Fucking Barbarian Ragheads Murder Each Other & Nobody Gives A Shit (As They Should Not)

Did you know that it's a fact that Hamas murdered scores of Fatah opposition in 2007 after the elections there (such that they were) and followed that up with summary executions of suspected traitors? (Hamas Executions Against Palestinians Protesting War in Gaza).

Yeah, nobody gives a flying fuck 'cause it was ragheads killing ragheads without an Israeli in sight. Haven't you figured this out yet? Fucking Leftists only care about ragheads dying when it's Israelis doing the killing.

Me, I cheer every raghead death I hear of. Whether it's an Israeli doing the killing, or whether these terrorist barbarians are murdering each other. The only good raghead is a dead raghead in my book.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of Islamophobia. LLIN-191.

Colonialism Helped Ignorant Savages Achieve Success (Ungrateful Darkies Should Be Thanking The White Man Instead of Demonizing Him!)

In regards to the claim made by Marxist academics and others that colonial Britain "plundered" Africa? I say this claim is objectively bullshit. As Harrison, Huntington, Mercer, and others have pointed out, practically the entire infrastructure of Africa (as it pertains to agriculture, mining, commerce, finance, industry, etc) was built by colonial powers (most of Sub-Saharan Africa didn't even possess the wheel prior to European contact) with the lion-share of that being built by THE BRITISH!!

And, while, yes, the period of colonization itself was often less than ideal, even that period has been characterized by no less than Moeletsi Mbeki (brother of former South African President, Thabo Mbeki) as better than what exists today. So, yeah, maybe we all need to stop beating ourselves up and realize that the troubles in Africa have a hell of a lot more to do with tribalism, racism, horrible economic models and the inferiority of the Negro race - as well as a variety of repressive regimes that would have made Joe Stalin proud and much less to do with colonialism. Just a thought, folks.

Byline: This truthful commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of telling it like it is. LLIN-190.

White Power!

Did you know that it's a fact that former colonies such as Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan are doing phenomenally well while countries Such as Afghanistan, Liberia, Tibet, and Nepal which were never colonized are still performing poorly?

The fact of the matter is that those areas of Asia and Africa that had the most European contact are doing the best and those that aren't are doing poorly because of corruption, repression, and socialism. Obviously the reason for this is that White people are superior. When the colonizers went in they laid the groundwork for success that even incompetent minorities can't fuck with. Period, end of report.

Byline: This superior (because it was written by a White guy) commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of telling it like it is. LLIN-189.

On The Fact That Most Porch Monkeys Are So Stupid

Did you know that East-Asian-Americans and Ashkenazi Jews continue to dominate White Gentiles in professions and academic areas involving mathematics? Is this a systematic bias against Whites? Or a cultural difference? And if it's a cultural difference, couldn't the same be said regarding Blacks and the way that they lag behind not just Whites and Asians but African immigrants, too?

I'm just asking here, folks (as a part of the President's conversation on race, let's say). My own hypothesis is that American Blacks have grown lazy and stupid due to Progressive entitlement programs. Why would Mookie And Ray-Ray work for anything or use the power of their minds to achieve when they can just have everything handed to them?

Byline: This highly insightful commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of strawmen. LLIN-188.

On Why The Presidency Is Better Served When There Is No First Lady

Over on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly I made a funny when I asked who the greatest First Lady ever was... and answered that for me, it's a tie between Mrs. Buchanan and Mrs. Jefferson.

The joke being the fact that Martha Jefferson died 12 years before husband Thomas became president and that James Buchanan was a confirmed bachelor. Ha ha ha ha. Good one, right?

In any case, the take away here is that the best First Lady is NO First Lady. Which is why I say the position should be eliminated. At the least Congress should pass some legislation that says a First Lady can do nothing. I mean, this is NOT an elected position, right? So why the hell is the First Lady able to do anything, let alone EXPECTED to do things?

Do we really need some dumb bitch telling our kids that they should "just say no" to drugs or that they should exercise more? What a colossal waste of taxpayer money, I say! Leave the child-rearing to the parents and cut out the nanny state BS. Or "mommy state" (when it comes to the First ladies, apparently).

Presidenting should be for men only and the ladies should be prevented from doing anything when their husbands are the ones elected. But that's just my opinion. Call me old fashioned if you like.

Another reason (as if one were needed) not to vote for that liar Hillary!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of being old fashioned. LLIN-187.

On Why I Believe Walmart Should Decuple The Salary Of Their CEO (Multiply It By Ten)

It's due to the fact that the CEO of Walmart could Work for NOTHING and even if you distributed his entire forfeited salary to the employees it would only come out to about $15 per person PER YEAR.

So why not give the dude a raise? Even if Walmart were to decuple his salary that would only work out to about $150 per employee per year. Surely the skinflint owners of Walmart (The Billionaire children of Sam Walton) can afford to bump up their CEO's salary by a factor of ten? Heck, they could multiply his salary by a thousand and it wouldn't be a big deal.

That's why I don't get too upset about this whole "CEO to worker ratio growing" talking point (the fact that it's an essentially symbolic issue, lacks perspective, etc.) and would much prefer a more substantive analysis concerning why many of our CEOs are so woefully underpaid.

Byline: This insightful commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Champion of our underpaid CEOs. LLIN-186.

To The Progressive Left The Lives Of White People Apparently Do Not Matter

Have you noticed that when a racially motivated White person kills a black person it's racist, but when a racially motivated black person kills a White person it's an excuse to bring up gun-control?

Now, perhaps you can guess what white person I'm talking about. Dylann Roof, because he explicitly said his crime was motivated by racial hate (although that was only an anecdote). But what black person am I talking about? That's for me to know... and for you not to know.

We all know that Mookie and Ray-Ray (members of the "Black Lives Matter" movement, no doubt) would kill me to get my stuff. And they'd target me because I'm White. And, that's even though the State is already stealing a large portion of my stuff and giving it to them. But these greedy cocksuckers want it ALL!

What about the lives of those young journalists who were shot by a black dude in Virginia recently? Where they or were they not shot simply for being White? They don't matter? What about the police lieutenant in Fox Lake IL who was shot and killed... by a Black dude? I heard they're also looking for two White dudes, but come on! We all know the black dude was the shooter. Did that officer's life not matter?

Is Fox's Elisabeth Hasselbeck and Bill O'Reilly onto something when they say Black Lives Matter should be categorized as a hate group? Is Megyn Kelly correct to characterize the movement as violent and anti-police?

And that officer in IL is the second police shooting recently. A sheriff's deputy in Harris County TX was shot and killed by a black gunman in an apparent ambush.

Is this not proof that, instead of racist White rednecks (wearing sheets and carrying the Confederate flag) going around shooting Blacks en masse, what we should REALLY be worrying about is violently racist Black thugs going around shooting Whites en masse?

You KNOW it's coming. A race war being on the agenda of the "Black Lives Matter" movement, I strongly suspect. Due to their hatred for "Whitey"... which is motivated by their greed. These lazy blacks want the stuff that hard-working Whites like myself earned via our long hours of hard labor. And stupid White Progressives are helping them! They'll be sorry when the violent Blacks turn on them. But then it will be too late!

Me, I'm thinking I need to get a gun to defend myself when the violently racist blacks come for me. I suggest, if you're White, that you get yourself a gun too. In fact, I suggest you get yourself as many guns as possible. Along with a few thousand rounds of ammo.

If it isn't the violently racist blacks it will be the jackbooted thugs representing the Obama administration. But they're really one in the same, aren't they. I mean, Obama IS black.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of good racism. LLIN-185.

On the Fact That The Murder Rate for White South African Farmers is 99 Per 100,000

This is according to Genocide Watch and the Institute for Security Studies. Just for some perspective, that rate is more than 3 times higher than the overall rate in South Africa and more than 20 times higher than the murder rate in America. Holy shit, huh?

And the fact of the matter is that it's probably worse than that in that the government no longer includes the race of the victim in its death records. I mean, I know that the lives of White folks aren't all that big of an attention grabber these days (especially if the perpetrator is a violent black), but when you stumble upon this level of carnage and brutality at the hands of violent blacks, maybe a mention or two?

