"Liberation Day" is a website run by a dude named Eric Martin. Martin describes himself as "Christian, Libertarian, Constitutionalist". As per an article by "Fred" on Liberation Day, multiculturalism equates to "the de facto destruction of the West by demographic suicide". This is a line from Fred's article "Understanding the Alt-Right".
My takeaway from the article is that Fred believes that the Alt-Right is fighting for "White survival" and that has nothing to do with racism or believing in "White Supremacy". Alt-Right leader, Richard Spencer is neither says Fred. This conclusion he (in part) supports with an inane argument that a group of people, some of who believe that rape is a good thing, would be a "diverse" group. Diversity can be a bad thing, in other words.
So, White Nationalists are Libertarians? Apparently so. Or, all White Nationalists are Libertarians, although not all Libertarians are White Nationalists, I think. At least this is true in the case of the Libertarin blogger Willis Hart. He has quite a few posts on his blog that make it clear he identifies with White Nationalism, even if he wouldn't use this label to describe himself.
Here are some excerpts from Willis Hart blog posts in which he partakes in White Nationalist fear mongering - i.e. diversity is bad and we need to keep America White or we're doomed.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Iceland Has One of the Highest Rates of Gun Ownership in the Western Hemisphere and Yet They Haven't Had a Gun-Related Homicide In Over a Decade And let me guess, the fact that they're a homogenous country that hasn't force-fed its population multiculturalism via massive waves of third-world immigration is purely coincidental. (9/2/2018 at 4:01pm).
Willis Hart: On the Fact that I Can't Help but Think that the Modern-Day Huns and Vandals of the Planet Are Eyeing the U.S. with All of its Gender-Bending Insanity, Hostility to Men, Self-Loathing, Pathological Altruism, Multicultural Experimentation, Eagerness to Commit Demographic Suicide, etc, etc. and Saying to Themselves, "One of These Days, One of These Days". (10/28/2017 at 3:46pm).
Sounds like Willis Hart would really prefer that the United States be more "homogenous" (aka White). Because those darn Black people are just so f*cking stupid and violent.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Only Allowable Opinion Pertaining to Race These Days Seems to Be, "Black People Are the Relentless Victims of Relentless White Racism and this Explains Every Fucking Thing (Lower IQ Scores, Poorer Academic Performances, a Lack of Economic Advancement, Wildly Out of Proportion Criminal Activity, the Burgeoning Out of Wedlock Birth Rates, etc)". (10/27/2017 at 9:44pm).
Willis hasn't advocated for a "White Homeland"... yet. Oddly enough, the Hartster rails against Abe Lincoln as racist for his idea that former Slaves should have been shipped back to Africa because Whites and Blacks could never live together harmoniously. I'd have guessed that he would endorse colonization wholeheartedly and proclaim that this was one idea of Lincoln's that he agrees with.
Perhaps it is only a matter of time until the Hartster "evolves" to the point where he starts openingly advocating for white separatism. He surely has been on the edge of doing so for awhile now. I mean, if the West is committing "demographic suicide", wouldn't a White Homeland be the BEST way to ensure the survival of the "White Race"?
The Libertarin blogger Willis Hart writes about child trafficking and pornography frequently on his blog. In his diseased mind Leftists are BIG into sex with kids. The Podesta brothers spoke in code in their Wikileaked emails about child sex rings involving the owner of that pizza shop, for example. And don't believe for one second that this ridiculous story has been debunked. Nutters writing on Reddit know that the Leftist media is in on the cover up (as is the DC police).
In a recent commentary Willis Hart claims that 2 of the more Liberal Justices argued that child porn is protected speech. And of course he refers to this repugnant lie as a "fact". I kid you not!
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Associate Supreme Court Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg Argued and Voted In 2008 to Establish Child Pornography as Protected Speech - [Link]. This while others on the hard left think that folks should be prosecuted for "misgendering" trannies. A brave new world indeed. (6/27/2018 at 4:04pm).
Bullshit!! Souter and Ginsburg did NOT vote in 2008 to establish child pornography as protected free speech, you lying piece of crap! The excerpt below is from the article that Willis links to.
..."non-commercial, non-inciteful promotion of illegal child pornography, even if repugnant, is protected free speech". In other words, the judges said merely talking about child porn is not necessarily criminal.
