Tuesday, October 24, 2017

Bigotry From Clueless White Guy Based On Said Cluelessness

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a bigoted and clueless White guy who loathes the Black Lives Matter movement. According to Mr. Hart BLM is "vile, vulgar, and slimy" and African Americans who agree with the BLM movement are "belly-achers".

So, no surprise that he feels the same way about the Hispanic organization La Raza (AKA the National Council of La Raza, which is now known as UnidosUS).

Willis Hart: On La Raza... It means, the race. THE RACE; a proclamation that if a white group had made it would have been excoriated 24/7. And Hispanic isn't even a fucking race, for Christ (Mexicans for example are 20% European, 20% Native-American, and 60% Mestizo)!! I mean, hello!! (10/23/2017 at 6:19pm).

Wrong. La Raza does not directly translate to "the race". Well, it is "often translated into English as race", but there is more meaning behind the term. "La Raza" isn't simply and just about race. It's actually not about race at all, because (as Willis correctly points out) Mexican isn't a race.

The Spanish term raza translates as "race" or "people", Spanish raza having the meaning of "race, ethnicity; breed, strain, lineage". The term originated in the 1925 book, La Raza Cósmica (English: The Cosmic Race) by the Mexican writer José Vasconcelos. He described la Raza Cósmica as the product of gradual racial mixing that was already underway in the Latin world. Vasconcelos believed that eventually all of the people within the former Spanish Empire would be completely mixed into a new race. The term expresses ethnic or racial pride. (Wikipedia/La Raza).

Note that the originator of the term said "La Raza" is "the product of gradual racial mixing". Does Willis know this? Obviously not. He makes an assumption and gets outraged based on his (incorrect) assumption. BTW, you might also have noted that "The term expresses ethnic or racial pride", which is something else that would very likely cause Hart's blood to boil.

Why is it that non-Whites can have "racial pride" but Whites can't, Hart wonders. His conclusion (I'd bet) is that it's non-White people who are racist (more so than Whites). But the TRUTH is that, when White people say you're inferior (which is what happened here and in Mexico) it isn't racist to try and counter that.

Oh, and yes, there is racism in Mexico.

The enduring taboo subject [in Mexico] is skin color, whether an individual's complexion betrays an allegiance to the Spanish who conquered the Aztec empire in 1521 or the Aztecs who were conquered. It's no exaggeration to say that, in this country and especially in this city [Mexico City], the best, highest-paying, most important jobs often seem to go to those who, in addition to having the best education and the strongest connections, have the lightest skin. (In Mexico, racism hides in plain view by Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor. 11/20/2012).

That an oppressed people form an organization to spread pride is a NATURAL reaction. A White group HAS made such a proclamation, btw. These groups are known as the KKK, Neo Nazis and White Nationalists. They're racists because White people haven't been oppressed!! Not on this continent, in any case. A FACT that the clueless Hartster ignores. If Whites had been oppressed and their taking pride in their race was a push-back against that oppression, the situation would be different. BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN.

When a race that has been historically the perpetrators of oppression takes pride in their race, it's because they're racists. It's because they LIKE the fact that they are members of the oppressor class. Despite their BULLSHIT cries of "reverse racism" and insistence that it's Black and Brown people who are the "real racists".

Willis Hart is one of these people, btw. He is a racist and a bigot in addition to being a clueless White guy. The (deliberate?) cluelessness and racism seemingly go hand-in-hand with these types. Hard to believe he isn't a Trump voter. A Trump defender, yes, but not a Trump voter.

OST #213

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

#trumpdupe Willis Hart Concerned About The Wrong Lies

Why did UAE Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed travel to New York in December of 2016 to meet with members of the Trump transition team, including Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn and Jared Kushner? Yes, Trump was the president-elect at the time, but he was NOT president. Surely such a meeting could wait until Trump was sworn in.