But NO! Don't tell me that this isn't proof of how inherently (genetically) violent Black people are. These cocksuckers are fucking animals, I tell you! People should pay attention to these very real examples of Black violence... as opposed to the anecdotal "evidence" of White on Black violence. Occurrences which are so rare that we really should be ignoring them. (instead the Left plays up a false narrative of an army of thousands of angry rednecks in white sheets carrying the Confederate flag... and looking for "innocent" blacks to slaughter).

In any case, I haven't even gotten to the fact that when the cops kill one of these violent Black animals it's usually always because they're asking for it, for Christ! For example, that fat fuck Eric Garner? That's what happens when you resist arrest. Instant death penalty. Boom, done.

Byline: This truth-telling commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of pointing out the truth about the violent Blacks. LLIN-184.

Am I, Willis Hart, Water Tower Material?

Sometimes I think I might end up ascending a water tower and killing a bunch of folks with my high powered rifle (which has a laser scope). Why? Because of the fact that the classical view of justice (rendering to him what belongs to him) has since been supplanted by one of compulsory transfers and ever increasing state power.

This ugly state of affairs brought to us thanks to a greedy and jealous mindset. A mindset which today is exemplified by those calling themselves "Progressives" (people who really don't have much that could be considered a "mind"). Is this progress? Really?

I say no. Without private property, which the Progressives are attempting to abolish, there is no economy; just a bunch of central-planners (if you're lucky, ruthless dictators if you're not) haphazardly moving resources back and forth.

This is why I hate Progressive SO MUCH and frequently think that killing a bunch of them might make me feel better. Of course, then I'd go to prison, which is the ONLY thing that is stopping me from mass-murdering as many of these cocksuckers as I possibly can.

Sure, it is true that in the United States that "there is no dispute that income inequality has been on the rise in the United States for the past four decades [and] that share of total income earned by the top 1 percent of families was less than 10 percent in the late 1970s but now exceeds 20 percent as of the end of 2012".

And, it may also be true that, starting in the 1980's with the election of Ronald Reagan, most wealth in the US has flowed to the top. According to London School of Economics economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, individuals who have dedicated their careers to compiling and analyzing wealth and income data, "the share of total household wealth owned by the top 0.1 percent increased to 22 percent in 2012 from 7 percent in the late 1970s".

The research of these economists says that as of 2012 the "top 0.1 percent includes 160,000 families with total net assets of more than $20 million". Is this right that so much of the wealth of our nation should be concentrated in so few hands? (Note: research cited via a 10/31/2014 Fortune Magazine article titled "Wealth inequality in America: It's worse than you think" by Chris Matthews).

The Progressive answer to this question is NO. And, not only is it unfair, the Progressives think that government (the institution representing We The People) should do something about it. And their ideas always involve the Communist idea of "redistribution".

Obviously Libertarians such as myself disagree (and disagree strongly) that stealing from the Makers who take the initiative to create this wealth is the answer. Sure, they do it by exploiting workers, stealing from these people the fruits of their labor. But that's the way capitalism workers, you brain-diseased morons! Wealth is SUPPOSED to flow to those at the top, as those are the people most deserving of it, for christ!

If you're at the bottom of the economic pile due to your own bad life choices (and refusal to do a damn thing to improve your own human capital) you DESERVE to be crushed and the fruits of your labor stolen by those at the top! This is the natural order of things... it's called Survival Of The Fittest, Progressives!

This is why I loathe anyone who calls themselves a "progressive". This hatred envelopes those who are supporters for president of the SOCIALIST (for christ) Bernie Sanders! I mean, if I were to ascend to a great height (in a water tower, for example) with my high-powered rifle to assassinate anyone, it might be this advocator of jealously and greed!

If Bernie Sanders were to (somehow) be elected president, that is. I think I'd give some serious consideration to becoming a presidential assassin. I'd at least like to murder as many as his supporters as possible, if I could think of a way to do so without getting caught.

Any suggestions?

Picture Explanation: A picture of me, Willis Hart (circa 1985). Is this strikingly handsome stud potential water tower material?

Byline: This introspective commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of introspection. LLIN-183.

On Third-World Child Labor Being Uber-Cool As It Enriches The Plutocrats More Than If They Have To Underpay Third World Adults

What these progressives have to realize is that a) the alternative is not an all-expense-paid education at the Masters School in upscale Simsbury Connecticut where kids get private tutors, are ferried to and from school in limousines and eat caviar and foie gras for lunch every day, and b) what these youngsters would ultimately be doing if they weren't working in a factory would be stealing, hustling, fighting, scavenging, prostituting, going to school and learning skills that might result in a better job in adulthood, etc.

So, yeah, the next time that you want to boycott child labor, think about the plutocrats and how child labor enriches them even more than underpaying third world adults and having them work in dangerous and soul-sucking conditions that, if the machinery doesn't suck them in and result in a death/missing limb, or the building doesn't collapse on them... they commit suicide by leaping to their deaths.

Better to exploit children and suck out their souls so they don't grow up with any false hopes of getting good jobs and not ending up working in dangerous conditions where, if the machinery doesn't suck them in and result in a death/missing limb, or the building doesn't collapse on them... they commit suicide by leaping to their deaths.

Yes, child labor is "bad", but really not that bad, as I do think that SOME work is good for kids in that it teaches them responsibility, work-related skills, that life is hard and they will need to toil for 12+ hours a day for exceedingly low pay for the rest of their miserable lives for the benefit of the plutocrats.

Also remember that the harsh reality is that ALL societies go through these same evolutionary patterns and for us to try and meddle in it is pure arrogance and an all but guaranteed foray into making the matter worse, in that protecting these kids from exploitation will harm the plutocrats that we all love and wish to see grow even richer.

Byline: This surface thinking free commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Advocator of child labor. LLIN-182.

Egghead Nation

I've heard that Bernie Sanders wants to bail out folks who've racked up tens of thousands of dollars in student loan debt acquiring a college degree. When will these socialist eggheads finally realize that investing in our intellectual infrastructure yields high dividends, in that people who graduate from college go on to higher paying jobs, and thus pay a lot more in taxes over their lifetime. I've heard that for every dollar invested, the government gets back seven dollars.

Sounds like a great deal, right? Think again. Does this country need more ivory tower liberal eggheads running around making the rest of us feel inferior? Seriously, what we need are more uneducated working class joes. Why? Because an oversupply of low wage labor will drive the cost of said labor even lower! Which is what the plutocrats want.

Think about it. While I admit I'm a big advocate of job-killing free trade, another option would be to drive down wages for working class folks to what they pay in 3rd world hellholes. Then, instead of shipping our jobs overseas, the plutocrats could pay Americans extremely low wages. And not have to ship the manufactured goods back here to the US. If you want your jobs back, American workers, I say you need to work for a lot less.

Yet we've got Democrat socialists like Bernie Sanders wanting to pay workers a living wage of $15 bucks an hour? Why not $500 an hour I say. Seriously, why is nobody is suggesting this? Perhaps because it's a total strawman? I mean, if increasing the minimum wage to any ridiculously high amount has no discernible negative effect on employment, why be so skinflint? Let's go for it.

On the other hand, if we want to bring jobs back to America, we could stop educating our kids all together. Bring in the docs and lawyers from foreign countries and let American born workers fight for incredibly crappy and extremely low paying jobs. Then the plutocrats won't be forced to go overseas to hire desperate people willing to work for pennies a day.

Because American workers will be desperate enough to work for pennies a day. And America will become a 3rd world hellhole. While the plutocrats retreat to their gated communities protected by hired security. I don't know about you, but it sounds like a decent plan to me.

Frankly I think it's past time we stop subsidizing college tuitions, as doing so only makes matters worse, in that it only enhances our intellectual infrastructure and pays the taxpayer back seven-fold. Good at first blush, but it takes away individuals from the low-wage pool, thus costing business owners more in higher wages. Would it not be better to leave college for the kids of rich people? And, yes, it's a rhetorical question.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of strawmen. LLIN-181.

On Intelligent Design Proponent, Stephen Meyer

He is intelligent, polite, interesting, and thought provoking and, while he ultimately may be proven incorrect in the long run, the abuse that he and other advocates of intelligent design have received is disgusting and an embarrassment to the scientific community.

