On The Fact That (According To A Pew Research Survey) 100% Of Willis Harts Are Seriously Islamophobic

Yeah, and there's nothing wrong with that, given the fact that (according to a Pew Research survey) 74% of the Muslims in Turkey, 85% of the Muslims in Malaysia, 93% of the Muslims in Indonesia, 82% of the Muslims in Pakistan, 78% of the Muslims in Lebanon, 77% of the Muslims in the Palestinian Territory, and 75% of the Muslims in Kosovo consider abortion to be morally wrong.

Not that I consider it to be morally right. IMO Planned Parenthood should be defunded. Because I'm opposed to my tax money being used to fund their profit making enterprise that involves chopping up babies and selling the parts.

Which causes me to ask, are the radical feminists fully down with this type of "diversity"? I'm kinda suspecting, uh, NO. Yet they defend Muslims when dudes like me go on the "attack". Attacks that are actually me (or anyone else on the "Islamophobic Right") just pointing out the facts concerning raghead barbarians.

Bring on Donald Trump's Muslim ban, I say. This is one area where I actually agree with the fella.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-268.

On HRC Being Convicted Of Treason For Sending/Receiving Classified Info Via eMail And Being Sentenced To Prison Before The Election

It is absolutely going to happen.

No wait, the fix is in. Barack Obama commanded the justice department not to indict her. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Why didn't I think of this before when I said it was likely HRC would be forced to run her campaign from a prison cell?

Surely the reason there appears to be no indictment of Miss Hillary forthcoming couldn't be because "plenty of people in Democratic and Republican administrations made some mistakes in following protocol for emails [but, as per] the recent report released by the inspector general of the State Department... there is no Clinton email scandal".

Because if this were true, it would mean I was totally full of shit before. And me being CONVINCED that HRC was going to be charged was due to nothing but my misogynistic hate for HRC.

Sorry, but no. That was not the reason! Ronald Kessler (a 2-time winner of the Peabody award and an individual who has consistently criticized presidents from both parties) said that FBI director Jim Comey is a man of great integrity and would indict Hillary even if Obama didn't want him to.

I guess Obama got to him!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-267.

On The "Black Africans Were Actually the Real Ancient Egyptians" Afrocentric Theory

I want you to think good and hard as to what these folks (Al Sharpton amongst them) are suggesting here. They are asserting that sub-Saharan Black Africans migrated north, created one of the greatest civilizations known to man, and then ended up back in Central Africa where they ditched all of this culture and knowledge and replaced it with primitivism (they didn't have the wheel, for Christ), tribalism, cannibalism, voodoo, and barely eking out an existence. It's an absurdity and it needs to be ridiculed. YES, ridiculed.

Because it's a fucking fact that Africoons have smaller brains. We ALL KNOW there is no fucking way Darkies could have been responsible for the accomplishments of ancient Egyptians. Scientifically speaking, it simply is NOT possible. Because Blacks are genetically inferior, for Christ! I mean, they're just as violent and primitive TODAY as they have always been!

I've heard some people say "we should have picked our own cotton", and I can't help but agree. Yeah, the crowd that says such things includes people who post on the StormFront website, but they have a very valid point (I HAVE to agree with my fellow racists here). Or realists. Calling Whites "racist" when the REAL racists are the Blacks being WAY out of line, IMO. Offensive, actually.

Byline: This racist commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-266.

Willis Hart Got Away With It

After being convicted of rape and sentenced to many years in prison, I am extremely pleased to announce that my retrial resulted in a hung jury, after which the prosecutor decided to drop the case! Yes, I spent some time in jail (where some Blacks roughed me up) and was facing some serious prison time. But that is all now behind me and I am a free man.

This reversal came about after I fired my lawyer and hired a chick to replace him. Sure, a chick lawyer isn't as good as a man lawyer, but a male rapist being represented by a chick gets some people thinking... if he's got a woman defending him, the woman must be convinced he didn't do it.

That's the strategy as presented by the chick lawyer who represented me suggested (to get me to hire her). Luckily it worked. That, and she attempted to get as many men on the jury as possible. A third crucial strategy (in getting me off the hook) was character assassination. My accuser came off as an absolute bimbo who committed both perjury (multiple times) and conspiracy to defraud.

Not that any of accusations as presented by my lawyer were true. But they did the trick. Although the double trial did cost me a pretty penny. I had to dip into my retirement savings in order to not end up in prison where I might have very likely been raped by a Black dude. How royally fucked up is THAT?