TALKING about it is free speech. Manufacturing it and/or possessing it is NOT free speech, and Souter and Ginsburg never argued or voted that it should be.
Also according to the article that Willis links to.
The 7-2 ruling rejected suggestions the law is overly broad, and will stifle a range of expressive or artistic material that is not obscene.
So Souter and Ginsburg's concern was that the law IS overly broad and WILL stifle a range of expressive or artistic material that is NOT obscene.
Note that the lying Hartster gives no quotes. Because neither Souter nor Ginsburg ever argued or voted to establish child pornography as protected speech. It didn't happen, asshole!
Reading the blog of Willis it becomes crystal clear quickly how much this asshole HATES the Left. So, when he says he once considered himself Liberal (but now considers himself a centrist) I call BULLSHIT on this as well. He may have CONSIDERED himself Liberal, but he never was.
Willis Hart is a HARD Right Libertarian. Although, as far as being a Libertarian goes, I'm not so sure about that anymore. I mean, where are the outraged posts concerning Trump's tariffs? I mean, he has written about it a little, but his commentaries come off as mild disagreement. "Centrist", my ass!
Hating the Left is obviously more important to him. And it ALWAYS has been.
Anyway, when Wills writes "on the fact", what follows is almost always total bullshit. And that's a REAL fact! Also, the notorious RBG spells her last name "Ginsburg" not "Ginsberg".
"On The Fact" is how the Libertarin blogger Willis Hart starts a MAJORITY of his commentaries. What follows is almost always a total lie. Such as the following (for example).
Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Left In Great Britain Is Calling Everyone a Fascist Except for the Dudes Who Blow Themselves Up While Bellowing Out, "Allahu Akbar!!" Yeah, they are the victims, apparently. Go figure, huh? (3/7/2018 at 10:06pm).
Bullshit. Nobody is calling terrorists "victims". But apparently it's a self evident fact. Self evident in that no evidence is necessary. That the Left says everyone is a fascist except the terrorists is well known. Even though the very thought is despicable, ridiculous and certainly demanding of proof. The "proof" apparently is the "On the Fact" portion of the title of the Hartster's post. Go figure, huh?
According to the website "Your News Wire" (yournewswire.com, YNW) Denzel Washington said that "Trump's Election Saved Us From Orwellian Police State". He said this in regards to the Devin Nunes memo. This would be the memo in Nunes staff members cherry picked info to falsely state that the FISA warrant to keep an eye on Carter Page relied solely on the Christopher Steele dossier and that falsely claims the FBI lied to a FISA judge by excluding this information.
"If the Democrats had won the election, we never would have found out they were using false documents to get warrants to spy on American citizens and political opponents. We never would have known this. Think about it!" said Denzel Washington at a press conference in New York. (2/3/2018 yournewswire article by Baxter Dmitry).
Libertarin blogger Willis Hart, a Hillary Clinton hater and YouTube watcher, referenced this Denzil Washington "quote" in a recent blog post.
Willis Hart: On Denzel Washington Recognizing the Potential Nastiness of a Hillary Presidency and Having the Balls to Say Something About it. [YouTube video from Screen Hoopla in which a picture of Denzil is displayed while Mr. Hoopla reads the yournewswire article]. It's nice to know that not everyone in Hollywood is brain-diseased. Well done, Denzel. (2/7/2018 at 3:49pm).
My response? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. This reminds me of when the fake news fool (AKA Willis Hart) cited a "news" story from Sputnik News, another pro-Russian, propaganda fake news website.
Rational Wiki: YourNewsWire... is a Los Angeles-based clickbait fake news website known for disseminating conspiracy theories and misleading information ... Joel Harding (a Kremlin propaganda expert) believed that Russians were using YourNewsWire as a mule or proxy to spread disinformation.
Regarding Denzel Washington, Snopes says he "has been a supporter of Barack Obama in the past, but as of August 2016 he had not formally endorsed any presidential candidate". So, did Denzel go from being an Obama to a Trump supporter? Given the fact that YNW is a fake news site, I'm guessing no.