More importantly, why did Bin Zayed enter the US without notifying the Obama Administration, which is customary? This unusual and suspicious act was noted by our intelligence agencies, who decided that Bin Zayed should be surveilled while in the US. Because a foreign leader sneaking into our country might have some national security implications.

So they did that (surveilled Bin Zayed) and passed the intel they gathered up the chain. Although first they blacked out the names of American citizens that Bin Zayed met with. Because Bin Zayed was the subject of the surveillance, not any Americans he met with. American citizens have rights in our country that a foreigner visiting does not. So, in order to protect those rights, the names weren't disclosed.

Susan Rice, in her capacity as President Obama's national security adviser, looked at these reports and decided that, in order to understand what the purpose of the meeting was, knowing the names of who Bin Zayed met with was necessary. So she requested that they be "unmasked". The names, however, would only be revealed to Rice and others on her team (as well as the president, I presume). Point is, the names were not publically disclosed. Or even disclosed to a large number of people within the Obama administration.

According to the Right, this is what Trump was talking about when he (via Tweet) accused President Obama of wiretapping him. But that's bullshit. It was Bin Zayed who was being surveilled, not Trump. Everything that was done was on the up-and-up and 100 percent legal.

Their complaint now is that Susan Rice, when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (a Republican representing California) told the world that he had discovered that Susan Rice requested that the American names (in the intel report on Bin Zayed) be unmasked, lied. Nunes said "it was possible the access to NSA information could have been used improperly for political purposes". An unproven accusation. Also Trump "won". So what were the "political purposes" the intel was used for?

None according to President Donald Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster. He said Susan Rice did nothing wrong. Anyway, after Nunes whined (in an effort to validate Trump's "Obama wiretapped me" tweet), Susan Rice denied that she unmasked Trump transition team members.

(Note that my transcript below is of a YouTube created by a #trumpdupe going by the moniker Hard Bastard. This would be the same idiot Willis cited when he authored a post about how CNN faked a rescue by one of their reporters of a Hurricane Harvey victim. Even though the rescue was real... see OST #210).

Transcript of discussion between Judy Woodruff of PBS Newshour and Susan Rice on 3/22/2017.

Judy Woodruff: ...in the last few hours we've been following this disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that, in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, after President Trump had been elected, that he, and the people around him, may have been caught up in the surveillance of foreign individuals. And their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?

Susan Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today. I mean, let's back up and recall where we have been. The president of the United States, accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower...

Hard Bastard Commentary: And he did biotch! he did it! *laughs*.

Susan Rice: Nothing of the sort occurred.

Hard Bastard Commentary: Lie.

This idiot "Hard Bastard" laughs a lot during his YouTubes. Anyway, it is easy to see why the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart loves Mr. Bastard's Youtube #trumpdupe bullshit. He's a fake news fool.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that We Now Know with Absolute Certainty that Susan Rice Lied Through Her Molars On PBS Earlier this Year Regarding the Unmasking of Trump Officials [Hard Bastard Video, see bottom of post].

And how is the media responding to this? Let's just say that they don't seem too concerned (the fact that they haven't mentioned the lie, the fact that they've have been spinning like a top to make it seem like her actions were justified, the fact that they've been doubling-down on the thoroughly discredited Russian narrative, etc). (9/18/2017 at 4:38pm).

There is no need for the media "make it seem like her actions were justified", because they WERE justified! Which is why, as per a 4/12/2017 CNN News story, an unnamed "congressional intelligence source", "described the requests made by Rice as normal and appropriate for officials who serve in that role to the president". A determination that Trump's own national security advisor, McMaster, agreed with.

So why did Rice (on the PBS Newshour) deny knowing what Nunes was talking about? It was because she "wanted to win another news cycle" according to David French of the National Review (in a 9/14/2017 article).

