Will That Lying Piece Of Shit Lawyer, Miss Hillary, Finally Be Put Behind Bars Where She Belongs?

If there's a deity, maybe. The fact that she lied to the families of the Benghazi victims was the final straw for me. Sure, that's a load of bullpucky, but STILL, it was the final straw for me. Not the Rightwing lying re "she lied to the families of the Benghazi victims", but the Leftist media calling out that lie. Fuck them.

PoltiFact: This allegation that Clinton lied to victims' families refers to events right after the 9/11/2012, attack on a US diplomatic compound in Benghazi Libya. 3 days after the attacks, President Barack Obama, Clinton and others met with the families of the four victims, gathering at Joint Base Andrews to receive the victims' remains. [Rightwingers allege] that at this meeting, Clinton told the families a story about the attacks that she knew at the time to be false. This talking point gets right at the heart of the deep partisan divide over Benghazi and Clinton's role, and readers have asked us for clarity. But the lack of hard evidence makes it impossible to know what really happened between Clinton and these families. No one recorded these brief meetings behind closed doors. Family members and Clinton disagree on what was said. Especially given the emotional setting, memories - both Clinton's and the families' - might be fuzzy. Patricia Smith, mother of information officer Sean Smith [said HRC told her a video was to blame, as did] Charles Woods, father of CIA operative Tyrone Woods... Some family members don't remember any discussion of a video. Jan Stevens, father of Ambassador Chris Stevens, told PolitiFact that the first time he heard anything about a video was when the Washington Post Fact Checker called him with a similar question. He confirmed that he heard "nothing whatsoever" about a video from Clinton but declined to comment further. Tyrone Woods' mother, Cheryl Bennett, told PolitiFact that when she spoke with Clinton, she "never heard the word video mentioned. That's just a fact". Bennett, who is estranged from Charles Woods, said the motivation behind the attack didn't come up in her brief interaction with Clinton. Speaking with CNN's Anderson Cooper in October 2015, Kate Quigley, sister of CIA operative Glen Doherty, said Clinton mentioned protests but not a video. Barbara Doherty, Glen Doherty's mother, didn't recall talking with Clinton about a video and said she remembered Clinton as being sincere and crying, according to the Washington Post. Clinton, for her part, flatly denies saying anything about the film in her one-on-one with the families. (What did Hillary Clinton tell the families of people who lost their lives in Benghazi? by Lauren Carroll, 2/9/2016).

More people say HRC never mentioned that fucking video (the Innocence of Muslims). But, you know what? I'm going to believe what I want to believe. Which is that HRC lied. Even though she didn't. Just like I'm going to keep believing that Lara Logan's reporting on what Benghazi "eyewitness" Morgan Jones proves that IT'S NOT a fake scandal... this despite the fact that Logan herself said "we were wrong... and we apologize to our viewers".

Fact is, I'm quite proud of my cognitive dissonance. How the hell else do you think I could remain a Libertarian? Heck, I've even gone further down the Libertarian rabbit hole since I started this blog, this KNOWING that Gary Johnson is a despicable colossal liar.

But Gary HAS to lie. Because today's voters only go for the candidate that offers them the most free stuff. So, when Gary says that, under a Johnson presidency "we can still still create a safety net [and] nobody goes without", OF COURSE he's TOTALLY BSing. But he HAS to! It's what they call the "good lie". And I commend Johnson for lying about such things.

Unlike HRC. She lies by telling her supporters what they want to hear. But Johnson isn't lying to his supporters, he's lying to those who want free stuff. His genuine supporters (people like me), know the REAL agenda is to get rid of the safety net. Specifically so the parasites will "do without". And die off. Believe me, America will be better without the moochers.

Anyway, will HRC go to prison like Julia Assange of WikiLeaks says? Probably not. But maybe. And that would surely be a great day. As then Gary Johnson would be the only alternative. And perhaps THEN he'd be viable. Something he currently is not. Sadly. Even my cognitive dissonance (massive as it is) can't convince me that Gary has a shot at getting elected POTUS. Unless something unprecedented occurs (like HRC getting arrested). Let's just say my fingers are crossed.

And who wants a chick president anyway? Not me, that's for sure.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-305.

On The Fact That Somebody Got To FBI Director James Comey

That someone got to him is the only thing that explains why he let Corrupt Hillary off the hook. What I'm wondering now was if it was a bribe or a threat? Maybe HRC promised he could keep his job in her administration? Or perhaps she (or Obama) threatened to kill his family if he didn't reach the right conclusion?