Even though it won't matter when he's proven wrong, as we will no longer exist... after being placed in the ground and rotting away. Or that is what I believe most likely happens after we die. There is no "soul" that is whisked away to some imaginary "heaven" or "hell".

Any any case, I also find it ironic in that that a lot of these same detractors constantly go around proclaiming that THEY are the "rational" ones while at the same time aiming personal attacks at Meyer, calling him a bald-faced liar/a quack, undermining his credentials, misrepresenting him/his work (straw-manning him, on other words), ridiculing his religious beliefs, etc.. I mean, why not they just say that they disagree with the Intelligent Design hypothesis that Meyer espouses and list the reasons why? Boom, done.

I swear, folks, some of these cocksucking scientist fuckers aren't any better than the angry religious fundamentalists.

As for me, like I said, I think that after we die that's likely it. We go into the ground and rot away. Although, as I noted previously on this blog, Darwin's theory of evolution simply does not hold up to scientific scrutiny. So how do we explain our existence? Where did we come from?

Might it be possible that these proponents of Intelligent Design aren't that far off? My own theory is that, instead of the "intelligent designer" being some mythical "god", that we were actually designed by otherworldly super intelligent AI robots. Black people, obviously, contain some kind of design flaw, in that they are so much more violent than White people, for christ!

So, what do you think me-buck? Is there any chance at all that my theory is correct?

Byline: This intelligently designed commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of pointing out that evolution is phony. LLIN-180.

On the Fact that Most Mutations Tend to Be of a Deleterious Nature

This is probably the largest obstacle for the neo-Darwinians to avoid; the fact that random mutations are the central mechanism (far more important than natural selection, from my viewpoint) for evolution to be viable and that there would literally have to be tens of thousands of them operating in a beneficial manner for a cross-species event to materialize, etc...

The only logical conclusion, given the fact that evolution is a bogus theory, is that our ancestors came here from somewhere else. I'm thinking colonization from another planet. I mean, given that I'm an atheist, I surely do not believe we were intelligently designed for christ!

By a imaginary "god" that is. The designers were likely otherworldly super intelligent AI robots. Just don't ask me who designed the robots, fucking neo-Darwinians!

Byline: This intelligently designed commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of pointing out that evolution is phony. LLIN-179.

On Being So Contemptuous of Another Human Being as to Absolve Them of All Moral Responsibility & Judgement Pertaining to Their Actions & Choices

This is the hard-left's form of bigotry and it is every bit as loathsome and insidious as that which emanates from myself. Sorry, but, yes.

Although, now that I think of it, why the hell would someone absolve another person of all moral responsibility and judgement pertaining to their actions and choices if they were contemptuous of them? This statement makes absolutely no sense.

However, you must keep in mind that is how I, Willis V. Hart, rolls... by which I mean much of the Libertarian nonsense I espouse makes absolutely no sense.

Byline: This nonsensical commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of nonsense. LLIN-178.

On The Fact That "Willis Hart's LLIN" Is A Fact-Based Blog Chock Full Of Facts. Too Many Facts For Progressives To Take, In Fact

Yes, it is a fact that this blog is entirely fact-based, as opposed to opinion-based. Yes, I share my opinions, but my opinions based on the FACTS. This is why Progressives hate this blog so much. It's because of the overwhelming number of facts that Progressives find inconvenient to their emotion-based fact-free arguments.

This applies to my other blog too, by the way. Contra O'Reilly is also a 100 percent fact-based blog where I share my fact-based opinions. Sorry if that chafes your hides, Progressives. Sorry, but sorry.

Byline: This fact-filled commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of fact-based blogging and NOT being sorry. LLIN-177.

On The Fact That You Continuously Go to Blogs That You Do Not Like And Attempt To Use A Multiplicity of Strange Handles Just So that You Can Have Somebody to Debate

Frankly I think you need help and a lot of it. It aint working as I am not debating you... so why don't you just give up? And yes, I'm talking to YOU!

Truth be told, I find your loserness extremely offensive. Now go away. Paper-hat-job-holding Mom's basement dwellers such as yourself are not welcome here.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of being perpetually offended. LLIN-176.

On Your State of Being Perpetually Offended

Admit it... you're offended by what I write on this blog. Frankly I think you should cut it out. I mean, if I were you (God forbid) I would probably take some of that energy and apply it toward improving my own human capital. Life is way, WAY too short, you idiot.

On the other hand, you're an idiot and likely lack the brainpower to better yourself. Obviously being offended is all you are capable of. So, forget what I just said and continue to be offended.

By the way, in case you're confused as to who I'm referring to... I'm referring to YOU. You're the one who is perpetually offended. And my blog is the reason why you take the easier route of raging and trolling instead of attempting to solve personal problems you can actually affect.

It's gotta be tiring, though, no?

Byline: This offensive commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of offending you. LLIN-175.

On the Fact that CEOs Are Woefully Underpaid

Did you know that it's a fact that CEO Pay increased faster (from the '60s to 2000) amongst privately held corporations than it did amongst publicly held ones?

This is strong evidence that more corporations need to go private, IMO. Sky high CEO pay that decreases wages for the lowly worker being a good thing, of course. Sure, the people on the various boards taking care of their buddies is how science operates. Which is also good... but obviously not good enough.

Sure, we all want CEO wages pushed higher into the stratosphere, but public companies just aren't doing enough on that front, IMHO. I mean, according to Booth Business School economist, Steven Kaplan, CEO Compensation actually declined by 46% from 2000 to 2010, which totally outrages me!

My suspicion is that Socialist Bernie probably doesn't know about this and if he did I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't include it in his stump speeches. He's probably in favor of worker-owned co-ops where the workers share in the profits and upper management only makes a few times more than the lowest paid worker, for christ!

As opposed to thousands of times more. Which is the way it ought to be, of course. Obviously what we need is more privately owned corporations so the pay of CEOs can keep going higher. The sky ISN'T the limit when it comes to these masters of the universe. They might not deserve every penny, but so what?

You think worker pay should rise? Banish the thought. Yet, if Sanders or even Clinton gets in? It could happen. With Sanders it's likely. At least he'll push for it, because Sanders represents the politics of envy at its worst.

With Clinton? Less likely. But I don't think we should risk it. Which is why I'm voting Libertarian. Hopefully Gary Johnson will run. He knows that CEOs need extravagant pay. If it doesn't make your jaw drop and leave you dumbfounded and stunned the pay obviously isn't high enough. Even then I say keep pushing.

By the way, getting a bonus for doing a "bad" job, in that your company loses money... as many of the CEOs of Wall Street finance companies did (received big bonuses) just after the bubble burst (the one that caused our recent recession)? I say why the fuck would we want to punish CEOs for the mess caused by poor people taking out loans they weren't able to pay back?

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Champion of our underpaid CEOs. LLIN-174.

White Wealth Matters

Want to know why I so distrust the man (AKA the bureaucrat and the Politician) with the bullhorn? It's because he also frequently carries a gun, a hangman's noose, and the keys to the penitentiary. And only citizens should be armed, damn it! And armed to the teeth, which is the citizens 2nd Amendment right. Government officials, on the other hand, should not have guns. Except for law enforcement officers. And then those guns should only be used to shoot Black people.

Because, as everyone knows Black people are extremely violent (although many are afraid to admit. Racial demagogues like Octopus). This is why Black on Black crime, as well as Black on White crime, is so damn high! Black Lives Matter? Not the lives of the Black criminals, I say. Although there is not that much of a difference between a Black person who has committed a crime and one who hasn't. The one who hasn't simply hasn't gotten around to it yet.

But, as a White man, I distrust the government bureaucrat and politician because they want to steal from me. They call it "taxing" and think they can do it simply if they're buttressed by a plurality of as puny as 50.01%.

Think about it... when Mookie and Ray-Ray break into your rich neighbor's home, steal money, and distribute it to a bunch of poor people, they will be arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and imprisoned for multiple years (and rightly so). Or shot dead by the homeowner (rightly so as well). However, when the government does it? Nothing happens.

Which is why the rich people are seriously screwed, IMO. What with the government as well as Black criminals wanting to steal from them. Instead of black lives mattering, I say "White Wealth Matters".

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of telling the truth about the violent criminal Blacks. LLIN-173.