So Susan Rice didn't tell the complete truth. To "win the news cycle" or for some other reason. I don't know. I do note, however, that in the PBS Newshour video she pivots back to Trump's idiotic tweet. Her "I know nothing about this" was not the truth, but her "nothing of the sort occurred" IS accurate. Obama never wiretapped Trump Tower. The laughing idiot Hard Bastard is wrong. Willis says nothing about that. Instead he's offended by inaccuracies from Susan Rice. Inaccuracies from Trump aren't worth mentioning. Even though the moron whose video he puts on his blog repeats the Trump "Obama wiretapped me" lie.

President Obama did NOT order Trump Tower wiretapped. What happened was that "people around him, may have been caught up in the surveillance of foreign individuals" (as per the Judy Woodruff question to Susan Rice). Susan Rice said she didn't know anything about it, even though she did. So she "lied". I don't know what her reasoning was for being less than honest, but I don't really care. Because there are bigger lies and more important questions to be answered.

Why did Bin Zayed travel to NY to meet with president-elect Trump (without informing the Obama administration)? I've heard that the meeting was part of an "effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump". WTF is up with all this back-channeling between Trump and Russia, especially BEFORE Trump was inaugurated? Did the subject of discussion have something to do with Trump and Russia colluding?

IMO the answer is YES. We should be looking into it to find out, at least. Willis, of course says no, don't look into it. Because the "Russian narrative" has already been "thoroughly discredited". "Thoroughly discredited" because the metadata attached to the WikiLeaked DNC emails shows that "the download occurred at a rate that was too fast for the internet". Except that the metadata that's being looked at is what exists after the files were passed from the Russian hackers that stole them to Julian Assange. And (hello!) metadata can be manipulated! Motherboard (an online tech news publication by Vice Media) reports that "the metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings".

Proof that Willis Hart is a #trumpdupe. He focuses in on "lies" from Susan Rice, but ignores lies from the Trump Administration. Why did Devin Nunes meet with someone secretly at the White House prior to his press conference about the unmasking? As per NBC News "it's unclear why Nunes would have to go to the White House to seek a secure location to view classified material, since his own committee has a secure room in the Capitol where Nunes and his aides review secret documents on a daily basis".

It was "unclear" because Nunes lied about using the White House as a secure location. He went there because someone at the White House was his source. Bloomberg's Eli Lake says "this distinction is important because it raises questions about the independence of the congressional investigation Nunes is leading".

Nunes, who has referred to the investigation as a "witch hunt" (parroting Trump), lied because his goal in "investigating" the Trump-Russia investigation is to exonerate Trump. As opposed to looking at the facts and reaching a conclusion based on those facts. That's why lied about individuals at the White House being his source.

But the Hartster is not at all concerned about these consequential lies. Instead he focuses on an inconsequential lie from Susan Rice. And, if the purpose of Susan Rice's lie was to "win another news cycle" as David French says, then it surely is completely inconsequential. As opposed to Nunes' lie, which was to facilitate the clearing of the Trump Administration without a proper investigation (something he clearly has no interest in doing because he's already decided there's nothing to the allegations).


Video: Hard Bastard says "Susan Rice Lied About Unmasking Trump Campaign Members, Media Lauds Her". While the video runs over 20 minutes, I only watched until just under 9 minutes, so I don't know what Hard Bastard bullshit this #trumpdupe spews in the remaining 11 minutes.

OST #212

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Racist Scumbag Blogger Outraged At People Protesting KKK & Nazis!

Sometimes you just have to shake your head in disbelief. Like when the racist-in-chief insisted that (in regards to the events in Charlottesville) both sides were to blame. And that, on the Nazi/KKK side, there were some "very fine people".

Sentiment the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart apparently is in agreement with. Although he, unlike Trump, never even said that Nazis and KKKers were in the wrong (I refer to Trump's 2nd scripted and reluctantly read statement). Because ALL Hart's outrage is directed at the people protesting racism.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Hordes of Young, Lost, Stupid, Illiberal, and Fully Indoctrinated College Students Apparently Think that by Shouting People Down, Tearing Down Statues, and Calling Anyone Who Disagrees with Them a Nazi or a Racist, They Are Somehow Putting On Display Virtue and Moral Superiority. Not a legacy that I'd be proud of and I seriously doubt that down the road they'll be proud of it, either (those that ultimately develop critical thinking skills, I'm saying). (9/9/2017 at 8:28am).

