On The Majority Of Willis Hart Post Titles Beginning With "On The Fact", Then Concluding With A Lie (One That Is Obviously Total Bullshit)

"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?

OST #215

On "Russian Narrative" Denying Blogger Willis Hart Citing "Sputnik News" To Prove Anything

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart does it in an 8/26/2017 commentary.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that of the 19,632 Muslim Migrants that Flooded Into Finland During the First Nine Months of 2015, Over 15,000 of Them Were Adult Males and Only 2% Were Actually Syrian [Sputnik News Link]. Yeah, I guess that "women and children first" is only something that the oppressive white Christian West observes these days. Oh well. (8/26/2017 at 11:32am).

Is this true? According to Keith Ellison "about three-quarters of (Syrian refugees) are women and children. A full third of them are kids under 12 years old". PolitiFact says this statement is 100% accurate. Ellison said this on 1/29/2017 in a CBS Face The Nation interview.

Ellison made this comment as pushback to DJT's claims that Syrian refugees to Europe "there look like very few women. Very few children". Also that the refugees are "mostly strong, powerful men" (a claim that PolitiFact says is 100% false).

I don't know about Finland specifically (I unsuccessfully tried to debunk Willis' Finland Sputnik story)... However, I'd like to point out that Finland is in Europe. Also, Sputnik News (as per Wikipedia) "is a news agency, news websites and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya [which has] has been widely accused of bias, disinformation and being a Russian propaganda outlet".

I don't know about you, but I wouldn't believe anything they said. Not without independently verifying it. Something I attempted to do - I Googled for a debunk AND an independent verification. I couldn't find either.

Yet Willis links to Sputnik because (I'm guessing, as per his belief) Russia had nothing to do with the DNC hack. And Russia did not try to interfere in our election. Because Vladimir Putin is an honest man. Or (more likely) because HRC and her campaign people (Podesta, Mook, etc) are all evil liars who have staffers murdered and concoct "Russia narratives" to explain election losses.

According to Forbes "Sputnik International reported fake news and fabricated statements by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest during the 2016 US presidential election"... but the Hartster obviously thinks they're a trustworthy news source. My suspicion is that, given the fact that this story is telling him things he likes hearing (playing to his Islamophobia) he takes it for granted that the story MUST be true.

i.e. Willis Hart is a fake news fool. And (it surely looks like) Hart shallows the same fake news that Trump cites to gin up his bigoted anti-Muslim base. Pathetic.

OST #209

Willis Hart Racist WTF: Objecting To Getting Raped Is Racist (A Great Many Leftist Feminists In Europe Don't Say)

White European feminist women want Brown Muslim men to rape them. Or they're actively refusing help from White males (if available) in preventing/stopping these rapes... because that would be racist. That this is the case is a "fact" according to the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart. Although he makes this claim sans attribution/sourcing.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a Great Many Leftist Feminists in Europe Would Seemingly Rather Get Raped by an Illiterate, Violent, and Egregiously Medieval Piece of Shit Scumbag Savage than Have One of Their White European Male Counterparts Defend Them in that that Would Be Racist... And the slow-bleed European suicide continues. (4/9/2016 AT 2:57pm).

WTF? And this is a "fact"? If it is, then where is the attribution or source that proves a "great many" "European feminists" hold this opinion?

Yeah, I do not FOR ONE SECOND buy this load of horse manure. Sounds to me like something Willis likely read on World Net Daily.

And, wanna bet that "egregiously medieval piece of shit scumbag savage" is code for (a brown) Muslim man? I mean, how the hell else could a WHITE WOMAN objecting to getting raped be "racist" otherwise?

The only thing truthful/accurate here IMO is that this is yet another of Willis Hart's racist rants. Misogynist too, in that Willis (yet again) expresses his disdain for feminism. And Leftists. Apparently the collision of the 2 (feminism and Leftism) can NOT result in anything but incomprehensible stupidity.

BTW, this sounds familiar, doesn't it? I refer to the "they're raping our women" mindset.