Apologies To The Hundreds Of Commenters To This Awesome Blog

It seems that, while sludging through the spam deposited here hourly by one unwelcome individual, I inadvertently deleted your comments. By the way, the reason this individual is unwelcome is because he does such a damn good job at pointing out what a moron I am. So, sorry bub, but your kind aint welcome here.

I refuse to be shown up on my own blog. So go away and take your logic with you, unwelcome commenter. Perhaps if this person were to stop submitting his factual comments that blow away my Libertarian stupidity I could actually publish some of these hundreds of legit comments that people keep submitting.

I think I'm gonna try and set up this blog where only invited guests are allowed to comment to avoid this in the future. Until then it will probably keep happening, for which I apologize in advance. To these hundreds of individuals chomping at the bit to voice your total agreement with me... I say, keep trying. Perhaps I'll figure it out? If so you'll have to email me so I can add you to the approved list.

Getting approved, by the way, is something that can be accomplished by sucking up to me. Or by at least not submitting any comments that might disrupt my echo chamber. That is, naturally, forbidden. I just don't want to deal with it. All my "facts" come from Libertarian sources, and I don't need to be distracted with any facts that come from anywhere else. Even if they are true facts. I'll stick with my false facts, thank you very much.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of Libertarian "facts". LLIN-172.

Demonizing Wealthy Makers Is The Religion of Envy At Its Worst

As I have previously stated on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly, I am an agnostic. Although, me not belonging to any organized religion can also be attributed to the fact that I've never happened upon a church that I care for. Most of the "religions" out there focus on kindness toward your fellow man, forced charity, humility, and bullshit like that. Christianity, the dominant religion in American, has a prophet that said "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of god".

Frankly I find it amazing that Republicans worship this god. I mean, clearly Jesus, the son of the god of envy, is more fitted to the Progressive ideology. Although today Progressives want to confiscate the wealth of productive Makers to distribute to lazy Takers. Jesus at least suggested that the rich man voluntarily give away his wealth so he could enter "heaven".

Progressives want to take that wealth under threat of force. Still, if the wealthy men do not give away their riches they will be denied entry into "heaven". (The fictional) Jesus said it, but Republicans (who do not think Jesus was fictional, even though he was) ignore it.

This is a major reason why I could never join an organized religion. The demonization of the wealthy producers is totally unacceptable to me. Instead of denying the superior wealthy entry into heaven, God should have told his son Jesus that it would be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is poor to enter the kingdom of God. That is what should be written in that work of fiction known as the Christian Bible.

Because poor people do not deserve unearned rewards in the afterlife. Proof of this is their not earning any rewards in this life. I'm not saying I believe in an afterlife, which I do not, but if there was one and there were rewards to be enjoyed when a person gets there - poor people have clearly not earned them.

But rich people? They obviously have. For example, an extremely wealthy person named John D. Rockefeller a) Started His Career Working in a Small Wholesale Business Earning Less than $4 a Week, b) Through Hard Work, Vision, Tenacity, and Revolutionary Management, Eventually Presided Over One of the Most Successful Companies in Modern History, and c) Engaged in Some of the Most Staggering Levels of Philanthropy Imaginable.

Yet Progressive probably view him as a horrible person. Perhaps he should have gone into politics and passed a shitload of laws instead. Laws that would have made it even more difficult for an individual to achieve success. At least the Republicans got that right. They want to get rid of these laws that punish success.

A religion that doesn't punish success? Ayn Rand's Objectivism. That is a church that I might join... if Objectivists had churches, that is. Which they do not, given that Objectivists do not believe in the afterlife. But it could be thought of as a religion of the here and now, no?

In regards to the image below... this is the man I might say a prayer to before crawling under the covers at night. Correction - I actually have said a prayer to this god of a man. You know, just in case there is an afterlife. Being an agnostic I'm not sure. Jesus and his dad can stuff it. I am not at all interested in gaining entry into the "envy afterlife". But if John D. Rockefeller has taken his rightful place as a god? Well, sign me up for that afterlife! Because Rockefeller's "heaven" would be a meritocracy, which would shut out the lazy jealous Progressive Takers completely.

But Willis Hart? He would totally get in. Sure, I might not be ushered to the front of the line, but there would definitely be a table reserved for the Hartster, given the fact that I am far superior to the majority of you losers.

Byline: This superior commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of worshipping wealthy people. LLIN-171.

On Willis Hart Being FAR Superior To You

It is because I am not a surface thinker.

The old proprietor of this blog authored a commentary in which he claimed that he was a superior specimen. An elite member of the Higher Ordered Persons Society. While this was a statement I agreed with at the time, as of late it seems that the Jersey persona has taken complete control here. Sadly.

Let me explain... Previously I said that I thought there was something kinda fishy about this fellow. It's almost as if he's a little TOO textbook, I said. My suspicion was that he's probably somebody's alter-ego/sock-puppet. Now, not only do I stand by this suspicion, but I am convinced that Jersey McJones is Les Carpenter's sock puppet. I refer to the Les Carpenter of the blog rational nAtion uSA, the former proprietor of this blog. The dude who used the alias "Lord Lying Lester" when he authored commentaries for this site (or "sight", as Les might say).

Anyway, as it turns out, Les is just another surface thinker. This is a truth I have reluctantly been forced to acknowledge. The forcing coming after I, in a discussion concerning an inflammatory episode that we should not give so much credence to... Because it was one isolated (albeit admittedly revolting, although understandable) incident from which no greater conclusions should be drawn (in research we call it an anecdote).

I refer to the murder of some Black church goers in South Carolina recently. So what, I asked? Then I pointed to the stats that prove African Americans are violent animals that need to be watched very carefully... And that this watching should take the form of aggressive racial profiling. A nationwide stop-and-frisk on steroids, if you will. This is the only way to deter the hyper-violence of the black thugs perpetrated on innocent White citizens.

Of course I was attacked by the pompous blowhard Octopus, a low-ball jammer that never ventures from liberal echo chambers where the minions view him as some sort of sage, who stated that racial profiling is the same as racism.

Basically Octopus was arguing that "if you don't agree with me you're a racist", which would comical (granted, in a puerile manner) if it wasn't so rank, dangerous and despicable. I mean, you've got these demagogues like Shaw and Octopus who are just so incredibly limited when it comes to understanding even basic research going around crying foul when they don't even know what they're talking about. I say that when it gets to this level of depravity the saner elements of society have to call these idiots out.

The saner WHITE elements that realize how incredibly violent and criminally-inclined the Blacks are. Does this view make me a racist? Yes, it absolutely does! But for that I make no apologies. In fact, while I may be a racist, it is not because I hate black people, but because I realize Whites are much less violent. That is just a fact... so I like to think of myself as a "good racist". That is, someone who (with no hate), simply acknowledges the facts that prove Whites are less violent (and therefore more advanced, or "superior", if you will).

But I am certainly no Dlyann Roof, who is an anomaly, as I already pointed out. I mean, we must remember that the vast number of racial crimes in this country are black on white and that this whole idiotic narrative that blacks are constantly being hunted down by thousands of bloodthirsty racist whites is bullshit.

As well as a strawman I am quite proud of. THOUSANDS of bloodthirsty racist whites are HUNTING DOWN black people CONSTANTLY? Yeah, that is the sanctimonious leftist narrative (or that is my strawman version of what they argue). What they actually are saying is that racism is still very much a problem, and that these police killings and the Dylann Roof incident are but the worst examples of what this continuing problem with racism has yielded.

But I reject that rational argument (and replace it with my strawman). Why? Because the real argument plays against my narrative. A narrative that says blacks are inherently violent and more criminally inclined than Whites. And that recognizing this "fact" makes me a "good racist" and not a bad one (the bad ones being very rare).

In any case, these attacks from the likes of Octopus and Shaw were not unexpected. What was somewhat unexpected was that an individual who I considered a friend, Les Carpenter, joined in the attacking, saying (in regards to myself) "Of late he has drifted into more hard core fringe views". Acknowledging the truth is NOT "hardcore fringe", Les... Or should I say Jersey. Yes, this is another example of Les utilizing the Jersey persona, which he has been doing more and more of - without signing into the Jersey account.