Snopes: There is no evidence that Washington made this comment, though it isn’t the first time he has been accused of being a Trump supporter without factual support. At a red carpet event for his film "Fences" he responded to a question about how he voted in 2016 with "none of your business". YourNewsWire is a fake news site that is notorious for making up sensational quotes and attributing them to celebrities or politicians. For example the site started a false rumor that actor Sylvester Stallone said former President Barack Obama was a "closeted homosexual" and claimed, again falsely, that actress Julia Roberts had said former First Lady Michelle Obama “isn’t fit to clean Melania Trump's toilet". (Did Denzel Washington Say Trump's Election Saved Us From an "Orwellian Police State"?).
Willis must be suffering from a very serious "brain disease" to be buying into all these fake news stories. The YouTube "video" he includes with his post isn't even a video, but someone reading the YNW article while a still picture of Denzel is displayed. Something that SHOULD automatically cause someone interested in the truth to independently verify the claim that Denzel actually said anything of the sort.
Anway, I assume that Willis, given that he says "well done" in regards to the fake quote, agrees with it. Despite it being utter stupidity. Stupidity because Congress JUST reauthorized the FISA law with ZERO changes. So, IF the FISA law means the US is an "Orwellian Police State", the police states persists. Trump's election did NOT "save us" from it. Nunes ONLY objects to this supposed "FISA abuse" in regards to the FISA warrant granted to spy on Carter Page.
Slate: Last week, Congress passed a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for six years. Section 702 is the surveillance law that authorizes the government to target foreigners located abroad to collect foreign intelligence information. However, we know that the government also sweeps up substantial quantities of Americans' communications under Section 702. Despite the public's calls for additional privacy protections, Congress passed the bill and called it a reform while hoping that no one would notice that it actually increases privacy risks.
...the definition of foreign intelligence information that may be collected includes anything that is relevant to U.S. foreign affairs, which means that foreign journalists, activists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, and businesspeople could be targeted. (Americans Wanted More Privacy Protections. Congress Gave Them Fewer by Robyn Green).
So, what Slate is saying is that, Trump's election DID save us from an Orwellian Police state. Looks like I was wrong. I mean that sarcastically, of course. My God, is Willis Hart a trumping moron or what?
BTW, even though I'd absolutely support revising Section 702 of FISA to provide more protections for American citizens (something that has NOT happened under Trump. Although I admit it likely wouldn't have happened under Hillary either) it definitely appears as though the Carter Page warrant was 100% on the up and up. There was no abuse, and that trumpers think the Devin Nunes memo discredits the Mueller investigation (as trumpy moron Sean Hannity believes) is further proof that these people are surely brain diseased. In the extreme.
Video:YouTube Willis includes in his post in which "Screen Hoopla" reads YNW article containing FAKE Denzel Washington quote (3:20). Based on this video, which is 100% BULLSHIT, Willis concludes "that that not everyone in Hollywood is brain-diseased" and offers kudos to Mr. Washington, saying "well done, Denzel" (for having a fake quote attributed to him). Idiot!!!
The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a bigoted and clueless White guy who loathes the Black Lives Matter movement. According to Mr. Hart BLM is "vile, vulgar, and slimy" and African Americans who agree with the BLM movement are "belly-achers".
So, no surprise that he feels the same way about the Hispanic organization La Raza (AKA the National Council of La Raza, which is now known as UnidosUS).
Willis Hart: On La Raza... It means, the race. THE RACE; a proclamation that if a white group had made it would have been excoriated 24/7. And Hispanic isn't even a fucking race, for Christ (Mexicans for example are 20% European, 20% Native-American, and 60% Mestizo)!! I mean, hello!! (10/23/2017 at 6:19pm).
Wrong. La Raza does not directly translate to "the race". Well, it is "often translated into English as race", but there is more meaning behind the term. "La Raza" isn't simply and just about race. It's actually not about race at all, because (as Willis correctly points out) Mexican isn't a race.
The Spanish term raza translates as "race" or "people", Spanish raza having the meaning of "race, ethnicity; breed, strain, lineage". The term originated in the 1925 book, La Raza Cósmica (English: The Cosmic Race) by the Mexican writer José Vasconcelos. He described la Raza Cósmica as the product of gradual racial mixing that was already underway in the Latin world. Vasconcelos believed that eventually all of the people within the former Spanish Empire would be completely mixed into a new race. The term expresses ethnic or racial pride. (Wikipedia/La Raza).