The Deadly History of "They're Raping Our Women" (Slate article excerpt) Racists have long used rape to defend their worst racist violence. Amid his [6/17/2015] rampage at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston SC - killing 9 people - 21yo Dylann Storm Roof reportedly told churchgoers, "You rape our women, and you're taking over our country, and you have to go". Of the assertions in that statement, it's the first that has a long, deadly history. In the late 19th century, rape was a frequent justification for racist violence. "To palliate this record ... and excuse some of the most heinous crimes that ever stained the history of a country", wrote journalist Ida B. Wells-Barnett on lynchings in her pamphlet Southern Horrors, "the South is shielding itself behind the plausible screen of defending the honor of its women". Indeed, Wells points to a host of Southern newspapers that defended "lynch's law" with reference to an alleged epidemic of black-on-white rape. In one editorial, published by the Memphis Daily Commercial, editors declared, "The commission of this crime grows more frequent every year", and, "There is no longer a restraint upon the brute passion of the Negro". As Wells-Barnett would show, however, there was no substance to the charge. "The world knows that the crime of rape was unknown during 4 years of civil war, when the white women of the South were at the mercy of the race which is all at once charged with being a bestial one"... (6/18/2015 commentary by Jamelle Bouie).

African Americans are members of a "race [that was] once charged with being a bestial one". Sound similar to the Willis tirade of pejoratives? A (brown) Muslim man is a "egregiously medieval piece of shit scumbag savage".

BTW, remember when I said that Willis' post sounded like his response was to something he read on WND? I was guessing. But after inputting "Muslim men raping European women", I found the TOP result to be a WND article titled "Europe's Muslim Rape Epidemic".

OK, so do I need to do any more Googling to see if there is any validity to Willis' claims, or can I assume that he's full of shit without doing any more research? I'm going with the later and NOT the former. Sorry, but I think the fact that WND is fear mongering on this issue tells me all I need to know about what's going on here (it's flat out racist demagoguery).

OST #131

On Willis Hart Quoting Ayaan Hirsi Ali, A Participant In The Right's Islamophobia Industry, Re The "Regressive Left"

The following commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart featuring support for the Islamaphobic Right in the context of bashing the "Regressive Left".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Ayaan Hirsi Ali's Condemnation of Female Genital Mutilation in Islamic Countries Is Seen by a Great Many Regressive Leftists (Maajid Nawaz's Term and I Like it) as an Example of Imperialistic Condescension... Do these idiots just not understand how condescending that THAT sounds? Apparently they don't. P.S. They also apparently don't seem all that exorcised about the rigid separation of the sexes in Muslim societies, honor-killings, the paranoiac and ridiculous emphasis on sexual purity, the forced covering of women, the murder of Christians, forced conversions, the destruction of numerous churches, the death penalty for apostasy and homosexuality, the viscous dehumanizing of Jews, etc. Nope, it's all about the relatively mild imperfections of the West. That's their bread and butter. (3/27/2016 AT 3:15).

Figures Willis would like this woman's slamming of the Left. He says for referring to female genital mutilation in Islamic countries as "imperialistic condescension", but this Hirsi person is apparently the Black Pamela Geller... in that she has "called for amending the US Constitution in order to discriminate against Muslim Americans" and has been praised by the likes of Norwegian terrorist Anders Breivik, perpetrator of the 2011 Norway attacks.

Breivik idolised Hirsi Ali; putting her forward as a worthy Nobel Peace Prize recipient. He saw in Hirsi Ali almost limitless propaganda potential declaring in his manifesto "...because of her background she has made criticism of Islam acceptable to people who would otherwise find it difficult to digest". (The Progressive Left? by johnnyspooner. From the blog "drifters and parking spaces", 1/2/2016).

Breivik is a far Right nut who views "Cultural Marxism" as the enemy (something he has in common with the Tea Party movement). "Cultural Marxism" is a reference to a far Right conspiracy theory that says "all the ills of modern... culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism".

Breivik targeted The Workers' Youth League which "is Norway's largest political youth organization and is affiliated with the Norwegian Labour Party", murdering 77 people.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is directly associated with Dutch anti-Muslim extremist Geert Wilders, a politician who "campaigned to stop what he views as the Islamisation of the Netherlands". Ali emigrated to America after she was found to have "falsified her asylum application" in the Netherlands.