Why shouldn't people carrying Nazi and Confederate rebel flags be called a Nazis or a racists? They're carrying the flags, so they're OBVIOUSLY self-identifying as such. Also, WTF is wrong with speaking out against these things? If people have the free speech right to protest the removal of statues honoring traitors, surely other people (non racists) have the right to counter-protest? Apparently the Hartster believes they do not.

BTW, all these Confederate statues were NOT erected immediately following the end of the Civil war (1865), but during the Jim Crow/KKK-ascendant era (1900-1910), and then again (more monuments built) during the Civil Rights era (1955-1960). Obviously the point of the statues was not to "honor our history" but as a message to African Americans. "We liked it when you were slaves and don't be getting it into your heads that you're in any way equal" is what these statues are meant to say to Black people.

They were built to "to physically symbolize white terror against blacks" (the phrase used by the author of the 8/15/2017 Mother Jones article "The Real Story Behind All Those Confederate Statues").

It's long past time for these monuments to White superiority to go. We need to get rid of them. The people who want to keep them (people who took to the streets chanting "Blood and Soil") are the illiberal ones. They are narrow minded and bigoted. As are the people who support them (Willis Hart and his ilk). They are incredibly illiberal.

The counter-protesting "hordes" aren't putting on a "display of virtue and moral superiority" (to make themselves feel good about themselves, I guess)... they are counter-protesting because they are genuinely outraged. They are also in disbelief that this shit is still an issue in 2017 (I know I am, at least). But to Willis Hart it's "indoctrination"... to not be a racist! Or tolerant of racists, at least. Some of them are "very fine people", after all.

For the record, I am ANGRY that Trump is emboldening the "Alt-Right". Everyone who doesn't lack critical thinking skills should be. Because racism is STUPID. And people who think that the rest of us should sit back and say nothing because chanting "Jews will not replace us" while marching and carrying Nazi and Confederate rebel flags is free speech... these are the people lacking virtue and morals! Because they stand with the Nazis and "slavery was cool" enthusiasts.

As for why Willis Hart stands with racists and against people protesting racism... obviously it is because he is a racist and a bigot himself. I mean, condemning racism is an easy one. Although it's a test the so-called president also failed. Explaining why Willis is still writing screeds about how horrible Hillary Clinton is. And is largely silent about Donald Trump. Except to criticize people who don't like Donald Trump.

And (can you believe it?) he also blames the Left for these racist scumbags crawling out from under their rocks to march and protest in public! "What do you expect" he says. What with the Left "slandering" Whites as racist (HRC's whole "deplorables" comment, etc). Telling the truth, in other words. Un-f*cking believable! Although perhaps not so much, given the fact that Willis actually authored a pro-KKK post.

OST #211

Tuesday, September 5, 2017

CNN Faked A Harvey Rescue According To Trump Dupe Willis Hart

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart may not have voted for Donald Trump, but he surely is a #trumpdupe. Not as big a dupe as someone who voted for, and continues to support everything the moron-in-chief does, but one thing Willis has made clear is that he's bought (hook, line and sinker) the BLOTUS' labeling of CNN as "fake news"

Willis Hart: On the Fact that it Looks as if CNN Has Staged Yet Another News Story [Video]. ...and with them being the heroes of course... Fake news indeed. (9/4/2017 at 10:50pm).

Here is the video Willis posted (32 minutes. Of which I watched the first few minutes).

Apparently this video was made by a conspiracy-minded "CNN is fake news" peddling Youtuber who "proves" that CNN faked a rescue of someone (in TX in the aftermath of hurricane Harvey) who accidentally drove into deep water (and his truck started drifting away).