I don't know. Perhaps further investigations by the Republican Congress will uncover the truth? I won't hold my breath... but if somehow how they did? Surely that would throw the election to Donald Trump.

I mean, everything that Comey said in his presentation pointed straight to a recommendation to indict (the fact that dozens of these messages were considered classified AT THE TIME, the fact that her server wasn't even as secure as Gmail, his admission that other people would have been penalized for these transgressions, etc). And then, kaboom, nothing!!!

It's outrageous! If there were a march to protest the fact that HRC hasn't been indicted... I'd support it. That bitch belongs behind bars. No matter that there was a much worse email scandal under the Bush administration (one that involved the destruction of 22 million emails in order to cover up election thievery directed by AG Gonzales).

But Bush hasn't been president for 8 years!! Everyone knows that if you commit political crimes and get away with them... you're in the clear and nobody should never talk about them again. And everyone also knows this only applies to Republicans. Sorry, but yes.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-287.

Proof The Leftist Media Is Out To Get Trump

Did you know that Bill Clinton has received over $16 million in compensation for being the honorary chancellor of a diploma mill that has repeatedly been sued for fraud (something called laureate Education) - this while at the same time said enterprise's parent company has received $55 million dollars in grants from a Hillary Clinton led State Department? (source).

Likely not. Apparently our Leftist media doesn't consider it newsworthy. But isn't this just as bad (and maybe worse) as Trump University? Please? I know I'm praying that it is. Because if both DJT and HRC are charged and found guilty... can you say President Gary Johnson? Unlikely, sure. But when you reside on the farthest fringes ideologically (like I do), far fetched scenarios SOMEHOW placing your fringe candidate in office are all one has to cling to.

Don't get me, wrong - I hate HRC considerably more than DJT (he who has "offended" the Liberal media via a cadre of impolitic statements). Which is why I'd only vote for HRC if someone held a gun to my head. Sure, I wouldn't vote for DJT either, but that the Liberal media keeps attacking him (while ignoring Clinton transgressions) makes me so mad!

I mean, so the fuck what if Donald flat out ripped off people via his so-called "university"? I call it pigeon plucking, and have no problem at all if stupid people voluntarily decide to hand over their money. I mean, it's their fault if they don't do their homework. And, as a Libertarian, I am 100 percent in favor of education provided by the private sector on a for-profit basis (and do not believe these for-$ educators need any stinking regulation).

As for this applying to Laureate Education as well as Trump U... the answer is yes. But I'm going the hypocrite route on here and saying the Clintons should be hammered on this, while Donald should be given a pass. Even though, according to Jonathan Turley "there is no evidence of a quid pro quo arrangement or even direct grants" re Laureate's parent company receiving $55 million in grants from the HRC led State Department.

So, while the Clinton education "scandal" may be more unsavory as opposed to criminal, while Trump's fake "university" absolutely looks like a case of outright fraud, I'm still thinking the Clintons should be prosecuted and the Trump case dropped.

Does that Mexican judge have it in for Trump? I doubt it's because he's Mexican. But he clearly is prejudiced against savvy businessmen like Trump who are good at raking in the profits. And there's also the fact that Gonzalo Curiel was installed as a judge on the United States District Court for the Southern District of California after being nominated by... President Barack Obama!

This would be the same Obama who was the subject of allegations of not being US-born by Donald Trump. Which indicates that Trump being persecuted here might be a case of payback. I mean, since I'm already spinning unsubstantiated (Clinton-only) conspiracies, what's one more?

By the way, I noted near the beginning of my commentary that Laureate has been "repeatedly" been sued for fraud. Turley says this happened once, and the case was dismissed. Repeatedly or once, I say Laureate (and by association, the Clintons) are guilty as hell and should go to prison. Or at least not end up in the White House. Sorry, but no.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-270.

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.

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.

As Plainly as I Can Say It... I'm A Gary Johnson Dupe

This commentary concerns my vote for president this November. Will I vote for Trump? I thought long and hard about it, but in the end I decided that Trump is a clown and I refuse to vote for clowns. If he wasn't a former reality show personality? Then, MAYBE I'd vote for him.

I really like his idea about building a wall. Not to keep out Hispanics willing to work for incredibly low wages. I'm 100 percent in favor of opening the borders to let in slave wage laborers (driving down wages for average Americans). But we do need to keep out terrorists who might try and sneak over the border (perhaps with a suitcase nuke).