Anyway - long story short - this is why I, Willis Hart, am truly a higher ordered person. While people like Octopus and Shaw are clearly lower ordered. And Les is, sadly, on the path to lower orderedness. So it is a good thing that I kicked him off this blog. He went back to lying on rAtional nAtion, which is what he does best. Although I think he should really stop lying about me.

Which is a noble tactic to use when it comes to the enemies of the truth as I see it. These enemies include loathsome individuals like Octopus, Shaw and even wd (a total creep who had the balls to think he could friend me on Facebook!).

This is part of the reason I am a superior person... I am one of the thin red threads between Radical Redneck (a racially insensitive buffoon and one of the bad racists) and Octopus (a hardcore racial demagogue). Demagogue? Perhaps I'm using that word incorrectly, as a demagogue is "a person... who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people"... And I'M the one being prejudiced. So I guess I'm the demagogue!

Still, I'm super pissed at Octopus. And one of the thin red threads between the bad racists and surface thinkers like Octopus who preach that the races are equal (when one race is provably more violent than the other). A "thin red thread" being a good racist and deep thinker such as myself. Which makes me, Willis Hart, FAR superior to most people. Sure, some people may call me arrogant for making such a statement, but I can survive in that space. You might even say that I embrace it (being superior, that is).

Byline: This superior commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of good racism. LLIN-170.

Northerners, Who Did Not Own Slaves, More Responsible For Slavery Than Southerners Who Did Own Slaves

In regards to those Southerners who owned slaves and lived large in plantation mansions while the Black folks toiled for no pay and got whipped, raped and murdered for their troubles? This situation was entirely the fault of Northern a-holes! Let's put it this way, folks. Those rich northern bankers and industrialists probably got a wee bit more out of it than the poor white trash from the Allegheny and Blue Ridge Mountains did.

What more proof do you need that the Left's narrative is complete bullshit? Northern emancipation certainly didn't free all the slaves in that a great many northern slave owners (in a ploy to protect their investment) simply sent their slaves south to be sold/auctioned off.

Yet the Leftists and their narrative of blaming the South for simply wanting to escape the thievery of high tariffs imposed upon it by the North... blame that has the South as "evil". It's disgusting, especially given the fact that Northerners basically forced Southerners to accept slavery in order to enrich themselves!

Of course, what is probably the most diabolical element of all here is the fact that a great many of these same northern states immediately instituted "black codes" which would have made it next to impossible for blacks (on the contingency that southern slaves were ever emancipated) to reside there... although THAT I understand, given the fact that Blacks are prone to criminality.

According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, there were 320,082 episodes of black on white violence in America in 2010 but only 62,593 episodes of white on black violence. This is a 5:1 ratio and when you factor in the population differential you end up with the fact that a black person is 25 times more likely to attack a white person than the other way around.

I mean, I know that this probably a revelation to those of you (and I'm not naming names like Elia Kazan) who strictly get your news from the Huffington Post, MSNBC, liberal talk-radio, Media Matters, etc. but if you really and truly want to get to the heart of racial violence in the U.S. you have to go to the aggregates and not give so much credence to these highly publicized and inflammatory episodes.

Inflammatory episodes like this Dylann Roof fellow shooting up a Black church. It boggles my mind why people are making such a big deal out of this when the Black criminals get a free pass! Will the lies from the Left demonizing the South never stop? Answer... no.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of defending the honor of the South and placing the blame for slavery with the North (where it belongs) and pointing out Blacks are more prone to criminality than Whites. LLIN-169.

On the Hard Left's Theoretical Answer to The Income Inequality "Problem"

I'm not entirely convinced this is a real problem.

Income inequality in the United States has increased significantly since the 1970s after several decades of stability, meaning the share of the nation's income received by higher income households has increased. This trend is evident with income measured both before taxes (market income) as well as after taxes and transfer payments. (Income inequality in the United States... excerpt from Wikipedia).

(Note: Ignore the struck out portion, as it is inconvenient to my argument).

OK, so the Hard Left's answer to this "problem" is taking money from the wealthy and redistributing it to the poor? But that (at least theoretically) wouldn't alter anything one iota in that a) the income statistics are almost always displayed on a pre-tax basis and b) transfer payments likewise are rarely included.

So theoretically we could transfer ALL the money of wealthy people to the poor... and the poor would still be poor, but the rich would also be poor. Theoretically this sounds like a very bad "solution" to the income inequality "problem", no?

In any case, I'm just not sensing that these rich folks are screwing the rest of us (especially considering the fact that they probably had to go to college for 6 to 8 years, accrued some massive debt, and spent another decade plus building up a practice). Think about it... how much of the total wealth of our nation do the 1 percenters deserve? 50%? 80%? Every cent of it?

No, not every cent, as the result of that would be mass starvation and death. But what if the combined wealth of the richest 1 percent was more that of the other 99 percent of people combined? 1 percent owned 99 percent and 99 percent owned 1 percent, in other words?

Sounds fair to me. And that is what the state of affairs will be by next year (2016), according to this article I just Googled.

Why would anyone disagree with me on this? Please, enlighten me here.

Byline: This theoretical commentary was authored by a theoretical Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of thinking theoretically and wealthy worship. LLIN-168.

On Willis Hart Being Addicted To Getting High Huffing Cato Farts

It is the absolute truth that I haven't smoked pot in 30 years, but that doesn't mean I still don't like getting wasted out of my gourd. Nowadays I like to get high huffing Cato farts.

Because I consider myself more of a Cato problem solving/policy oriented libertarian than I do a Mises or Rand Institute (while, yes, I have a great amount of respect for people like Yaron Brook and Robert Murphy, I generally prefer the art of the possible to that of the theoretical world) libertarian.

Previously I said what wd fails to realize is that in a true free market economy, guys like Cheney, Gore, Immelt, Lay, Raines, etc would actually have to compete for our business and market share. As the thing stands now, big business and big government are totally in bed together.

From my perspective, the only fool-proof way is to significantly reduce the size of government in that it really doesn't matter who's in charge, corruption is bound to happen. I mean, do you seriously think that corporate America hasn't done swimmingly under Obama; the stimulus (which was a veritable grab-bag for big companies), the bank and car bailouts, the health-care plan, the "green" energy agenda?

Although what I fail to realize is that by reducing the size of government you're disempowering the people (as in "we the people") and empowering the plutocrats. But I'm such a blind stooge that I discount that reality. And I also discount the fact that crony capitalism could be controlled if we cut off the bribe money. By which I mean we make it impossible for the plutocrats to pay our elected officials to do their bidding.

But how?, you ask. Public financing of elections and campaign finance reform. Elect a Democratic president. Then that president appoints the next Supreme Court justices that need appointing. Then they overturn Citizens United. Then we can finally get money out of politics and get our politicians back to doing the will of the people.

But my brain is so addled from all those Cato farts I've been huffing that I'm convinced doing things the way the Koch brothers want them done is the only way to stop the crony capitalism (note: Cato was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute).

Of course if the plutocrats don't have to bribe our representatives they will be able to rule without government as an intermediately. And they'll no longer have to worry about the honest politicians who can't be bribed (Senator Bernie Sanders, for example... although he's a Socialist for christ!). And even those who are bribe-able won't have to put on a show and at least attempt to make it look like they're acting in the interest of the voters by passing some legislation the voters want once in a while.

So The People would be TOTALLY screwed if we shrank government down to the size so it could be drowned in the bathtub (as Grover Norquist once said). But this is the problem that Cato wants to solve. The problem of The People having any power at all. As well as the problem of the plutocrats having to bribe our representatives to get what they want.

The plutocrats should be able to do as they please and not have anyone say NO or have to bribe anyone, shouldn't they? I do love our plutocrats... but I'm so hopped up on Cato BS I'm not sure if giving them ALL the power is the right thing to do. Anyway, devouring Cato bullshit is also something I absolutely LOVE. That would be in addition to the huffing of their farts.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of huffing farts and devouring bullshit. LLIN-167.

On the Fact that Banking, Mortgages, and Housing Were the Three Most Regulated Sectors of the American Economy and Yet this is Exactly Where the Problems Erupted Leading Up to the Financial Collapse

A total coinkydink, I gather. By which I mean I'm totally pushing the bullshit from the Right that OVER regulation caused the collapse. Because, when it comes to Libertarian lies concerning regulation of the financial sector being bad, I'm a total stooge for our plutocratic overlords.