Although before the Netherlands kicked her out, she "was elected a member of the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Dutch parliament), representing the People's Party for Freedom and Democracy", a Rightwing Dutch political party tha is anti-Islam and anti-immigration.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali says that "we are at war with Islam [and that] there comes a moment when you crush your enemy". She is among the haters who believe that "the majority of Muslims aren't moderates and they must radically alter their religion", making her a natural fit for the American Enterprise Institute, which she joined as a "fellow" after coming to the United States.

According to a 6/21/2012 ThinkProgress article, The American Enterprise Institute's Islamophobia Problem, AEI Scholar Robert Spencer (an Islamaphobe who has collaborated with Geller) was "cited 162 times in Anders Breivik's manifesto".

Re the notoriously Islamophobic Geller, Willis Hart has defended her "free speech" rights on his blog.

Willis Hart: 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).

OK, so Willis does say "the gal's not my cup of tea", but that's a incredibly weak rebuke of Geller's hate. Actually, it isn't a rebuke at all. And notice that he says Muslims can "go fuck themselves", as opposed to them using their own free speech rights to denounce Geller's hate? Maybe he thinks they should just shut the hell up and let Geller spew her hate unchallenged? (OST #42).

My point is that Ayaan Hirsi Ali has (and has been) aligned strongly with the Islam-hating Right and these are the kind of people the Harster gravitates to. It doesn't hurt that Ali is a former Muslim, so her criticisms carry more weight for that reason. And she isn't entirely wrong. I agree that Islam has many problems in this area, but the answer is not hate. Obviously we need to be reaching out to the Moderates, but you're clearly not going to get anywhere if you deny Moderates even exist!

Which is why I call BS on the Hart's assertion that the Left isn't "all that exorcised about" these issues. They are. They just disagree with the Right's belief that hate is the way to go. They don't want to solve problems. The purpose of their hateful rhetoric is to inflame their racist bigoted base for profit and votes.

As for the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation being referred to as "imperialistic condescension", I could find no "regressive Leftist" usage of this term. So, because Willis provides no proof that a "great many regressive Leftists" hold this view (and my own Google search turned up nada), I can only guess as to what he was talking about. My GUESS is that (if any Leftists raised this concern) they were referring to how Muslims who approve of this practice might view Westerners who attempt to tell them they need to change their ways.

And why the hell would they be eager to be lectured to by their former colonizers? Sounds like a legitimate concern to me. Seems to me the Right thinks, re the old saying that "you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar", that actually the opposite is true. In their minds the BEST way to change people's minds is with condemnation and hatred.

Me, I think that the fact that this hate speak inspired terrorists like Anders Breivik is proof that hate does NOT work because hatred only breeds more hatred. But I think that's the goal here. Because more riled up the more hateful idiots are the better it is for the bottom line of those in the Islamophobia Industry. Ca-ching!

But back to the Hartster... I really don't think he gives to big of a crap about female genital mutilation in Islamic countries. The REAL reason for his post is that it's an opportunity for him to bash the "regressive Left", while aligning himself with bigots who fear monger about "Islamization". What's next, posts about how we need to be passing laws banning Sharia Law here in the US?

Perhaps not. But the posts from the regressive Libertarian idiot bashing Muslims and promoting hate as an answer (via agreement with those whose bread and butter is selling Islamophobic hate) will NO DOUBT continue. How shameful.

Image: Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Pamela Geller. Ali's writings are cited frequently by Pamela Geller's blog Atlas Shrugs. Willis quotes Ayaan Hirsi Ali "...because of her background she has made criticism of Islam acceptable to people who would otherwise find it difficult to digest", while saying (re Geller) "the gal's not my cup of tea". However, as the picture shows, THEY'RE ON THE SAME TEAM! And that quote? Remember that it's from the terrorist Anders Breivik!

OST #125

On Hysterical & BS Claims From Willis Hart Of "Islamophobia Emanating From The Hard Left"

Yet more Islamaphobic BS from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On the Hysterical Claims of Islamophobia Emanating from the Hard Left... As you can easily see from this 2014 data, there are still far, far more hate crimes in this country directed at Jews than Arabs and so if there's any phobia at all it's still directed at Jews. Sorry, MSNBC schmucks. (1/4/2016 AT 8:40pm).