So, that's a NO on Trump (unfortunately).

But you know who else I refuse to vote for? I refuse to vote for a person who lies to the families of the victims of the Benghazi attacks (telling them one thing when you told your own family something different) and who, when pressed on the matter, strongly implies that they're the ones who are lying.

Regardless of whether or not that actually happened. Which it did not. According to David Brooks (a man I admire because he's one of the very few commentators out there who holds both sides' feet to the fire) the search for something (anything) to indict Hillary on (in regards to Benghazi) failed because there was no scandal. In Brook's words the endless "investigation" of HRC over Benghazi resulted in NOTHING to slime Hillary with because it was a "big nothing burger".

David Brooks further said "there is a certain psychosis that goes through people's minds, especially about scandals, but Clinton scandals, where they — where something smells, and they think there must be something big, and they imagine there is about to be some big revelation that will destroy their careers".

Yeah, I think that just about sums it up for me. The psychosis that results in thinking there MUST be something big. That "something" being the "fact" that HRC "lied" to some of the families of those who lost loved ones in Benghazi. See also Lara Logan's debunked reporting regarding what Dylan Davies (a British employee of the security company Blue Mountain Group) said happened on the night of the Benghazi attacks.

According to Davies (as per his incident report) he "could not get anywhere near" the compound the night of the attack. Later he changed his story. In the revised version he "scaled a wall of the compound, personally struck a terrorist in the face with his rifle butt, and later went to the Benghazi hospital to see Ambassador Chris Stevens' body". Presumably he made himself a hero in this version in order to sell a book (a book that Simon & Schuster pulled when it discovered Davis was a liar).

Regardless of whether or not Davis is a liar (which he is), I continue to stick to my guns and insist that Lara Logan's reporting (reporting which she apologized for, saying "we made a mistake") PROVES that that IT'S NOT a "fake scandal" After All!!! And, yeah, I strongly suspect that Ms. Logan is going to get slimed over this one. Just because she said she made a mistake in putting a liar on the air?

Does it really matter that Davis lied? I say NO. What's important is the story that Logan initially reported. A story that makes the Obama administration and HRC look bad. Sorry, but I've got to part ways with the estimable David Brooks on this one. In this instance I think he took his penchant for holding people's feet to the fire regardless of party TO FAR. I mean, in this instance I think harming HRC's presidential chances is what is important. As opposed to getting the facts right.

For the record, when I said before that I'd vote for Hillary if someone held a gun to my head and told me I had to chose between her and Donald... and I said I'd vote for Hillary? What I forgot to add was (in that scenario), it was Hillary who was holding the gun to my head. If nobody was holding a gun to my head - and the choice was Hillary or Donald? I'd choose Donald. Despite him being a clown. And least he isn't a liar like Hillary (even though what I SAY she lied about is something she actually didn't lie about).

That's who and why I'm voting for Gary Johnson again. I'm totally in with his use of the buzzwords "liberty" and "freedom". Because he's referring to freedom and liberty for rich people. Mostly freedom from high taxes. Nevermind the fact that, belying the "liberty" facade, Gary has surrounded himself with a bevy of Rightwing opperatives.

Gary Johnson's campaign chief, Ron Nielson... runs a conservative polling firm called NSON Opinion Strategies, whose headquarters is the same three-story building on South Temple Road as Johnson's campaign headquarters... NSOM has a history of working with GOP right-wingers including crotchety Mormon asshole Orin Hatch and ex-witch and masturbation-denier Christine O'Donnell... Gary Johnson's campaign headquarters is located in Romney's backyard, in a right-wing Republican polling firm's office. [Also] according to documents filed with the state of Utah, the person responsible for filing the paperwork to register Gary Johnson's "Our America Initiative" is Maureen Otis, a Texas attorney with deep roots in the far-right Minutemen movement, and with Republican Party voter-suppression dirty tricks. (The Gary Johnson Swindle by Mark Ames. 11/6/2012).

The article goes on, but you get the idea. Gary Johnson being a "Libertarian" is (as per the article title) a swindle. Gary, despite his claims of wanting "liberty", associates himself with Rightwing operatives who are involved in voter suppression. Suppression that benefits Republican candidates.

Keep in mind that Gary (running as a Libertarian) has ZERO chance becoming president. So what's the game here? Help yourself by helping those who are cheating to get Republicans elected? Yeah, I think that's it.