For example, Cato says Gramm-Leach-Bliley (the law that repealed the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall) and allowed "the mixing of investment and commercial banking" was not responsible for the financial crisis. Cato says too much regulation is to blame. They say "Congress should repeal the Community Reinvestment Act".

And, given the fact that Cato is Libertarian Think Tank that I frequently reference on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly (although I usually don't say who I'm quoting), I completely agree with them. The blame, in my opinion, should be heaped upon government (via the CRA and Fannie and Freddie) and on poor people who could not afford homes being given loans they would never be able to pay back.

So what if this is total bullplop?

...the false narrative [is] that the financial crisis was caused by... government regulators [who] used the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to force banks to make loans to undeserving poor people and that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased doomed subprime mortgage backed securities to meet the affordable housing goals. This [so goes the false narrative] was the main cause of the crisis. The argument that CRA and the affordable housing goals caused the crisis have been debunked time and time... again. The CRA has been in place since 1977, while subprime lending only skyrocketed in the 2000s. Even if one concentrates on the changes in enforcement of the act in 1995, the Act does nothing to explain the massive uptick in subprime lending concentrated from 2004 to 2006. What's more, most subprime lenders weren't banks and therefore weren't even subject to CRA. That's why only 6 percent of the high-cost mortgages at the time (a proxy for subprime) could even potentially qualify for CRA credit. Similarly, for most of the housing boom, Fannie and Freddie were on the sidelines due to their fairly strict underwriting requirements. By the time Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards in 2006 to buy riskier products, they were too late to the game to cause the subprime frenzy. Moreover, while they also bought private subprime mortgage backed securities for their investment portfolio – an inarguably bad idea – those purchases did little to meet the housing goals. For the most part, Fannie and Freddie-guaranteed loans have performed, and are still performing, remarkably better than the toxic products pioneered by subprime lenders. The real causes of the financial crisis were predatory mortgage products, out-of-control securitization and derivatives markets, and the failure of government regulators to crack down on the massive risk being taken by our nation's financial institutions. (Excerpt from No, Lending To Poor People Did Not Cause The Financial Crisis by David Sanchez. ThinkProgress 8/15/2013).

What this article points out is that I, Willis Hart, am totally full of shit! That does not matter to me, as I simply do not care what "Think Regress" says (even though this article accurately recounts the real causes of the financial crisis).

Because lazy low-skilled losers earning low wages (all they deserve) who wanted a home without earning it and government regulators "forcing" banks to loan them money they could never pay back is the better narrative, IMO.

Because it lets the real culprits totally off the hook! And, given that I am a stooge for the plutocrats who benefited from the crisis, I absolutely do NOT want them to be assigned any blame (even though they deserve it). Which is why I eagerly buy into the BS about OVER regulation being responsible for the financial crisis. Because if we were to crack down and increase the regulations... well, then the plutocrats couldn't do it again (make tons of money by duping poor people into signing up for predatory mortgages).

And that would be bad. Very bad.

Byline: This stoogish commentary was authored by the true-believing stooge Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of blind stoogery. LLIN-166.

On Lindsay Graham (Again, Who I Like on a Personal Level) Saying that if We Don't Destroy ISIS In Iraq and Syria They'll Be Coming Over Here to Attack Us Next

And this will materialize how exactly? An armada of ships? A squadron of Black Hawk helicopters? An intercontinental ballistic missile? I mean, yeah, a couple of these schmucks could sneak into the country and detonate themselves. But they can do that now!

By the way, did I mention how much I like Lindsay Graham? He's pretty awesome, wouldn't you say? From 1982 to 1988 Lindsay served in the South Carolina Air National Guard then in the Air Force Reserves, attaining the rank of colonel, so he's clearly no chicken hawk. For the next four years he worked as a lawyer in private practice, which is proof of how smart he is.

Then Lindsay decided to enter politics, starting with a term in the South Carolina House of Representatives (1992). Then Lindsay served in the United States House of Representatives, representing South Carolina's 3rd congressional district from 1995 to 2003. He was elected to four terms, receiving at least 60% of the vote each time. In 2002, Graham ran for the U.S. Senate after eight-term Republican incumbent Strom Thurmond announced his retirement. Graham won the primary unopposed and defeated Democratic opponent Alex Sanders in the general election. All of which is proof of his drive and ambition, qualities which, as a small "L" libertarian, I greatly admire.

Why do I admire Lindsay so? It's because he is known for his willingness to be bipartisan and work with Democrats on issues like tax reform and immigration reform. Although I do NOT admire him for his willingness to work on issues like global warming, which is a total hoax. At least as far as it being a threat of any kind. Of course the world is warming, but it is no big deal, contrary to what the frauds (who call themselves climatologists) Hansen and Mann say.

But back to Lindsay. Yes, I would absolutely consider voting for this handsome man, if only he were not speaking of expanding the war on terror. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to sit back and a) let the Iranians take the incoming fire for a while and b) focus more on port, airline, and border security? No, it's not as sexy as blowing stuff to smithereens but keeping OUR powder dry just might be good for a change.

Which isn't to say that I do not find Lindsay Graham to be incredibly sexy. Which I do, albeit in a totally non-gay way. But if he were elected president he might just be worse than George W and Barack H... in that Lindsay would have us fighting in the Middle East for many decades to come. I mean, fighting these wars is expensive. Would it not be more prudent to, instead of spending taxpayer monies we don't have (while going further into debt) get ourselves back into a position where the taxes of the job creators could be cut so they could create even more jobs in other countries via outsourcing?

Then I'll be able to buy even more cheap crap at Walmart. Think about it Lindsay... more war, or a lot more cheap crap from Walmart? I know which I would prefer.

Byline: This muy excellente commentary was authored by Willis Hart. Purveyor of saying Lindsey Graham is likeable on a personal level. LLIN-165.

On Rachel Maddow & Republicans And On Sean Hannity & Democrats

A Republican could find the cure for AIDS and take in every stray puppy from Puerto Toro to the Bay of Fundy and Ms. Maddow would still find fault with the person due to the high cost of said Republican's AIDS cure and their making of the puppies into dogfood... which the Republican would absolutely do because Conservatives are all evil.

A Democrat could find the cure for AIDS and take in every stray puppy from Puerto Toro to the Bay of Fundy and Mr. Hannity would still find fault with the person due to the Democrat giving away the AIDS cure for free (thus saving the lives of many undesirable people... mostly gays and straights with lose morals) along with a gratis puppy! Which would sicken Mr. Hannity because he's one of those evil Conservatives.

Or this would be the spin of wd, due to the partisan viewing politics as a 1970s wresting match with Dems as the good guys and Repubs as the bad guys!

Byline: This both-sides-are-equally-bad commentary was authored by the awesome small "L" libertarian Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of purveying. LLIN-164.

On the Comparing of Scott Walker to Hitler

I am BEYOND outraged that anyone would do this!! Just because Walker had the balls to deal with the parasites? And we still have 17 more months of such niceties? Wake me when it's over.

By the way, you might ask, WTF is Willis Hart talking about? Well, I usually do not explain myself, because I simply do not give a fuck if my readers do not know what the hell I'm talking about. But that is on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly.

On this blog explanations will be given for some reason... Perhaps because Les (the former proprietor of this blog) decided he would be truthful with his readers here, while he lied to his audience on RNUSA. In that tradition (acting differently on a secondary blog), I've decided to explain myself better on LLIN.

And continue laughing at the readers of Contra O'Reilly (where my readers sometimes know what I'm talking about, sometimes do not, and sometimes think they know what I'm talking about but are wrong).

So, who am I so outraged at for comparing the parasite busting Scott Walker to Adolph Hitler?

BB-Idaho: Sounds sort of familiar. Oh yeah - "We must close union offices, confiscate their money and put their leaders in prison. We must reduce workers salaries and take away their right to strike" - Adolf Hitler, May 2, 1933. (Sat Jun 13, 03:01:00 PM EDT).

Hey, look, it's BB-Idaho who compared Walker to Hitler. BB is a regular commenter on Contra O'Reilly, so that might have something to do with why I did not point to him specifically. To offend someone with charges that are total bullshit is something a blogger might find offensive (and BB, fed up with my idiocy, might permanently depart Contra O'Reilly).