No, what I clearly see is that this chart lacks attribution and is not labeled as representing hate crimes for 2014. If I take Willis' word for it (that this chart is from a reputable source and that it represents 2014 data) what I see is that anti-Islamic hate crimes come in right behind the anti-Jewish ones. Is MSNBC being "hysterical" given the fact that (according to Willis' chart) 14 percent of all hate crimes are anti-Islamic?

In any case, Islamophobia can occur without it being a crime. So, obviously Willis' chart (representing all hate CRIMES) is not a record of all the instances of Islamophobia that occurred in 2014.

Also, according to the International Business Times, Willis is wrong and Islamophobia is on the rise.

Americans are more Islamophobic than they were four years ago. That's the disturbing finding from a survey released today by the Public Religion Research Institute. 56% of Americans surveyed agree that the values of Islam are at odds with American values, up from 47% in 2011. Christians - especially white Protestants - are the most likely to hold negative views of Islam. The report also breaks down the survey results by political affiliation, and the outcome isn't that surprising: Over three-quarters of Republicans think Islam is incompatible with the American way of life. With their callous responses to the Syrian refugee crisis, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, and the rest of the GOP candidates seem to be giving voters exactly what they want. (New Republic article by Esther Breger. 11/17/2015).

Anyway, the way Willis' post is worded, it sounds like he's saying that the "hard Left" is being Islamophobic, when they're actually talking about Islamophobia emanating from elsewhere... including the hard Right (3 quarters of it). But, despite Willis' poor wording, I figured out what he was blabbering about. The schmuck is PO'd that MSNBC is reporting on the FACT that Islamophobia is on the rise (hatred directed at Muslims regardless of whether or not the result is a prosecuted crime).

Obviously we've got a problem with antisemitism as well (and it may be larger), but it boggles my mind how the Hartster can post the chart he did and (based on what it shows) conclude there is NO "phobia" directed at Muslims. Sounds if he's dismissing the antisemitism as well when he says "if there's any phobia at all"... there is, you schmuck... the chart YOU POSTED shows there is (the crime portion, at least).

BTW, I also take issue with Willis' claim that MSNBC represents the "hard Left". MSNBC actually represents the Insider/institutional Democrat point of view. For the true Left POV, see Free Speech TV.

Image1: A chart the schmuck Willis Hart posted to his blog sans attribution (therefore who knows where it comes from, making it impossible to ascertain whether or not it might be accurate).

Image2: A 2015 chart showing how Islamophobic Americans are, disproving the schmuck Willis Hart's claims of "hysteria". Source: American Values Survey from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to research at the intersection of religion, values, and public life (PRRI's Wikipedia page).

.

OST #109

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

On The Cop Arrested For Murder Because His Murdering Was Caught On Video While Willis Hart Predictably, Shamelessly & Moronically Ignores It

It's funny how Willis' Islamaphobic grandstanding can often backfire. I refer to the South Carolina officer who was charged with murder of Walter Scott.

NYT: A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away. The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. (South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder of Walter Scott by Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo. 4/7/2015).

So, this time it's on tape. And the cop is also seen walking back to where the altercation began - and where he dropped his taser - picking it up and walking back to the dying Scott and dropping it near his body.

If not for the videotape you KNOW this cop would have gotten away with this obvious murder. Given he gave the standard response that he "feared for his life". If a cop claims that... well, then the shooting is justified no matter what.

Something else we know is that if there were no videotape? Willis will defend the shooter, same as he defended the murders of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Although, even with video Willis STILL defended the White cop who choked Eric Grant. In this case the a-hole had the balls to attack the victim with some "fat shaming" regarding his weight.

Willis Hart: Note to Fat Asthmatics... Ixnay on resisting arrest. (2/4/2014 AT 2:40am).

And then the dumbass said "I agree that he was a victim (to a certain degree), ...but not of the cops. He was a victim of the greedy politicians who've put such a draconian tax on tobacco".

It's Willis' view that the cops were not to blame because smoking isn't bad for you, so it's those who "forced" the cops to uphold the law against selling untaxed cigs that are to blame. Also, being overweight is bad for you. No, wait. Willis probably acknowledges those things are bad but does not believe that the State should do anything to dissuade people from smoking. As a Libertarian Willis believes in a person's "liberty" to engage in bad behaviors... even if there is a cost to society.