Which I should note is A-OK by me. Will GOP dirty tricks help Donald Trump get elected? I think it's definitely possible that Republican voter suppression could hand the presidency to Gary Johnson Donald Trump. Sure, I'd be ecstatic if (somehow) voter suppression benefited Gary Johnson. Unfortunately that's not going to happen.

That being the case, I'm OK with Trump getting "elected" president. I'm not in love with the idea, but it is what it is. Better him than a piece of shit like HRC. Although (like I said) I'm voting for Johnson. Unless Hillary held a gun to my head. Then I'd vote for her. I'm only one vote and surely my one vote is NOT worth dying over. At least it isn't worth ME dying over. If Hillary held a gun to wd's head and said "vote for me or else" (I'll blow wd's head off)? I'd tell her to pull the trigger.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-256.

Message To Hillary Clinton: I Hate Your Mother-F*cking Corrupt Pandering Pantsuit-Wearing Guts!

Does Hillary Clinton read this blog? I doubt it. If she does, however, I'd like to take this opportunity to let her know that I hate her mother-fucking corrupt pandering pantsuit-wearing POS lawyer guts with the intensity of an octillion hydrogen bombs detonating after being fired into the sun!

Frankly, I doubt I've ever felt this intensely regarding any human being who has ever lived, except for Bernie Sanders. Which means that I hate Hillary almost as much as I hate Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, the two wickedest and most power-mad individuals to ever hold the office of POTUS/CIC.

The problem with crooked Hillary is that the evidence shows she could be just as evil, IMO. I mean, the bitch accepts Saudi money via her "Global Initiative" slush fund (all the while never uttering a peep about how that country treats its women like shit)! And she's determined to win the presidency no matter how many lies she needs to tell. Which explains why she's gotten into a contest with Bernie Sanders regarding who can give away the most free stuff!

Because the bitch Hillary Clinton is a lying piece of shit lawyer who is about to be indicted, perhaps, just maybe, the Democrats need to look elsewhere for a candidate? Perhaps they can beg and plead with the studly Jim Webb to accept the nomination?

Yes, Miss Hillary claimed that Colin Powell also had a private email server when he was secretary of state and so she said "what's the big deal"? But this is utter bullshit. The fact of the matter is that NO previous Secretary of State has ever had a private email server running in their home from which they sent and received ALL of their correspondence while in office. The good news for her is that she (arguably) has plausible deniability as to whether or not she knew that the emails were classified. The bad news is the fact that if she asserts this as a defense she looks like a total incompetent and an utter moron.

Then there is also the fact that Hillary Clinton told her family and the President of Egypt that the Benghazi attack was an organized terrorist operation that had absolutely nothing to do with a video and then told the American citizens just the opposite. If that isn't proof-positive that the chick's a fucking liar then nothing is. And she also told this lie to the families of the four victims the same BS story, and that that the government was going to go after the fellow who made some Youtube video! Now she's implying that the families are aLL Lying (this Despite the Fact that the father of Ty Woods Has an in-time journal entry which substantiates his version of the story). SHAME!

But back to Hillary being evil. Do you think she made a deal with Satan to secure the Democrat nomination? I don't, given the fact that Satan is imaginary. But if he were real? Yeah, then I definitely think the shrill, shriveled up old hag would have sold her soul in order to become the leader of the free world. Fuck her!

Perhaps some day a woman might run for the White House who would make a good president. Maybe. Although, perhaps not, given the fact that A) chicks have babies and when raising those babies miss out on life experiences (which explains why any given man, by and large, will be more qualified), and B) women lie constantly (about things such as rape). Hillary herself has lied (and continues to lie) about the rapes committed by her husband.

My point is that the woman president we're waiting for is NOT HRC! Also, should we really have being a woman be one of the factors we use in selecting the leader of the free world? As opposed to choosing the person best qualified for the job (regardless of sex)? So that person will likely ALWAYS be a man. But that isn't sexist. Although the last time out the electorate chose a man, but they chose him just because he was Black! What's next pRogressives? Some transgender for president?

Byline: This outraged commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-241.

On The Jim Webb Presidency That Will Never Be

So, the Democrats rejected him for Bernie (a socialist a-hole/dullard) and Hillary (a crooked piece of shit lawyer). Just because he's a Republican? How deflating is that? Man, has that party ever hit the skids.