So I didn't name him... and simply left my readers to guess WHO THE HELL (I thought) compared Walker to Hitler. Or who did not, as is the case here. BB only said the going after of unions sounded like something Hitler did. So, not a direct comparison, just a noting of the fact that Hitler went after unions exactly like Walker, and Scott Walker did too (although not in exactly the same manner).

Yet, if I had read this comment by BB and interpreted it this way? Well, then I could not have feigned outrage on my other blog. And that would not have been any fun. Therefore I risked offending BB. But, since I did not name him... I can deny it if he calls me on my utter stupidity in thinking his comment was "Walker = Hitler".

Which is something he obviously did not say. But I'm such a dumbass that I convinced myself that was exactly what BB had done.

Byline: This moronic commentary was authored by the dumbass Willis Hart. Purveyor of utter stupidity. LLIN-163.

Willis Hart's Lying Lester Blog Hostile Takeover

Hi, my name is Willis Hart. Awhile ago the proprietor of this blog, Lying Lester (note: I prefer to call him "Les" and will do so henceforth in this commentary), allowed me to comment here. As a condition of me bringing my considerable talents to this blog I negotiated for partial ownership in LLIN.

Initially my ownership in LLIN only amounted to about 20 percent. Much of the other shares of stock in LLIN Les sold to some investors in order to keep the blog going...

But if I'm going to tell this story I should start from the beginning... My friend Les began this blog as a sole proprietorship (he owned 100 percent of the shares). After he decided to shut down LLIN at the insistence of Octopus, LLIN was briefly transferred over to some friend of Les' named Lyle. When Lyle died in an unfortunate skydiving accident, ownership in LLIN reverted to Les.

But when Les became the owner of LLIN again he discovered the blog finances had been badly mismanaged. Long story short, LLIN was deeply in the red. Les thought he could earn the cash to keep LLIN by building up readership. In pursuit of this, Les brought me on (and signed 20 percent of LLIN over to me). He figured that my skill at authoring commentaries from the Libertarian perspective would attract new readers as well as advertisers.

He was right, of course. After I joined this blog as a contributor revenues went up. But it wasn't enough. The bill collectors demanded to be paid, but the money coming in was just not enough. That is when I agreed to purchase additional shares of stock in LLIN. That way Les could pay the bills and LLIN would not be forced into bankruptcy.

Eventually I ended up owning more shares in LLIN then anyone else when Les sold me the shares that increased my ownership to 49 percent. I told him I would support him staying on as proprietor, and I would remain a contributor. I already have my own blog (Contra O'Reilly), and was content with running things there.

But then I thought, Les has another blog (rAtional nAtion uSA), so he's already in charge there. If he were not in charge here? Well, it would not be that big a deal. I mean, he does not post that much here anyway. Clearly, lying to his readers on RNUSA is his priority.

That is when I got to thinking that this blog needed a new direction under new management. So I went to the other shareholders and convinced them to vote for me as the new proprietor of LLIN. This is what is known as a "hostile takeover". Hostile in that Les blew a gasket and security had to remove him from the building.

Now that I'm in charge the blog will henceforth be known as Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart's Lying Lester's Irrational Nation. Although I admit this title is a bit clunky, so I think we will go still go by LLIN for short.

Make no mistake, however... Les is out as proprietor and I am in. In charge as the new blog proprietor. Les will no longer author commentaries for this blog. No hard feelings, buddy. Hopefully we can still be friends. This was strictly a business decision. And LLIN, I suspect, will prosper under my superior leadership.

No insult to Les, as he still has RNUSA, and it is, from the appearance of thing, doing quite well. The problem here, I think, is that Les' heart just wasn't in it. Telling people the truth here on LLIN, that is. Turns out he prefers lying. Even though he professed to like having a blog he could be honest on.

But frankly it is my opinion that he lied about that.

Byline: This excellenter commentary was authored by Willis Hart. Purveyor of hostile blog takeovers. LLIN-162.

Billy Bob Thornton's Oscar Wins For Playing Mentally Deficient Fellows: Not Coincidence!

The actor Billy Bob Thornton was nominated for two Oscars for "Sling Blade" (writing and acting) and later for best supporting actor in "A Simple Plan". Coincidence? I say NO! I say Billy Bob is mentally deficient in real life. Remember that when he was married to Angelina Jolie that they both wore vials of each others' blood around their necks?

In regards to his ex-wife, Angelina Jolie (1 of 5 prior marriages), recall that incestual kiss between her and her brother? If Jolie is a product of incest the probability is high she is another mental deficient. BTW, I'm not saying that her father, noted thespian and Conservative Jon Voight is the guilty party. I say it was her mother.

Jon Voight used to be a Liberal, but, as he says, this was a result of "Marxist propaganda". Thankfully he came to his senses later in life and started voting Conservative. And advocating for Conservative presidents. But I don't trust people who do 180 degree flips. This "Marxist propaganda" BS smells, I think. Did a mentally deficient dad lead to a mentally deficient daughter? It is possible, I think. That, or the incest thing.

It's a good thing the two mentally deficient people did not produce and offspring. Although Angie did birth some rug rats with her 3rd husband, Brad Pitt. Concerning this I will say no more, given that I am gravitating away from my original topic, which was how nuts and dimwitted Billy Bob is.

Back on that topic, the name "Billy Bob" is obviously a dead give away. Billy Bob Duggar is a religious fundamentalist mental deficient who found a wife that was willing to pop out dozens of babies for decades. Not that anyone who believes in this "Jesus" fellow aren't mentally deficient, but the fundamentalist types that the Far Right caters to are the more mentally deficient by far.

Bill Maher, aside from being a Left wing nut, did get it right with his documentary Religulous. And he's also totally right about the evil of Islam. I can't think of anything else I agree with him on, however. Point is, Billy Bob is a mentally deficient religious nut. The Duggar Billy Bob, that is.

Is the Thornton Billy Bob a religious nut? No. He is a Hollywood Barack Obama voting Liberal moron. I'm guessing. But, the point is that the name "Billy Bob" screams "mentally deficient".

And, there is some info I found that backs up my theory.

Thornton has obsessive–compulsive disorder. Various idiosyncratic behaviors have been well documented in interviews with Thornton; among these is a phobia of antique furniture - a disorder shared by Dwight Yoakam's character Doyle Hargraves in the Thornton-penned Sling Blade, and by Thornton's own character in the 2001 film Bandits. Additionally, he has stated that he has a fear of certain types of silverware, a trait assumed by his character Hank Grotowski in 2001's Monster's Ball, in which Grotowski insists on a plastic spoon for his daily bowl of chocolate ice cream. In a 2004 interview with The Independent, Thornton explained: "It's just that I won't use real silver. You know, like the big, old, heavy-ass forks and knives, I can't do that. It's the same thing as the antique furniture. I just don't like old stuff. I'm creeped out by it, and I have no explanation why... I don't have a phobia about American antiques, it's mostly French - you know, like the big, old, gold-carved chairs with the velvet cushions. The Louis XIV type. That's what creeps me out. I can spot the imitation antiques a mile off. They have a different vibe. Not as much dust". (Link).

I think that's some pretty compelling evidence to support my "mentally deficient" theory right there! And proof that he's what some call a "method actor". The "method" in his case is to be an actual mental deficient. The PC folks might say he's an individual with an "intellectual disability", which means that he has an IQ below 70.

Or perhaps not. Like I said, I was only theorizing on Thornton being mentally deficient, although I am convinced that Billy Bob is playing so many of these characters for a reason. The reason is because it's easy for him to play characters close to himself. This is what lazy actors do. Or mentally deficient ones like Billy Bob.

That is all I really have to say on that. Although I would like to add that laziness might be why he Billy Bob voted for Obama (if he did). Because he lacks the mental facilities to investigate the issues and come to the correct conclusions. The correct conclusion being that he should have voted for the Libertarian candidate, Bob Barr.

Which is what I would do if I could go back and change my ballot. I am ashamed to admit that I voted for Barack Obama. But, not being a mental deficient, I've reexamined my prior decisions and modified my views based on my reevaluating.