Perhaps one day I'll write a book. One possible title I'm kicking around being "How To Get Away With Rape". This would be a "what if" type of novel similar to the OJ Simpson "confession" If I Did It. Likewise I'd only be putting forth "hypothetical" accounts of the many rapes I've committed.

In any case, I fortunately have some cash left. I think I need a vacation after being put through the ringer with this trial, retrial and time spent behind bars. I might move or take an extended Oklahoman vacation. I heard that it was ruled that sodomy with an unconscious woman is NOT rape by one of their courts.

Like I've been saying all along... if two people are drunk and have sex... how the hell is that "rape"? And, if I find some woman, liquor her up, and then put my dick in her mouth after she passes out... why isn't SHE charged with rape?

Anyway, sounds like fun. I'm really looking forward to it.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-265.

Is Trump A Hillary Planet?

I normally don't believe in conspiracy theories ("Michelle Obama is a man", "Paul McCartney died in 1967 and the guy portraying him now is an imposter", "we faked the moon-landing", "LBJ was behind the plot to assassinate JFK", "we're secretly concealing alien life in Roswell NM", etc.) but this sucker almost seems plausible.

BUT EVEN IF IT ISN'T, it might as well be. I mean, think about it. The guy is an absolute buffoon and totally unelectable, and in a political climate in which Mrs. Clinton herself is largely reviled, what better elixir could there possibly be? Seriously, I can almost see the two of them cracking jokes and having a cold one come December.

Hillary surely would lose if any other Republican had won the nomination, given that the bitch is a piece of shit. Also a woman. Yes, she lied to the Benghazi families and has a slush fund in the form of the "Clinton Foundation" (among other problems). But the bottom line is that she's a chick. And not even a hot one, which is why misogynists like me ultimately could never vote for her.

Why the people don't revolt (given the awfulness of both candidates) and elect Gary Johnson is beyond me. Sure, Gary Johnson would work to hard to get rid of a lot of the free stuff the moochers want, and that's going to cost him a LOT of votes.

Like Mitt Romney said, 47 percent of this nation is comprised of parasitic moochers who will vote for the candidate who promises them the most free stuff. Mitt, while a bad candidate, was absolutely right about that.

Anyway, we all know that Trump used to be a Democrat, donated to Hillary's previous presidential campaign and praised Planned Parenthood for their "good work" (chopping up kids and selling the parts). Also, he is currently opposed to free trade. Although he lies about that fact, saying he is a "free trader" but wants to "renegotiate" our trade deals.

Seriously? Free trade involves no "negotiation". The "deal" should be that corporations in different countries sell their goods anywhere around the world without restriction or tariff. American workers get screwed while multinational corporations profit. Big time. I say that not to criticize it, but to PRAISE it. Although Donald may be lying about this. In order to fool the dumb-dumbs.

Which there are many of. Stupid voters, that is. Which is why Trump might just win, despite me just saying he is "unelectable". But the current climate is very different. With the electorate being dumber than ever in recorded history. That's a game changer.

Think about it. The guy is an absolute buffoon and seemingly unelectable, but he's running against a woman. An old pantsuit-wearing hag that (even when she was young) was average looking at best. I mean, who wants a grandma as president" I know I sure as hell do not.

She might be doing a decent job of pretending to be a Progressive. But she's fallen short when it comes to promising free stuff (Comrade Sanders outdoing her in that area). So, it might not be enough. And what better elixir could there possibly be than a guy who plays to the misogyny and bigotry of angry White male voters like me? Seriously, I can almost see the Donald and his VP cracking jokes regarding the "poorly educated" dupes who hand him the election come December.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-264.

Ragheads As Violent & Criminally Inclined As Africoons

Did you that, while Muslims only make up about 4% of the population in Spain and France, they comprise 70% of the prison population (source).

It has to be the result of all those bigoted Spaniards and Francs, no (my tongue firmly planted in cheek)?

So, what's the REAL reason the percentage of ragheads in European prisons has gone up so sharply?

In 2010, the then Chief Inspector of Prisons, Dame Anne Owers, published a report on Muslims in jail, in which she linked the growth in numbers to the age and socio-economic profiles of the Muslim population in general. "Both are powerful predictors of involvement in the criminal justice system", she wrote, "and Muslims in Britain have a notably younger age profile than non-Muslims and are more likely to come from lower socio-economic groups". Amal Imad, a researcher for the charity Muslim Aid, agrees with Dame Anne's findings from five years ago that poverty - in particular not having enough money to feed a family - is a key factor driving crime, and therefore imprisonment, among Muslims. (Why the surge in Muslim prisoners? by Danny Shaw. BCC News 3/11/2015).