So how did this dumbass (AKA "Hard Bastard") discover that the rescue was "faked"? The accident occurred while CNN reporter Drew Griffin was on camera. When he ran to help the Youtuber noticed (and pointed out on his video) that Drew was wearing shorts. However, when he pulled the driver from his vehicle (the guy who'd just driven into a river and whose vehicle was drifting away) Drew was wearing pants. Obviously he stopped to change before running to the rescue. Proof the "rescue" was staged.

However, as Snopes points out, there were a number of CNN employees there beside Drew Griffin (off camera). And they were all wearing red CNN jackets. When the Youtuber froze the video he had on the leg of Drew Griffin (showing Drew was wearing shorts)... it wasn't Drew Griffin but another CNN employee.

The accident was NOT staged, in other words. And WHY THE HELL would changing from shorts to pants be something someone faking a rescue would do? Obviously, that the man in shorts was someone else makes a hell of a lot more sense. But the stupid gullible Hartster believes that CNN faked the rescue and that CNN is fake news. Because they report negatively on Trump, apparently.

Snopes: We were also able to view the raw footage of CNN’s rescue, and can confirm that the only things of note edited out of the original footage were a few off-camera curse words and roughly 90 seconds of a blurry street sign.

This conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that Drew Griffin changed from shorts to pants in the middle of his report. And although we still aren’t sure how this detail would be relevant in the staging of a rescue, this video actually shows two different men, Griffin and his producer Brian Rokus, wearing similar red jackets. (Did CNN Stage a Hurricane Harvey Rescue Video? Claim: CNN was caught staging a dramatic rescue during Hurricane Harvey. Verdict: FALSE).

BTW, I'm pretty sure that Willis Hart hates Snopes. I distinctly remember citing Snopes in response to Willis BS on WYD. I can't find it via Google, however. I'm thinking the exchange must have taken place in a thread that the blog proprietor Lisa deleted. That, or I'm just not searching on the correct words. In any case, I'm fairly certain that Willis is not a fan of Snopes (his buddy Rusty thinks CNN is the same as HuffPo). Surely he'd dismiss this debunk. I'd be quite surprised if he accepted it, given his hate for CNN.

Among other news organizations he hates, including MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, PBS and many others, I'm sure. Because he's with Trump in calling any story that doesn't conform to his "fake news" narrative. But these organizations aren't fake news. "Fake news" had (and has) a specific meaning within the context of the 2016 POTUS election (and the aftermath).

The Russians employed thousands of paid internet trolls and botnets to push out disinformation and fake news at high volume focusing this material onto your Twitter and Facebook feeds and flooding our social media with misinformation. This fake news and disinformation was then hyped by the American media echo chamber and our own social media networks to reach and potentially influence millions of Americans. (Real News About Fake News by Robert Schlesinger. US News and World Report 7/12/2017).

Fake news helped Trump win. He co-opted the term to refer to actual news organizations that report on him negatively (though truthfully). And Willis Hart is absolutely a full bore Trump dupe for buying into this 100%-the-opposite-of-the-truth BULLSHIT.

Image: Pic attached to a 1/11/2017 Washington Star News (which describes itself as "news from the right") article that says "during his first press conference since July, President-elect Donald trump confirmed what many journalists, citizens, and fact-checkers have long suspected: CNN is fake news". Right. Trump "confirmed" that CNN is fake news. Just like Willis Hart "confirms" that most of what he blogs about is factual (simply by using the phrase "on the fact" in starting a large majority of his posts).

Additionally, re the Hard Bastard video... Donald J Trump (not verified) replies to the video, writing "CNN VERY FAKE NEWS". Note that the YouTube account Donald J. Trump for President is verified (has a check next to the account name).