Note that the originator of the term said "La Raza" is "the product of gradual racial mixing". Does Willis know this? Obviously not. He makes an assumption and gets outraged based on his (incorrect) assumption. BTW, you might also have noted that "The term expresses ethnic or racial pride", which is something else that would very likely cause Hart's blood to boil.
Why is it that non-Whites can have "racial pride" but Whites can't, Hart wonders. His conclusion (I'd bet) is that it's non-White people who are racist (more so than Whites). But the TRUTH is that, when White people say you're inferior (which is what happened here and in Mexico) it isn't racist to try and counter that.
Oh, and yes, there is racism in Mexico.
The enduring taboo subject [in Mexico] is skin color, whether an individual's complexion betrays an allegiance to the Spanish who conquered the Aztec empire in 1521 or the Aztecs who were conquered. It's no exaggeration to say that, in this country and especially in this city [Mexico City], the best, highest-paying, most important jobs often seem to go to those who, in addition to having the best education and the strongest connections, have the lightest skin. (In Mexico, racism hides in plain view by Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor. 11/20/2012).
That an oppressed people form an organization to spread pride is a NATURAL reaction. A White group HAS made such a proclamation, btw. These groups are known as the KKK, Neo Nazis and White Nationalists. They're racists because White people haven't been oppressed!! Not on this continent, in any case. A FACT that the clueless Hartster ignores. If Whites had been oppressed and their taking pride in their race was a push-back against that oppression, the situation would be different. BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN.
When a race that has been historically the perpetrators of oppression takes pride in their race, it's because they're racists. It's because they LIKE the fact that they are members of the oppressor class. Despite their BULLSHIT cries of "reverse racism" and insistence that it's Black and Brown people who are the "real racists".
Willis Hart is one of these people, btw. He is a racist and a bigot in addition to being a clueless White guy. The (deliberate?) cluelessness and racism seemingly go hand-in-hand with these types. Hard to believe he isn't a Trump voter. A Trump defender, yes, but not a Trump voter.
Why did UAE Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed travel to New York in December of 2016 to meet with members of the Trump transition team, including Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn and Jared Kushner? Yes, Trump was the president-elect at the time, but he was NOT president. Surely such a meeting could wait until Trump was sworn in.
More importantly, why did Bin Zayed enter the US without notifying the Obama Administration, which is customary? This unusual and suspicious act was noted by our intelligence agencies, who decided that Bin Zayed should be surveilled while in the US. Because a foreign leader sneaking into our country might have some national security implications.
So they did that (surveilled Bin Zayed) and passed the intel they gathered up the chain. Although first they blacked out the names of American citizens that Bin Zayed met with. Because Bin Zayed was the subject of the surveillance, not any Americans he met with. American citizens have rights in our country that a foreigner visiting does not. So, in order to protect those rights, the names weren't disclosed.
Susan Rice, in her capacity as President Obama's national security adviser, looked at these reports and decided that, in order to understand what the purpose of the meeting was, knowing the names of who Bin Zayed met with was necessary. So she requested that they be "unmasked". The names, however, would only be revealed to Rice and others on her team (as well as the president, I presume). Point is, the names were not publically disclosed. Or even disclosed to a large number of people within the Obama administration.
According to the Right, this is what Trump was talking about when he (via Tweet) accused President Obama of wiretapping him. But that's bullshit. It was Bin Zayed who was being surveilled, not Trump. Everything that was done was on the up-and-up and 100 percent legal.
Their complaint now is that Susan Rice, when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (a Republican representing California) told the world that he had discovered that Susan Rice requested that the American names (in the intel report on Bin Zayed) be unmasked, lied. Nunes said "it was possible the access to NSA information could have been used improperly for political purposes". An unproven accusation. Also Trump "won". So what were the "political purposes" the intel was used for?
None according to President Donald Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster. He said Susan Rice did nothing wrong. Anyway, after Nunes whined (in an effort to validate Trump's "Obama wiretapped me" tweet), Susan Rice denied that she unmasked Trump transition team members.
(Note that my transcript below is of a YouTube created by a #trumpdupe going by the moniker Hard Bastard. This would be the same idiot Willis cited when he authored a post about how CNN faked a rescue by one of their reporters of a Hurricane Harvey victim. Even though the rescue was real... see OST #210).