Makes sense, right?

NO! It's complete bullplop. Obviously the cause is their smaller brains. Frankly, I'm of the opinion that lesser races such as Ragheads and Africoons should be classified as subhuman. I mean, I think this term is appropriate given the fact that these violent fuckers are clearly inferior to Whites.

BTW, you might wish to point out that "Raghead" isn't a race. To which I say... OK, then, Arab. Or Persian. Not that it makes any difference, given that they're all inferior. I mean, who really gives a shit when it comes to lesser races like Muzzies, Africoons, Wetbacks, etc? They're all criminally inclined. That's just genetics.

Byline: This pro-White commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-263.

Taxation Is Theft (Takers Stealing From Makers Via The Democratic Process)

Karl Marx frequently referred to profits as theft but never referred to taxes as theft. Can you fucking believe it? So that which is taken through the barrel of a gun and coercion ISN'T theft but entrepreneurship, ingenuity, vision, and risk-taking through a series of voluntary associations IS. Man, was that dude ever fucked in the head.

BTW, that taxes are taken through the barrel of a gun and coercion is absolutely true. Rich folks never voluntarily pay their taxes. Or, perhaps SOME do. I've heard that many resist, and that's when the jackbooted thugs are sent out to grind their bootheels into the throats of their rich victims.

This happens everyday, given the fact that resisting muggings are human nature. Especially if they happen time and time again. Usually on April 15th of every damn year! What I'd like to know is what the hell makes the State think it has the right to steal from citizens? Now, I know you're probably going to tell me that the 16th amendment gives the State this right (specifically the right to assess and collect an income tax).

And, if you do make this argument I'm going to have to admit that you're right. However... uh... I've got nothing. Which isn't to say that taxes STILL are not teft. I mean, they aren't, but that isn't going to stop me from saying they are. Because... Libertarian?

Also, apparently pointing out the fact that you never signed the social contract is not an acceptable reason to not cough up the State's protection money? Pay up or you'll go to jail? Seriously?

Although, unless you're for anarchy, the government needs some money to operate. For a police force to keep the violent Blacks from stealing from Whites, at least. But I say poor people should pay. They're the ones committing most of the crime, so it only makes sense that they should be the ones to pay.

Instead the Democrats think the poors should be given lots of free gifts? While the rich Makers shoulder most of the tax load? Not paying their fair share? Clearly they're paying WAY more. Which has GOT to stop, IMO.

BTW, in regards to profits being theft? The Left might say that, given the fact that pay is negotiated between employers (who have all the power) and singular employees (who are in oversupply, thus not in a position to demand much in pay). Excepting situation in which there is a union, of course. Unions put the worker in a position in which they can negotiate for a higher wage, despite the oversupply of labor.

But stealing from workers is an employer's RIGHT, IMO. I'm talking about Natural Rights. Rich people get more of them due to them being rich. The State, representing "the people" is like a union of all citizens. This is the primary aspect of collectivism that Democrats support and Republicans oppose. Republicans opposing it for good reason. Which is because it is evil.

I mean, an institution that attempts to equalize (to some small extent) the power of poor/middle class people with that of rich people can only be viewed as evil. At least by rational people, given the fact that poors stealing from richers (via the State) is wrong, while richers stealing from poors IS THEIR RIGHT! Or, their Natural Right, to be more precise.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-262.

The Darkest Period in Human History?

Yeah, I'm gonna go with the FDR presidency. Under this tyrant the top tax rate on our beloved wealthy Makers was increased to a mind-boggling 94%. This asshole even had the gall to suggest that rich folks should pay 100% after earning 350k (in today's dollars)! Which is obviously peanuts. Enough for a middle class loser to get by on, but clearly not enough for a worthy rich man to live in style. I mean, you've got to have enough to pay your servants.

As a runner up "darkest period" I'm going with when the gorgeous, delightful, and talented Polly Pergen left "To Tell the Truth" in 1961 and was replaced by the dumpy, acerbic, and difficult to watch Peggy Cass. What a fat uggo! IMO only good looking women should be allowed on TV. I'm even opposed to having uggos in "character" rolls. "Character actor" being code for unpleasant in appearance. Only men should be character actors, I think. I mean, why subject your audience's eyes to unnecessary pain?

The brightest period in human history? It might surprise you, but my selection is the years 1346 to 1353. This would be peak years of the Black Death. The Black Death being "one of the most devastating pandemics in human history". The disease swept Europe, killing an estimated 75 to 200 million people, or 30–60% of Europe's total population.