OST #210

Sunday, August 27, 2017

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

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

Willis Hart: On the Fact that of the 19,632 Muslim Migrants that Flooded Into Finland During the First Nine Months of 2015, Over 15,000 of Them Were Adult Males and Only 2% Were Actually Syrian [Sputnik News Link].

Yeah, I guess that "women and children first" is only something that the oppressive white Christian West observes these days. Oh well. (8/26/2017 at 11:32am).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OST #209

Tuesday, August 1, 2017

That HRC Had Staffer Murdered For Being The Source Of WikiLeaks DNC Material (As Opposed To Being Hacked At Direction Of Putin) Is Fake News Concocted by Trumpers & Approved By Trump

Ed Butowsky is "A Dallas, Texas based financial adviser and frequent Fox Business Network commentator" (per Wikipedia). Rod Wheeler is a private detective and former DC homocide detective ("another black man who doesn't tow the party-line" according to Willis Hart).

As per an 8/1/2017 Slate article "Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide [Seth Rich]". This is a conspiracy theory that says Russia never "hacked" our election. Instead, the DNC WikiLeaked material was downloaded by a disgruntled staffer named Seth Rich who passed it on to Julian Assange.

Later, Rich was murdered at the direction of Hillary Clinton. Because the Clintons have a long history of murdering anyone who crosses them (i.e. the Clinton Body Count, a conspiracy theory that says "Bill Clinton has assassinated fifty or more of his associates").

Russia was absolutely NOT involved according to this conspiracy theory. Could this be what actually happened? Is the "Putin directed hackers to steal the DNC's data" narrative bullshit? Willis Hart says YES. "Can we finally read this stupid theory its last rites?" the Libertarian blogger asks in a recent post (one among many in which he presents evidence "debunking" the Left's "narrative" that Russian hackers stole the DNC's data).

But it's actually Willis who is buying into fake news. This according to a recent Daily Beast article.

Trump Told Fox News to Frame Dems for Seth Rich Murder, Lawsuit Claims [excerpt] Private investigator Rod Wheeler sued the cable-TV network in federal court on Tuesday, alleging it falsely quoted him in an article saying slain DNC staffer Seth Rich had contact with Julian Assange's rogue publishing operation. Wheeler accuses Fox News regular and pro-Trump money manager Ed Butowsky of coordinating between the channel and the White House in an effort to frame Rich for the leaks and imply Democrats had a hand in his death.

Wheeler's lawsuit includes screenshots of text messages with Butowsky, including an exchange two days before the article was published in which Butowsky wrote: "president [Trump] just read the article. He wants the article out immediately. It's now all up to you. But don't feel the pressure". (8/1/2017 article by Andrew Kirell).

This was in regards to a piece (by Fox News contributor and journalist Malia Zimmerman) that Fox later retracted. Because it didn't meet their "standards" (they said). But Sean Hannity picked up the gauntlet. Even after being warned by Fox to drop the story, he continued to push the conspiracy theory.

Sean Hannity (5/23/2017): "For those accusing me of pushing a conspiracy theory, you are the biggest phony hypocrites in the entire world. This issue, it's so big now that the entire Russia collusion narrative is hanging by a thread. If... there was a whistleblower within the DNC - a truth-teller that was actually the source for WikiLeaks, not Russia - working with the Trump campaign. These are questions that I have a moral obligation to ask... (Hannity on Seth Rich coverage: "I retracted nothing" by Joe Concha. The Hill, 5/23/17).

My Theory? Putin had Seth Rich murdered so he could frame him for the DNC "leak". Or maybe it was Trump or Trump operatives. Google "Trump murdered Seth Rich" and you'll get results from others theorizing that this is what could have happened.

Although it might have been a random murder. One thing that is certain is that the murder was not directed by HRC. Wheeler's text screenshots prove that theory is fake news. Rod Wheeler "was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC e-mails" (which damaged his reputation). This according to Wheeler's lawyer.