Transcript of discussion between Judy Woodruff of PBS Newshour and Susan Rice on 3/22/2017.
Judy Woodruff: ...in the last few hours we've been following this disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that, in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, after President Trump had been elected, that he, and the people around him, may have been caught up in the surveillance of foreign individuals. And their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?
Susan Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today. I mean, let's back up and recall where we have been. The president of the United States, accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower...
Hard Bastard Commentary: And he did biotch! he did it! *laughs*.
Susan Rice: Nothing of the sort occurred.
Hard Bastard Commentary: Lie.
This idiot "Hard Bastard" laughs a lot during his YouTubes. Anyway, it is easy to see why the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart loves Mr. Bastard's Youtube #trumpdupe bullshit. He's a fake news fool.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that We Now Know with Absolute Certainty that Susan Rice Lied Through Her Molars On PBS Earlier this Year Regarding the Unmasking of Trump Officials [Hard Bastard Video, see bottom of post].
And how is the media responding to this? Let's just say that they don't seem too concerned (the fact that they haven't mentioned the lie, the fact that they've have been spinning like a top to make it seem like her actions were justified, the fact that they've been doubling-down on the thoroughly discredited Russian narrative, etc). (9/18/2017 at 4:38pm).
There is no need for the media "make it seem like her actions were justified", because they WERE justified! Which is why, as per a 4/12/2017 CNN News story, an unnamed "congressional intelligence source", "described the requests made by Rice as normal and appropriate for officials who serve in that role to the president". A determination that Trump's own national security advisor, McMaster, agreed with.
So why did Rice (on the PBS Newshour) deny knowing what Nunes was talking about? It was because she "wanted to win another news cycle" according toDavid French of the National Review (in a 9/14/2017 article).
So Susan Rice didn't tell the complete truth. To "win the news cycle" or for some other reason. I don't know. I do note, however, that in the PBS Newshour video she pivots back to Trump's idiotic tweet. Her "I know nothing about this" was not the truth, but her "nothing of the sort occurred" IS accurate. Obama never wiretapped Trump Tower. The laughing idiot Hard Bastard is wrong. Willis says nothing about that. Instead he's offended by inaccuracies from Susan Rice. Inaccuracies from Trump aren't worth mentioning. Even though the moron whose video he puts on his blog repeats the Trump "Obama wiretapped me" lie.
President Obama did NOT order Trump Tower wiretapped. What happened was that "people around him, may have been caught up in the surveillance of foreign individuals" (as per the Judy Woodruff question to Susan Rice). Susan Rice said she didn't know anything about it, even though she did. So she "lied". I don't know what her reasoning was for being less than honest, but I don't really care. Because there are bigger lies and more important questions to be answered.
Why did Bin Zayed travel to NY to meet with president-elect Trump (without informing the Obama administration)? I've heard that the meeting was part of an "effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump". WTF is up with all this back-channeling between Trump and Russia, especially BEFORE Trump was inaugurated? Did the subject of discussion have something to do with Trump and Russia colluding?
IMO the answer is YES. We should be looking into it to find out, at least. Willis, of course says no, don't look into it. Because the "Russian narrative" has already been "thoroughly discredited". "Thoroughly discredited" because the metadata attached to the WikiLeaked DNC emails shows that "the download occurred at a rate that was too fast for the internet". Except that the metadata that's being looked at is what exists after the files were passed from the Russian hackers that stole them to Julian Assange. And (hello!) metadata can be manipulated! Motherboard (an online tech news publication by Vice Media) reports that "the metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings".
Proof that Willis Hart is a #trumpdupe. He focuses in on "lies" from Susan Rice, but ignores lies from the Trump Administration. Why did Devin Nunes meet with someone secretly at the White House prior to his press conference about the unmasking? As per NBC News "it's unclear why Nunes would have to go to the White House to seek a secure location to view classified material, since his own committee has a secure room in the Capitol where Nunes and his aides review secret documents on a daily basis".
It was "unclear" because Nunes lied about using the White House as a secure location. He went there because someone at the White House was his source. Bloomberg's Eli Lake says "this distinction is important because it raises questions about the independence of the congressional investigation Nunes is leading".