So, why do I consider this to be a "bright" period? Because (as I pointed out in a prior commentary) the Black Death raised the standard of living of many survivors who inherited estates from the plague's victims. Not that I necessarily care about the living standard of worthless poors. No, but that millions of these parasites were exterminated is a "good" that would surely have made Ayn Rand smile.

Rand would absolutely agree that poors going to an early grave when there is an overabundance of them is a positive, and definitely something that should happen at least once in awhile. I mean, we want their numbers to be high enough so that the price of labor is low, but not so high that they consume too much resources (think a plague of locusts).

There is also the possibility that, if they become too numerous and if their living conditions become too horrid (especially compared to their wealthy superiors) they could rise up. The execution of the Romanov family being but one historical example of a revolution of the lower classes leading to the deaths of superior wealthy people.

Something that might have happened under FDR if the wealthy individuals that the tyrant FDR plundered had resisted, given the fact that (ultimately) the theft of money from rich people (in the form of taxes) is extracted via the barrel of a gun.

Which is pretty fucked in the head if you ask me, given that the wealthy earned their money via entrepreneurship, ingenuity, vision, and risk-taking through a series of voluntary associations. Yet they're the criminals if they don't pay this protection money.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-261.

Dylann Roof Was Right

Dylann Storm Roof, the young man who killed 9 African Americans at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston, said he did it because he wanted to ignite a race war.

Clearly his hope that a race war would break out was nuts. Roof did, however, have legitimate grievances concerning the accurate and honest reports concerning black-on-white violent crime.

For example, in regards to White on Black rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, the rates are so small that they all but don't exist (see table 42 on this page). If only it was the same in the other direction.

As opposed to it just being a anecdote. According to a National Review article by Heather MacDonald, "An honest appraisal of race relations today would conclude that the Charleston massacre belongs to the outermost, lunatic fringe of American society... White-supremacist killings are not a common aspect of black life today; their very rarity is what made this atrocity so newsworthy".

It is also a fact that (according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Crime Victimization Survey, and the FBI) 85% of the interracial violence in the U.S. (560,600 of the 660,003 total incidents) is Black on White. But I'm going to assume that Obama and Holder aren't going to want this in the "conversation".

When you figure in the population differential, the odds mushroom all the way to 27 to 1. My conclusion? There's racism in America alright; Blacks hating Whites being the bulk of it. So, yeah, I've got to acknowledge that Dylann Roof was right. Even if he chose the wrong target - a church full of peaceful Blacks who welcomed Roof (a White man). Obviously this is not the norm.

White on Black violence being anecdotal, while Black on White violence being just everyday life. Something the majority of these Black animals engage in on a regular basis (attacking the hated Whitey). Which explains why so many of them are behind bars (where they belong).

For this reason (me hating Black people), some might refer to me as "racist". Honestly, I have to agree with them. However, my "racism" is only in response to the Black man's racism. As well as their stupidity and violence. Clearly White are superior. That's a just a fact, and if you want to call it "racism"... so be it.

"You rape our women and you're taking over our country" Roof said in regards to the many wild Black Animals who are running rampant. And he was absolutely RIGHT. As for a race war, the Black are already waging one on us Whites... and they're WINNING! Roof fought back. Yes, against the wrong people (some of the rare good Blacks), but you've GOT TO give him some kudos for trying.

And perhaps a race war is what is needed? Because an end to the assault on the White race will, I think, only come about via force. Violence being the only thing these animals respond to. Although by force I don't mean (necessarily) through violence but rather by changing our policies to A) allow police officers to shoot to kill when these animals riot, and B) by locking up the Black criminal class and throwing away the key.

Or we might NEED an actual race war. Although only as a last resort, I'm saying.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-260.

Tamir Rice's Life Did Not Matter

Have you heard that the Smithsonian Museum (in cahoots with Black Lives Matter) wants to preserve the Cleveland gazebo where the 12-year-old thug-in-training Tamir Rice was fatally shot?

And the likelihood that they'd be doing this is if the person who pulled the trigger wasn't a white cop but instead, Ray Ray, Mookie, Slice, Puffy Boy, or Dre would be what exactly? Zero would be my guesstimate.

I say it was his mother's fault. For letting him play with a toy gun. We all know it was only a matter of time before he picked up a real gun. And used it to rob (and/or kill) a White man. Probably for the best that the cop put him down. And this fact (obviously) explains why the officer wasn't charged.