And, by "skids" I mean returned to it's FDR Progressive roots (HRC pushed there by that Commie fucker Sanders). As opposed to going in a more "Moderate" direction. By which I mean Conservative. Because Webb used to be Republican. Then he pretended to be a Democrat for awhile. A charade that ended with his being soundly (and I mean SOUNDLY) rejected by the American people. Via polling/failing to fund raise. He never got one vote in the primaries, as he dropped out before any were held.

Yes, this is the man who should be president. If not Gary Johnson. Sure, neither stood/stands a chance, but Webb (if he had obtained the Democratic nomination despite being a Republican) surely would have ascended to the White House. While Gary, even though he is still running, will likely not even get one percent of the popular vote.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still voting for (throwing away my vote on) Gary Johnson. But if the American people had been smart enough to get behind Webb and Webb was the Democratic nominee? I'd be voting for him. BTW, by "smart enough" I mean if they had been fooled into believing Webb was a Democrat and not a Republican. But, unfortunately they were not.

But did you hear that Webb's sore LOSERness caused him to say (despite being a Democrat pretending to be Democrat), "I could vote for Trump, but not Hillary"? Yeah, I'd be sore too if I was as soundly rejected by the electorate as Webb was.

However, as I noted previously, the American people saw through his transparent "Democrat" deception. Even though Webb was hopeful that he could trick them, as he tricked the people of Virginia when he ran AND WON a senate seat as a "Democrat". Albeit a Conservative one. But that was in the South where they like their "Democrats" to be of the Conservative variety. Obviously Webb's "Democrat" act failed when presented to the country as a whole, which is a damn shame. Fuck the voters for being so dumb. By which I mean smart.

Image: Jim Webb is, according to the caption on the pic below, "not your average Democrat". By which (I presume) the captioner meant he's a Republican.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-230.

On Why I Can't Vote For Donald (Although He May Be Our Next President, Which Wouldn't Be So Bad IMO)

Yes, I considered voting for Mr. Trump, but (ultimately) I decided to stick to my original plan of throwing my vote away by casting my ballot for the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. You know, the dude who receives less than 1 percent of the popular vote every single time he's run previously (and zippo electoral votes). Meaning he has absolutely no chance of being elected president.

As for me not voting for Donald, there are two main reasons. A) He's a protectionist/nativist who's obviously never read a single page of Bastiat (mustn't have been on the reading-list at Wharton) and B) the fellow doesn't have the temperament to spearhead the world's largest military or to even be a respectable actor on the world's stage (and in a world that's already filled to the brim with clowns like Merkel, Cameron, Netanyahu, Putin, etc., that's saying quite a bit).

Although he is smart enough to suggest that we should be letting Putin take the lead in Syria. When your enemies are slaughtering each other, I say let them. Not that Mrs. Clinton's all that appreciably better, mind you, but, yeah, if you held a gun to my head, I probably have to pick her. For the comedy factor, I'm saying. Because she's going to be arrested shortly, then tried, convicted and sent to prison. For having her own/private email server and sending classified info via that system.

Although, if the Democratic primary voters select someone (before the voting in November) who is convicted of felonies... well, it should be a cakewalk for the Republican nominee to secure the presidency in such a situation. So we might very well end up with a president Donald J. Trump. And, if you held a gun to my head a 2nd time? I might say that sending Donald to the White House wouldn't be that terrible an outcome.

Byline: This insightful commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-227.

George Clooney Is A Leftist Piece Of Shit!

Apparently it takes $33,000 to meet Hillary Clinton and George Clooney these days. Yeah, that's about $32,999.99 more than I'd be willing to dish out. On a generous day.

I guess George doesn't know that Hillary is heading to the slammer very soon. Because if he did he might think about backing another candidate other than the lying bitch. Jim Webb would have been who I'd have gone with if I were a Democrat. Heck, even as a Libertarian I think I'd have at least considered voting for him over Johnson (given the fact that Johnson has ZERO chance of be selected as our next POTUS).

I mean, of all the Democrats that started out seeking the nomination, all but Jim Web reduced themselves to that level of pandering was sad, nauseating, and disturbing. Flat out. Jim Webb is a war hero, as well as an awesome stud of unquestioned integrity who's accomplished things in both the public AND private sector and who's done so in a consistently bipartisan manner. And, for the record, his being forced to share a debate-stage with four extremely mediocre and hackneyed-ladened surface-thinkers who couldn't come up with an original idea at gunpoint was an outrage! That's how I saw it, folks.