Which is why cigarettes are taxed, by the way. To discourage people from smoking. "Greedy politicians" aren't a factor. In any case, the point is that Willis always believes the cop doing the killing and not the victim. Which is why he has been totally silent thus far regarding this recent killing. Because the cop can't be defended in light of the videotape.

Or, Willis has not said anything YET in regards to this recent murder of an unarmed Black man. He might say something and he might come out against the cop. I have my doubts, however, given his track record.

Which brings me to my motivation for authoring this commentary - it's that the moronic Willis has written a number of commentaries in which he predictably and shamelessly claims that "Leftists" are always silent when it comes to Muslims (and Muslim societies as a whole) discriminating against gay people.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Muslim Bakeries Have Also Apparently Refused Gay Couples While the Media and Liberal Establishment Predictably, Shamelessly, and Moronically Ignore it... It's funny how political grandstanding can often backfire (4/7/2014 AT 8:33pm).

Yeah right. "Leftists" are not "silent" about bigotry against Muslims who discriminate against gay people. It is simply that different societies progress at different rates. We can't expect every society on earth to move toward equality and equal rights for everyone at the same time. Remember that England abolished slavery quite some time before the United States did.

The "Left" (as well as others of differing political persuasions) can and SHOULD criticize those who discriminate (or are lacking in any area when it comes to anyone's basic human rights), but that criticism will go a lot further when directed at those within our own society. Because criticism directed at another society will likely not be appreciated - or even ignored.

Which brings us back to this Muslim bakery, which is located in the United States. As a Leftist I do not find this discrimination acceptable because the bakery is run by Muslim bigots - as opposed to Christian bigots. These Muslim baking bigots SHOULD be called out the same as the Christian baking bigots. And I am 100 percent positive that other Leftists agree with me. Bigotry is not acceptable no matter who the bigot is.

Willis can consider this commentary me breaking my "silence". Now I await his breaking of his silence regarding the aforementioned murder of yet another unarmed Black man by a White cop. Will it happen? It has not yet, and I imagine that Willis - the blogger who posts multiple commentaries a day - is aware of the story, given that he watches a lot of political programming (info I've gleaned via reading his blog).

So if he does not comment on this story I WILL consider it a definite "Silence". And a "silence" with some bigotry behind it. Due to the Hartster's long history of always coming out against the Black victim. In the case of Trayvon Martin killing the biased Willis actually put up more than a dozen commentaries defending the racist idiot George Zimmermann (SWTD #184 & SWTD #187).

And, following his defense of Zimmermann he authored a number of posts defending the killings of Brown and Garner. Which is why - if he decided to defend this latest cop shooting - I would not be surprised in the least. Although, if he does, I still call him out for his bullshit accusation of "silence" from the Left regarding Muslims guilty of gay bigotry. Willis is totally full of shit in that regard.

Full of shit in regard to his defense of the previous cop shootings of unarmed Black men as well. But I would give him props for not defending the murderer of Walter Scott. If he does. But so far? Only silence. And if he does break his silence I do expect some spin regarding the unarmed Black victim being responsible (to a certain degree) for getting shot in the back as he ran away.

Video: Anti-gay & anti-Muslim ex Fox Nooz contributor Steven Crowder dissembles on the "religious freedom" laws passed in a number of conservative states, does a hidden camera "gotcha" to catch a Muslim bakery discriminating and accuses the Liberal media of "ignoring" discrimination by Muslims to focus on Christian bakery discrimination (see here for the website this video was originally posted on).

Video: In video provided to The NYT, officer Michael Slager is seen shooting an unarmed man after a 4/4/2015 North Charleston SC traffic stop. Walter Scott, the victim, ran away and was shot in the back 5 times by Slager.

OST #37

A Total Moron Ruminates On Securing the Release of Bergdahl

This utter stupidity from the blog of Willis Hart...

Will Hart: "On Securing the Release of Bergdahl"... What cost would have been TOO MUCH? That's what I want to know. I mean, what if they had wanted the Blind Sheik and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed as well? Would that have been acceptable to secure the release of this character? And the fact that people died looking for him. That's what really pisses me off the most here. Frigging douche-bag. (6/7/2014 AT 7:37pm).