"The shooting of Tamir Rice was reasonable under the circumstances" was the conclusion of two reports. So, that a "wrongful" death claim was filed and settled for 6 million (SIX FUCKING MILLION) is a development I find OUTRAGEOUS! I bet Tamir's Taker family was able to set their grief aside pretty quickly. Given the fact that they are now millionaires. Money pilfered from White taxpayers - yet again!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of racism. LLIN-259.

On The Fact That Poor People (AKA Lucky Duckies) Are Not Paying Their Fair Share In Taxes

Yes, it is a fact that the bottom quintile gets 5.5 times as much in government benefits as they pay in taxes. This while the top quintile pays 3.5 times as much in taxes as they get back in government benefits.

So who's not paying their "fair share" again? Please, remind me. Clearly it's these lucky duckies. Not that I wish that I was poor and could loaf (sit on the couch eating cheetos and hot pockets, drinking Mountain Dew while watching "Game of Thrones" on my 4K big screen UHDTV). But I'm a Maker and not a lazy Taker.

But if you are poor and a lazy piece of shit (the two go hand in hand, btw, with the vast majority of poors being lazy fuckers who want to smoke weed and collect welfare)? Then, thanks to Liberals (who can only get elected by buying votes via free stuff paid for by over-taxing moderately well-to-do Makers like myself) then you surely are a "lucky ducky".

What explains this outrage? According to the Leftist publication "Mother Jones", many in the bottom quintile pay NO taxes!

...the federal tax code is designed not to tax the poor, the elderly, or low-income families with children, and there are more of these in America than you'd think. One way or another, it turns out, this accounts for about 40% of the country. (Breaking Down the Lucky Duckies).

Obviously SOME in the bottom quintile must pay taxes (while MANY don't). And, when you average it out, the result is that the bottom quintile gets 5.5 times as much in government benefits as they pay in taxes. Which I say is WRONG. If you're not paying in I say you should get NOTHING. As Ayn Rand put it, if these lazy loafers STILL refuse to work after their free stuff is removed, "nature will take it's course". And the poor loser will die.

Which I support 100% (that if lazy loafers refuse to work they SHOULD die. Good riddance, I say). And, NO, I don't give a shit if they're elderly or disabled. Or "can't work" for some other reason. No excuses, no exceptions. You don't work, you die.

Keeping these parasites alive at the expense of the rich man is an OUTRAGE! Frankly I think we need to abolish the victim class. Sadly, it will only come about via force (and by force I don't mean through violence but rather by changing our policies, allowing nature to take it's course, etc.) in that most folks are just too scared to be held responsible. And there's just way too much power and money at stake (government bureaucrats/programs, special interest groups, etc.) for a voluntary conclusion to occur. Hopefully it doesn't get too get ugly along the way.

By which I mean some kind of uprising. Get to work or die (if that is your choice). And, a poor man dying in the gutter isn't "ugly" at all. In fact I'd say it's poetic justice. By-the-way, if the poors were to rise up (after the elimination of their freebies), then I'd be OK with the State putting them to death. Looters should be shot (an instant death penalty that would be totally justified). As Mayor Daley said "shoot to kill".

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-258.

On The State Having The Gall To Enforce Laws After Passing Them (Laws The People Say They Want Via Democratic Elections)

The fact is that, whenever you go to bottom of the rabbit-hole with groups like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, the Bernie Sanders crowd, etc, and ask these assholes how they're going to implement their agenda, they always have to confess that it will only be obtained through coercion, force, the threat of violence, and violence itself via the full force of the State.

I refer, of course, to the passage of laws after politicians who agree with them are democratically elected. HOW TERRIBLE!! I mean, if you're a oligarchy worshipping stooge like I am, you've seriously got to despise the fact that people can vote for representatives who might pass laws that could increase taxes on rich people. It's outrageous!

But relax, it's for our own good, they say. But is paying slightly more in taxes (so that ALL of the citizens of the United States do better) "good"? Some might say that when we all do better that is in the best interest of rich folks as well. And, if I was to be completely honest, I'd have to admit that these people are probably right.

On the other hand, stealing from wealthy Makers in order that we might all do better is a prospect I find highly offensive. Rich people can NEVER have enough money, IMO. And, if increasing the wealth of those who are already unbelievably wealthy necessitates the destruction of the Middle Class? Then I say it would absolutely be worth it.

Because if a rich person doesn't want to pay? He shouldn't have to. That's the bottom line here. Also, the State enforcing laws? Even more outrageous. At least when it comes to rich folks. Paying taxes is for poor people, IMO. Rich people shouldn't have to pay them. Unless (for some strange reason) they want to. I'm OK with the State asking "please", but not with the State using force. Obviously that's wrong (when it's a rich person. But not when it's a poor person).

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-257.