Webb not being selected by the voters by overwhelming margins shows how stupid the electorate has become. Hell yes, this constitutes a loss for the American people, who, instead are voting for either the soon-to-be-convicted lying piece of shit bitch or the Communist USSR-honeymooning economically illiterate boob. But I think both parties' candidates are quite horrible this cycle. Except for Donald Trump. He, IMO, isn't half as bad as the media is making him out to be.

BTW, all the ladies swoon over George Clooney, but IMO Jim Webb is a lot manlier/handsome (hence my previous reference to him as a "stud"). It just amazes me the way that people go crazy whenever George Clooney stars in a movie. And, yes, folks, when I say it amazes me, I mean it COMPLETELY amazes me.

So, no, I'm not really a fan of his acting, although I might concede that he's serviceable in his better parts. But he really needs to stay out of political matters. Unless he had come out for Jim Webb. Then I'd be heaping praise on his acting abilities and good judgement. But HRC? What a frigging self aggrandizing ass horse's ass - as well as a God damned idiot/stooge this Clooney fellow is.

I hate the regressive Left so much, I'd like to punch Clooney in the nose while wearing brass knuckles, then continue punching him until I beat his face to a bloody pulp!

Byline: This insiteful commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-225.

On The Fact That Donald Trump (Or Whoever The Republicans Nominate) Will Likely Be Our Next President (And Hillary Clinton Will Get Prison Time)

Have you heard that Hillary Clinton's lead over Bernie Sanders in New York seems to be shrinking? It's obviously not good news for Mrs. Clinton but if I was her I'd probably be a shitload more concerned about the Justice Department and FBI primaries than the New York one. Because if Miss Hillary loses those two everything else is purely academic.

And I absolutely believe she will. Be indicted and sent up the river, that is. Or I pray she is. I mean, how awesome would that be? Finally, an end to Miss Hillary's life of crime. It's about time, I say. Unfortunately she'll likely only get a few years, instead of the rest of her life. Which she should receive, given the many decades of criminal activity she's been involved in.

Some people say she murdered Vince Foster. Now, I don't know if there is anything to that charge, but I absolutely do think she's guilty of enough other crimes that she should be locked up and the key should be thrown away. Although, yeah, I surely do believe she's capable of murder.

By the way, that means that Comrade Sanders will likely be the Democratic nominee. And be crushed by whoever the Republicans nominate. Which, given the fact that he's won the most votes, should be Donald Trump. But there might be a "brokered convention" and the nomination might be stolen from Mr. Trump. I just hope the nominee isn't Ted Cruz. I'd be content with Trump or Kasich.

Not that I'd vote for either of these guys (I'm a Johnson man). But any Republican would be better than the pantsuit-wearing piece of shit bitch Hillary or the economically illiterate mouth-breathing moron Sanders. We're talking a "lesser of two evils" situation. But Trump or Kasich (not Cruz) would be significantly the lesser of two evils, of that I am 99.9 percent convinced.

But back to Miss Hillary... how many years behind bars do you think she'll get? I hear that Petraeus got 2 years of probation and a 100k fine. Given the fact that what Miss Hillary did was 100 times worse, I says she should get 100 years in prison and a 10 million dollar fine.

Byline: This 100 percent accurate commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-221.

JFK Was A Fiscally Conservative Republican (Just Like MLK)

Was John Fitzgerald Kennedy a fan of Ayn Rand? I don't know. But if he were alive today I'm positive he would be a Libertarian. For his time the facts show that he was a conservative Democrat that could have run as a Republican. This conclusion due to the fact that he warned us about the dangers of big government, AKA "Leviathan".

"As the responsibilities of government become enlarged, there has been a corresponding assumption of authority by the state. It is obvious from the history of the past twenty years that whether we like it or not, whether we be Republicans or Democrats, the government will continue to play an increasingly large part in our lives. The theme of today - the scarlet thread that runs throughout all of the thoughts and actions of people all over the world - is one of resignation of great problems to the all-absorbing hands of the great Leviathan - the state. The trend is not divisible. We in the United States suffer from it, if less intensely". (10/18/1949. From a speech before the Miami Junior Chamber of Commerce). And two months later at the University of Notre Dame, this conclusion: "It is therefore vital that we become concerned with maintaining the authority of the people, of the individual, over the state".

Inspiring words and, yes, light-years different from the statist bull-crap currently emanating from Sanders and even Hillary now. So, you still think that only the Republicans have changed?

As for Martin Luther King Jr... he actually was a Republican. Yeah, I'm sure that, in response to my assertions, many Democrats will say that I'm with those on the Right who are trying to co-opt these figures because they're popular. And, since efforts to sully their reputations have largely failed, attempting to rewrite history and claim they were actually Conservative is a better course of action.