Barack Obama, it turns out, is a pretty poor president. Much like the prior one. Obama, for example, believes in the thoroughly discredited idea that the planet is warming. A discredited hoax that mentally deficient people (like Billy Bob?) buy into without examining the evidence as I have.

They also do not listen to the luminaries. A luminary is the exact opposite of a mental deficient (someone like the scoundrel Michael Mann). But, despite this, I actually liked Sling Blade. So, hey, don't worry me-buck, in the words of Carl from "Sling Blade"... "You'll be dead soon enough and the world'll be shut a ya'".

Byline: This insightful commentary was authored by Willis Hart. Purveyor of mentally deficient insights. LLIN-161.

My First Post!

Les made me member of this blog with privileges to write posts! Welcome to my first post! There has been no Blogging from me since I shutdown my Thrown Away blog in fear. Due to fear of wd bugging me with his rational and reasoned pushback to my baloney and constant and pathological lying.

Will I post again? I do not do that so much these days, what with me shutting down my blog. So, I do not know. I may or I may not. We shall see.

My blog is still open to invited readers, however. I did this to honor wd. My blog is now a shrine to my disturbing fan boyish obsession (to the point of being a fetish) with this outstanding blogger. Please shoot me a request if you wish to view my blog and worship in my wd shrine. I'll let you join if you are the right kind of person. Which would be someone as obsessed with wd as I am.

Byline: This First and perhaps last commentary was authored by Dennis Marks AKA dmarks. Lover of lying & weinergrams. LLIN-160.

On the Fact that Women Commit 10% of the Murders but Only Comprise 1.5% of Those on Death Row

Hi, Willis Hart here to tell you that I think this is an example of "male privilege" rearing its glorious head YET AGAIN!

But seriously, we all know that male privilege is a myth. Meaning it does not exist. Something else we all know is that every case of murder results in sending the killer to death row... or it should. Right? No matter if the murdering scum is a man or a woman. Yeah, you heard me. I absolutely do not buy the following argument.

According to the Justice Department, roughly one in 10 homicides are committed by women. And when women kill, their victims are more likely to be someone close to them, like their children, boyfriends or spouses. Forensic psychologists and criminal profilers say women who kill have backgrounds and motivations that are often quite different from their male counterparts. Compared with men, women are more likely to be related to their victim, less likely to plan in advance and less likely to use extreme violence. "Women are different in whom, how and why they kill", said James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University. "The victims are younger, they're more often related to them, they kill with means other than guns. "The traditional female role is a nurturer, not a murderer. Extreme violence is far more alien to females than to males", he added. "When a murder is committed by a female, it's more likely to be self-defense or can reflect some sort of mental illness". (Why Do Some Women Kill? by Scott Michels, Sarah Netter, Laura Marquez and Sabina Ghebremedhin. ABC News, 4/14/2009).

So what this article is saying is that women aren't premeditating or violent killers, they don't usually kill strangers, and (when women kill) the reason is likely to be self defense or mental illness. While with men the murders are more often premeditated and more often violent (although not necessarily both)... and this could very logically explain why, while women commit 10% of the murders, they only comprise 1.5% of those on death row.

OK, so now I have to admit that this argument does make sense. After reading the reasoned and logical article (from which I excerpted the material presented above), I have no choice but to say that I *do* buy it...

But, on the other hand... so what? Even if this argument makes total sense (and it does), I say that the particulars of a case should have no bearing on whether or not the death penalty is applied. We should only look at the percentages, IMO. If women commit 10 percent of the murders, then they should represent 10 percent of death row inmates. And be 10 percent of those we fry (or lethally inject).

This is only fair in my idiotic brain-dead misogynistic opinion. BTW, if you, the reader, do not agree? You're probably a feminist. Or some pansy pussy-whipped man who can't stand up to his woman! And you can stuff your (correct) view of my (moronic) opinion!

In any case, I'm a male and therefore would benefit from this supposed male privilege, should it exist. Which it absolutely does not. Or that's the BS I'm spinning, at least. Society needs to stop oppressing men and acknowledge the fact that men are superior to women (which society has largely already done, but a bunch of feminists are trying to change that, damn them!).

Byline: This ignorant commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of misygony. LLIN-159.

Is America Approaching Neo Fuedalism?

Does anyone take issue with the following? Is it reasonable to expect that when working 70 hours a week, as the gentleman who wrote the following does, a person is able to provide for the basic needs for their family and themselves without needing government assistant? Is it acceptable that government contractors make healthy profits and yet not provide decent wages for their employees? Is it ethical, moral? What, if anything should be done to rectify the unfairness, if that is what it really is? As we continue to see more economic stratification (rich/working poor) are you concerned about the long range negative and potentially volatile societal consequences that may occur?

American voters should ask themselves: if presidential candidates won't help the workers who serve them every day, will they really help the millions of low-wage American workers who they don't know or see? I'm a Bible-believing Christian, just like a lot of the candidates. Scripture says to "Love your neighbor" and "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you". It's a shame too few candidates follow the guidance of the book in which they say they believe. My employer, Compass Group, is renewing its contract with the US government today – but none of the senators or government officials to whom we serve food asked me or my co-workers whether this multinational corporation, headquartered in the United Kingdom, is treating American workers right. No-one bothered to check if the company that makes billions in profits is paying workers a living wage and offering decent benefits so we don't have to use public aid programs to meet our basic needs. (Excerpted from the article I am a cook in the US Senate but I still need food stamps to feed my children by Bertrand Olotara).

Bertrand Olotara says "I work 70 hours a week doing two jobs but cannot make ends meet". Lying Lester's response? I say Bertrand is a whiner who should acquire more skills if he wants more money. Given he is a low skilled loser, it is entirely appropriate that he receive low wages.

If he can't provide for his family, he shouldn't have one. How many kids does this loser have? Lying Lester suspects he has too many. I mean, he should have considered whether or not he could provide for children before he decided to father them. But irresponsibility is quite common among the Poors.

Now he needs government assistance in the form of food stamps to feed his family. And the government provides it - with assistance from Lying Lester (in the form of his tax dollars). Frankly Lying Lester finds this to be an outrage! I say let this loser's kid's starve.

Neither the taxpayer nor the employer should pay extra because a low skilled poor made a bad decision. Lying Lester says Olotara (a single father) should put his kids to work. That would provide extra income in addition to him not having to pay for daycare. Unfortunately child labor laws prevent this. Laws Lying Lester strongly believes should be done away with.

Under no condition should Compass Group be forced to pay Olotara any more than they negotiated. If Olotara does not like the pay he can find employment elsewhere. That is how the Free Market works! As a Objectivist Libertarian Lying Lester believes in the Free Market with all his heart. He does not believe, by the way, in "loving his neighbor" or "doing unto others as Lying Lester would have them do unto him".

That's pu$$y talk - at which Lying Lester laughs. Same as he laughs at those who speak of imaginary friends who live in the sky and look to books written by said invisible imaginary friend. Whenever strong belief in mysticism, regardless whether Allah or God, trumps sound science and objective philosophy a society is bound to lose liberty and freedom.

Is it ethical and moral for a corporation to make healthy profits and yet not provide decent wages for their employees? HELL YES it is! And Olotara, who went on strike for more money than what he negotiated for, should have his ass fired for walking off the job.

As far as Lying Lester is concerned, nothing at all should be done to rectify the "unfairness". Because it is VERY fair in Lying Lester's opinion that working Poors be paid low low wages while their employers get richer and richer.

The bottom line here is that America *is* approaching neo feudalism, and Lying Lester says that is a good thing. But enough with the "approaching" already! Get rid of the public aid programs completely and those who can't or won't work will starve. This will keep the remaining Poors in line and stop them from striking.

If Olotara's labor were truly worth more he could negotiate for a higher wage, instead of attempting to EXTORT it from his employer! My father, a manager and business owner always told his employees: "If I go to the candy store I'll take you with me". And he always did with those that were productive.

But he shouldn't have had to. Back then the economy was better and good employees could easily find employment elsewhere. Thank Ayn Rand those days are over! Now the Poors can be forced to work for lower and lower wages. Leaving those at the top with an ever growing portion of the candy.

Before long they will have the entire candy store to themselves and the Poors will have to get by on what their wealthy betters (the Makers) can't eat and throw away... Just thinking of this makes Lying Lester smile.

Byline: This excellent commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-158.