this in his commentary? Of course not. Because his SOLE objective is to say "Blacks violent". And then, with his commentaries following this one, excuse police killings of Black people... why? Obviously they had it coming due to them (Black people) being so violent.

As for Black people killing other Black people... people who kill other people almost always kill people they live near. Blacks primarily kill Blacks and Whites primarily kill Whites. It's a proximity thing, and not a race thing. And YES, those Black lives matter, but the police are SUPPOSED to "serve and protect" and NOT kill people (unless they have no choice). Obviously the police had the choice to not beat down (or give a rough ride) to Freddie Gray. I've heard nothing about him fighting back or resisting arrest, so how the hell did he sustain injuries that lead to his death?

THAT is why the African American community is protesting, you idiot Willis! Not because the lives of Black individuals killed by Black criminals don't matter, but because the police aren't supposed to be killing people without cause (just because they're Black)!

OST #43

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