To that I say phooey. Sure, there may be something to these "co-opting" charges, but I say "so what". Personally I think it's a good strategy.

Byline: This insightful commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-217.

Bernie Sanders Is An Insane Lunatic Who Will Destroy Our Republic If Elected!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Firstly, the number of exclamation points I used in the title of post? They are TOTALLY warranted! The reason? Lately I've been thinking that Mrs. Clinton HAS to know that Bernie Sanders is monumentally full of shit and a total lunatic but because the Democratic primary voters are just as outside the mainstream as those on the Republican side she's afraid to bitch-slap him and has even tried to match his Leftist pandering at times!!

I mean, we all know that Hillary Clinton is actually a Moderate to Conservative Democrat and Comrade Sanders is a fucking Socialist, who if elected president, could destroy our Republic! This is exactly why democracies have a penchant to devour themselves (the fact that people when given the choice will almost always vote for those who promise them the most while making others pay for it) and why the Founding Fathers created a Republic instead.

Hopefully we still have enough checks and balances to ward off a total collectivist coup and right out fiscal ship. 'Cause if we don't, watch out. You can be sure that a president Sanders will try his damndest to make our beloved wealthy Makers pay "their fair share". What a fucking asshole. This drooling maniac should be straight-jacketed and locked up in a mental institution. Instead he's running for president? Unbelievable!

Yeah, that's why I'm 100 percent convinced that Donald Trump might not be that bad of a president. Although I'll be voting for Gary Johnson I realize he has no chance of actually getting elected. So Trump getting in might be the best we can hope for. Especially if Bernie Sanders clinches the nomination, Ayn Rand forbid!

Even if it's getting less and less likely... and more and more likely that Hillary will be the nominee (unless she's indicted, convicted, and sent up the river). Yeah, I really think that's a distinct possibility. And then what? A Trump versus Sanders race. Which means that Sanders could actually win! Hopefully we still have enough checks and balances to ward off a total collectivist coup and right out fiscal ship. 'Cause if we don't, watch out.

I might move to Hong Kong.

Byline: This insightful commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-216.

On Our Possible Future President Donald Trump Being Maligned By The Leftist Media

Specifically I'm referring to a recent Yahoo hit-piece that compares Donald Trump to George Wallace, but there are many other examples of unfair treatment from the Leftist media of Mr. Trump. A fact that makes me SO MAD! Which is why I predict that if I patiently wait to see a comparable piece comparing Hillary to Nixon or Sanders to Ho Chi Minh, I'd be waiting forever.

So, yeah, I reject the brain diseased idea that Trump has an "advantage" due to the "free media exposure". Not when all the "free exposure" is negative in nature. More likely it is hurting his campaign rather than helping it. This just goes to show how popular Trump is with the voters... and how likely it is that he will be our next president, I think. Which wouldn't be so terrible, IMO. Sure, I'm for Gary Johnson, but a president Trump? There is no way it could be worse than a Sanders or Clinton presidency. At least, as a Republican, Trump is a fiscal conservative and not a Commie (and I think the facts show that Trump might be more fiscally conservative than your average Republican).

P.S. And what exactly has Trump done to or said about black people that is comparable to George Wallace? I mean, yeah, he said that dumb thing about illegal immigrants and wants a pause on Muslim immigration but a) he never denigrated Mexicans as a whole, only that the illegal ones are rapers, and b) based on that Pew research study (which showed that a majority of citizens of Muslim countries hold views which are 180 degrees diametrical to ours) and the fact that even many of Obama's own security people have warned us of a possible terrorist infiltration of the migrant population, his Muslim pause may not be anywhere near as insane as its being made out to be...

And it's certainly a boatload less draconian than what FDR, that progressive darling, did to the Japanese. Even if Trump pushes for that registry of Muslims he proposed (Trump said he would certainly implement that — absolutely, in reference to a law requiring Muslims in the United States to register in a database). What would be the big deal if that happened? I mean, most of the terrorism comes from the Muslim community, so I think that maybe we should have a registry.

The bottom line here is that Trump is reasonable and pragmatic and the Leftist media referring to him as racist is a vicious smear. And, quite frankly, all these lies about Mr. Trump really make my blood boil! And, that there are large numbers of partisans ON BOTH SIDES that don't want Trump elected? It makes me think that it's possible that Trump might make a very good president.