Nunes, who has referred to the investigation as a "witch hunt" (parroting Trump), lied because his goal in "investigating" the Trump-Russia investigation is to exonerate Trump. As opposed to looking at the facts and reaching a conclusion based on those facts. That's why lied about individuals at the White House being his source.
But the Hartster is not at all concerned about these consequential lies. Instead he focuses on an inconsequential lie from Susan Rice. And, if the purpose of Susan Rice's lie was to "win another news cycle" as David French says, then it surely is completely inconsequential. As opposed to Nunes' lie, which was to facilitate the clearing of the Trump Administration without a proper investigation (something he clearly has no interest in doing because he's already decided there's nothing to the allegations).
Video:Hard Bastard says "Susan Rice Lied About Unmasking Trump Campaign Members, Media Lauds Her". While the video runs over 20 minutes, I only watched until just under 9 minutes, so I don't know what Hard Bastard bullshit this #trumpdupe spews in the remaining 11 minutes.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head in disbelief. Like when the racist-in-chief insisted that (in regards to the events in Charlottesville) both sides were to blame. And that, on the Nazi/KKK side, there were some "very fine people".
Sentiment the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart apparently is in agreement with. Although he, unlike Trump, never even said that Nazis and KKKers were in the wrong (I refer to Trump's 2nd scripted and reluctantly read statement). Because ALL Hart's outrage is directed at the people protesting racism.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Hordes of Young, Lost, Stupid, Illiberal, and Fully Indoctrinated College Students Apparently Think that by Shouting People Down, Tearing Down Statues, and Calling Anyone Who Disagrees with Them a Nazi or a Racist, They Are Somehow Putting On Display Virtue and Moral Superiority. Not a legacy that I'd be proud of and I seriously doubt that down the road they'll be proud of it, either (those that ultimately develop critical thinking skills, I'm saying). (9/9/2017 at 8:28am).
Why shouldn't people carrying Nazi and Confederate rebel flags be called a Nazis or a racists? They're carrying the flags, so they're OBVIOUSLY self-identifying as such. Also, WTF is wrong with speaking out against these things? If people have the free speech right to protest the removal of statues honoring traitors, surely other people (non racists) have the right to counter-protest? Apparently the Hartster believes they do not.
BTW, all these Confederate statues were NOT erected immediately following the end of the Civil war (1865), but during the Jim Crow/KKK-ascendant era (1900-1910), and then again (more monuments built) during the Civil Rights era (1955-1960). Obviously the point of the statues was not to "honor our history" but as a message to African Americans. "We liked it when you were slaves and don't be getting it into your heads that you're in any way equal" is what these statues are meant to say to Black people.
It's long past time for these monuments to White superiority to go. We need to get rid of them. The people who want to keep them (people who took to the streets chanting "Blood and Soil") are the illiberal ones. They are narrow minded and bigoted. As are the people who support them (Willis Hart and his ilk). They are incredibly illiberal.
The counter-protesting "hordes" aren't putting on a "display of virtue and moral superiority" (to make themselves feel good about themselves, I guess)... they are counter-protesting because they are genuinely outraged. They are also in disbelief that this shit is still an issue in 2017 (I know I am, at least). But to Willis Hart it's "indoctrination"... to not be a racist! Or tolerant of racists, at least. Some of them are "very fine people", after all.
For the record, I am ANGRY that Trump is emboldening the "Alt-Right". Everyone who doesn't lack critical thinking skills should be. Because racism is STUPID. And people who think that the rest of us should sit back and say nothing because chanting "Jews will not replace us" while marching and carrying Nazi and Confederate rebel flags is free speech... these are the people lacking virtue and morals! Because they stand with the Nazis and "slavery was cool" enthusiasts.
As for why Willis Hart stands with racists and against people protesting racism... obviously it is because he is a racist and a bigot himself. I mean, condemning racism is an easy one. Although it's a test the so-called president also failed. Explaining why Willis is still writing screeds about how horrible Hillary Clinton is. And is largely silent about Donald Trump. Except to criticize people who don't like Donald Trump.
And (can you believe it?) he also blames the Left for these racist scumbags crawling out from under their rocks to march and protest in public! "What do you expect" he says. What with the Left "slandering" Whites as racist (HRC's whole "deplorables" comment, etc). Telling the truth, in other words. Un-f*cking believable! Although perhaps not so much, given the fact that Willis actually authored a pro-KKK post.