My God! Is this guy exceptionally obtuse or what? Omar Abdel-Rahman (AKA the Blind Sheik) is Egyptian. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is Pakistani. Neither of these individuals was ever a member of the Taliban. We negotiated with the Taliban for the release of 5 members of the Taliban. Why would the Taliban care about the Blind Sheik or KSM? Answer: they don't. They wanted THEIR people back.

If al Qaeda had captured Bergdahl we wouldn't have negotiated with them. The Taliban, for the record, has never been designated as a terrorist organization (Source).

Also, as reported by ThinkProgress, "none [of the five] were facing charges in either military or civilian courts for their actions"... and that "when wars end, prisoners taken custody must be released".

We are at war with the Taliban, and the Taliban never launched attacks against the US on non-Afghani soil. They did "harbor" al Qaeda, but the Taliban isn't al Qaeda. In fact, prior to 9/11, the Taliban made various offers to surrender or expel bin Laden, but the Bush administration was uninterested*.

In regards to taking the Taliban up on their offer to turn over bin Laden, the Hartster (and his buddy Dennis Marks) have mocked me many times (for saying we should have considered it), but the offer was genuine IMO. The Taliban did not want to be bombed or have their country invaded.

Anyway, the point is that, with this post, the dumb-dumb again conflates the two groups by moronically suggesting that the Taliban would want to negotiate for the release of members of al Qaeda. Stupid.

*Note: That the Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden is a point made by Sheldon Richman in his 5/6/2014 article for the Libertarian Reason Magazine titled "Why You Shouldn't Blame Bowe Bergdahl for Deserting in the Fog of Endless War". I also wrote about it in this post from my other blog "Sleeping with The Devil".

See also: SWTD #259.

OST #17

On Willis Hart's Idiotic & Islamophobic Assessment of Blowback

In a 3/9/2014 post the blogger Willis Hart addresses Ron Paul and says "for Mr. Paul or anybody to think that 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings, and Benghazi wouldn't have happened had only our troops not been placed in Saudi Arabia for a spate is a little bit silly and naive in my estimation".

In reply I must say "what a dope". 9/11 was cited by bin Laden as his rationale, but a LOT more has happened since then, like the illegal invasion of 2 countries and sustained drone strikes that have killed thousands. The Boston Marathon bombings and Benghazi were blowback for those things, you dolt!

Mr. Hart goes on to list his problems with "radical Islam", and he has very valid concerns, but, in my estimation, a large number of those who have been "radicalized" chose the "revenge" route exactly because of our response to 9/11, which was for bush to take advantage of the shock of the nation, as well as the strong feeling at the time that we needed to strike back.

bush saw an opportunity to become a "war president", get political capital, use that to push his other agenda items and get elected to a second term. And it also presented a wonderful opportunity for the bushies to loot the treasury by way of "no bid" Afghanistan and Iraq "reconstruction" contracts.

And that Mr. Hart consistently has defended bush in regards to his lying and thieving is, in my opinion, thoroughly disgusting. Ron Paul, while I may strongly disagree with MOST of what he believes, is correct when he says 9/11 "was blowback for decades of US intervention in the Middle East". And he was also correct when he say "the last thing we needed was the government's response: more wars, a stepped-up police and surveillance state, and drones".

Yes, OBL "publicly denounced Saudi dependence on the U.S. military, arguing the two holiest shrines of Islam, Mecca and Medina, the cities in which the Prophet Mohamed received and recited Allah's message, should only be defended by Muslims" and cited our military presence in that country as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks, but Al Qaeda was (prior to 9/11) an obscure Islamic movement and most likely faded from existence is not for our military response.

It was our response post-9/11 that continued the blowback (and made it worse). Another response and the blowback surely would be much less than it is today. The Boston bombers specifically stated that the motivation for their actions was our killing of Muslims in our "war on terror".

That Willis Hart only cites Saudi Arabia as the only reason for the rise of radical Islam is more than a bit silly and naive in my estimation. The main point of his commentary is to push his Islamophobic POV in which the US is blameless and all fingers should be pointed at the "rag heads" practicing a religion he is biased against. (for the record WH doesn't use the term "rag head", but reading his commentary you very much expect him to).

OST #2. See also TADM #21 and SWTD #239.