Byline: This insightful and non-biased commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart, purveyor of defending Donald Trump (our likely 45th president). LLIN-214.

Liberal Regressive Buffoons Can't Stop Bashing Donald Trump (And They Refuse To Point Out How Awesome Gary Johnson Is)

Leftist Jew buffoon Carl Bernstein recently referred to Donald Trump as a "Neo Fascist". Yeah. I just wish that these partisan media hacks would show at least a semblance of consistency. Like, I don't know, maybe also pointing out that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse apparently wants to prosecute global warming skeptics, that a large percentage of public colleges and universities are essentially outlawing freedom of speech, that conservative speakers are routinely shouted down at numerous campuses throughout the country.

That Senator Sanders (another Jew) has literally zero regard for the non-aggression principle and wants to hold a gun to our head and confiscate private property. Frankly it sickens me that so many of these Leftist fascists want to fuck rich Makers up the ass (figuratively) so they can give away more free stuff!

OUTRAGEOUS! Also outrageous? President Obama has used executive orders to make and change laws and to do so in a blatantly political way. And, for the record, it was wrong when Bush did it too. Clearly the Liberal media has no concept of fair. But would that be too much to ask? I mean, why the hell aren't they pointing out how awesome Gary Johnson is? Because they're either Liberal buffoons or Neo-Cons (emphasis on the "con").

However, truth be told, Fox (even though it gives Neo-Cons a platform) is not as bad as MSNBC. Sure, they're both biased, no question about it. But over the past several years, Fox has added Ed Henry, John Roberts, Howie Kurtz, and Maria Bartiromo (hell, they've even added Dennis Kucinich and the ragin' Cajun, James Carville).

Compare that to MSNBC which has done little more than plop additional leftist guttersnipes to its already full-to-the-brim posse of skin-crawlers/stooges. It isn't even a contest at this point, folks. MSNBC is significantly worse.

And MSNBC practically bashes Trump 24-7. That's when they're not airing "Lock Up" reruns. Pathetic. How about some air time for the awesome Gary Johnson, for Christ? This is the man who should be our next president, IMO. Not Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton! But the American electorate is as stupid as a Dunkin Donuts employee who apparently has an inability to process the phrase, "lightly toasted" (yeah, one of those motherfuckers messed up my order). I suppose that Bernie wants to pay these folks $15 an hour, too!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-208.

On Why I Might Vote Donald Trump For President

Steve Hayes recently referred to the Trump candidacy as a "Clown Show", to which I say "maybe". But do I need to remind you that Mr. Hayes currently scrimmages with the "Weekly Standard", a neocon rag that gives both cover and credence to some of the most buffoonish and despicable war-mongers inside the beltway (William Kristol, Fred Barnes, Charles Krauthammer, etc.)?

Yes, Trump has his flaws - NO QUESTION. But at least he doesn't have blood rupturing from his typewriter, for Christ. And, at least he's not a Bible thumper like all of the other Republican hopefuls (to some degree). Or a liar like Hillary (who said Benghazi was the result of some YouTube video when she knew it was a terrorist attack). Or a fucking socialist cocksucker (for christ!) like Bernie Sanders.

I mean, if I knew my vote for Gary Johnson would make the difference between Trump winning or losing my state? Yeah, then I think I might just pull the lever for Trump, god help me. Say what you want about Vladimir Putin, but at least the fellow has a coherent plan when it comes to Syria. And Trump is smart enough to let him take the lead there. When your enemies are slaughtering each other, I say let them.

And I must also give Trump props for his bitch slapping of that loathsome freakazoid Rosie O'Donnell. You know, I used to start fights between kindergarteners when I was a 6th grader (a 12 year-old Don King) and, so, yeah, I can kind of relate.

Anyway, while it's doubtful that I'd vote for Trump... I just might. Aside from Rand Paul, Trump is the only Republican candidate who doesn't appear hell-bent on a second cold war. Also, if the choice was Trump or Sanders, you can bet your ass I'd vote Trump given the fact that he acknowledges the fact that American workers are overpaid (and that we need to do away with the minimum wage).

Have you heard that the world's richest 62 people have as much wealth as the other half of world's population? Yeah, it's good news that inequality has become that great. So, question is... do we want to go backwards by electing a Socialist like Sanders? Or even a conservative Democrat like Hillary (who's also running on handing out free stuff)? Hell no!

Byline: This hate-filled commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of hate blogging. LLIN-197.