So, can we finally read this stupid theory its last rites? I doubt Willis will be convinced. His spin will be (if he reads this story) that Wheeler IS another black man who tows the party-line. In that, previously Willis thought Wheeler was saying things he liked (confirming the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory) - but now he's saying Fox "fabricated two quotations and attributed them to [me]" (to support their bogus Seth Rich murder narrative in which Trump was involved).

Video: Rod Wheeler appears on The Beat with Ari Melber to explain his lawsuit (8/1/2017). Wheeler claims that Fox News lured him into a plot to help Trump's White House (12:18).

OST #208

Friday, May 26, 2017

Willis Hart 180 Degree Flip Flop: Now He's A 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Nutjob!

"My opinion has always been that while George Bush (or at least people in his administration) may indeed have lied about WMD" was the absurd and laughable lie from the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart I addressed in my last commentary (OST #206).

Well, the absurdity continues; now the Hartster says gwb's Secret Service detail "already knew that he wasn't a target" (and that's why they let him sit in that classroom reading the goat book for so long. As opposed to immediately hustling him out of there).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even After a) Both of the Twin Towers Had Been Struck, b) it Had Been Determined that More than a Few Other Planes Were Still Unaccounted for, and c) Mr. Bush's Visit to that Grammar School In Florida Had Been Fully Publicized, the Secret Service Allowed President Bush to Remain In that Classroom for Another Fifteen Minutes or so (an Act that if the Official Story Was True, Would Have Put Not Just Bush In Danger but Those Kids as Well).

So yet again, we're either looking at incompetence to a criminal degree or complicity (they didn't get Bush out because they already knew that he wasn't a target). Scary shit, huh? (5/24/2017 at 8:53pm).

So the Secret Service knew that terrorists were going to crash planes into the Twin Towers? That would indicate that the conspiracy was BIG. And yet, nobody has ever squealed. BTW, I have suggested incompetence or complicity, but all I ever got was laughs on Hart's blog (back when I was not banned).

Now he's suggesting the Secret Service let bush sit there reading the goat book because they knew he wasn't a target?! That's a bridge too far for me. I think he was simply stunned. I mean, I think he knew an attack was coming (and wanted it to occur, as per PNAC's desire for "a new Pearl Harbor), but that he didn't know exactly what it would be. That, or he was stunned just because he didn't know when it would happen, and he was thinking "this is it".

"U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes". Additionally, the Phoenix FBI "recommended an urgent nationwide review of flight schools". The worry was that students at such schools might be found to have terrorist connections. According to Dick Durbin, who read an FBI memo on the matter, "that should have been fair warning" (Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11).

Yet, even though these warnings were received (some months before the attacks) NOTHING was done. So, yeah, I'm with Willis on this one. Even though I've held this opinion all along, while Willis has only recently blogged about bush complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Over a decade later!

Although Hart lies and says he has ALWAYS held this opinion. What a bunch of bullshit! As I previously pointed out, NOW he says bush possibly lied about WMD, but when I wrote a comment on his blog saying this, he responded by writing "you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public".

Now he goes even further than I ever have, suggesting the conspiracy was much bigger! So big that the Secret Service knew bush was not a target! Why wouldn't he be a target? Because there was coordination between the terrorists and bush? I mean, what else could explain this assertion?

And that (coordination between OBL and gwb) is REALLY out there, IMO. This is 9/11 Truther stuff. Is Willis going to next be suggesting that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that it was a missile and not an airplane that hit the Pentagon? (two conspiracy theories I think are complete bullplop, for the record).

Image: Despite being notified by his Secret Service detail that America was under attack, bush decided to finish reading "The Pet Goat". He remained in the classroom for almost another half hour! As opposed to quickly leaving to see if he was needed to make any Commander-in-Chief decisions. Possibly because he guessed that the attacks might be ongoing and he wanted to give the terrorists more time to complete their mission? "It's almost as if they (and, yeah, I'm talking Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) wanted the planes to hit", Willis says.

OST #207