Willis Hart Idiocy Re Blue Tarp Man "Shot in the Face With His Hands In The Air & Several More Times While He Was Lying On The Ground"

More racist Rightwing stoogery from the supposed Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, again in service of sliming the Black Lives Matter movement.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that an Eyewitness of the Shooting of Lavoy Finicum (a Participant in the Oregon Rancher Standoff) Has Stated that Mr. Finicum Was Shot in the Face with His Hands in the Air and Several More Times While He Was Lying on the Ground... Something tells me that the left isn't going to champion this "hands up, don't shoot" narrative like they did the prior one (the fact that the victim was white, conservative, a militia member, a gun-rights activist, etc., the fact that the killers were the federal government during a Democratic administration, etc.). Just a guess. P.S. Me, I'll be waiting for the evidence (cop-cam videos, pictures of the autos, autopsy results, etc.), thank you (the fact that I will not do to this law enforcement officer what the knuckle-dragging and race-baiting left did to Officer Wilson - NO WAY). (1/28/2016 AT 9:55pm).

Sure, you're going to wait for the evidence. That's why you posted this bullplop as soon as you read it (from a Rightwing "news" source, no doubt).

Sorry Republicans, LaVoy Finicum Didn't Have His Hands Up When He Was Shot. [article excerpt] As much as many conservatives would like to believe that the Bundy militia were merely innocent victims of the government, a picture is emerging that makes it clear the now-deceased LaVoy Finicum intentionally provoked a reaction from the law enforcement officers after trying to flee arrest. Finicum was part of a large group of the Bundy militants who were stopped by the FBI en route to yet another propaganda appearance in a nearby town. Rather than simply let the group go unimpeded, the authorities finally decided to act. ... Sadly, it was not entirely surprising to learn that it was Finicum who resisted arrest. He had frequently claimed that he would rather die in a shootout than be arrested. Whether that was his intention on the night of his death is unclear, but his hostility towards law enforcement and his paranoia certainly contributed. Not everyone is convinced, however. Almost immediately after Finicum's death was announced, right-wing sympathizers began spinning a conspiracy that he had been executed with his hands up while his fellow "patriots" watched. The myth wasn't relegated to the backwaters of the internet, either. Soon, even sitting Republican politicians and Bundy's own Facebook page were repeating the tale. Unfortunately for this convenient narrative, witnesses of the arrest say Finicum was the provoker. Melvin Lee was behind the Bundy convoy during the arrest. He recounts how Finicum tried to flee, and the wound up charging the officers. "There happened to be some arguments between the guys in the truck. Somehow they got Ryan Payne pulled out of the truck, apparently. LaVoy had took off - he ended up hitting a snowbank, I guess, trying to get around the blockade. After he hit that snowbank, he came out of that truck and he charged at the law enforcement, as I understand it". (Addicting Info article. 1/27/2016).

Yeah, no, the Left is NOT going to "champion this hands up, don't shoot narrative" because Lavoy Finicum (AKA Blue Tarp Man) did NOT raise his arms indicating he was surrendering. The eyewitness (Melvin Lee) confirms Finicum's hands were not up. Note that Willis does not name the "eyewitness" that he says saw the shooting in his post. But that might be because - if you're going to lie about what you "saw" you don't need to actually see it ("eyewitness" isn't an eyewitness).

But on this I will be consistent, Willis... and ask, couldn't they have tased him or hit him with a bean bag round... or something? They did PLAN to arrest these people, so they could have brought non-lethal weapons along and had them at the ready. They could have even let him go (and tow his truck after he ran away). Leave his arrest for another day. They already got the main guy, Ammon Bundy. So call it a day, I say. That way there is no risk that someone dies.

If this is ANOTHER unnecessary death I will denounce it the same as I denounced the unnecessary death of Michael Brown. On the other hand, if he was carrying a gun or had a gun on him? Well, maybe they had no choice. Remember that Finicum said he'd rather be killed than be arrested. Also remember that the authorities knew for a fact that they were dealing with armed individuals (Finicum had a loaded 9mm semi-automatic handgun in the pocket when he was shot... unlike Michael Brown, who was UNARMED).

And there is also the fact that one of these militia idiots actually shot (and killed) another militia idiot earlier in the month.

Militia Movement Leader Fatally Shoots Fellow Patriot Between the Eyes in Drunken Dispute [article excerpt] Vincent Smith, a right-wing organizer for the Paul Revere 2016 Final March to Restore America, fatally shot his co-founder Charles Carter in what appears to be self-defense during a drunken argument. The two men were organizing the march from the west coast to Washington D.C. with the intent of "removing the corrupt leadership that has taken over our beloved country and ousted her God and constitution". (1/13/2016 US Uncut article by Hugh Wharton).

Yes, this took place in Grayson County TX and not Oregon, but I think this isn't surprising (one idiot shoots another idiot while planning to overthrow the government they view as "illegimitate"). Obviously this shows that extreme caution is warranted around armed idiots (as the Oregon Bundy-lead militia morons clearly are).

Willis (who frequently claims consistency) takes the side of the cops when the gunned down individual is Black, but here immediately goes with a false narrative that has a White man being gunned down (shot in face, then a few more times to make sure he's dead when he's lying on the ground). He is consistent with his racism, I guess. And race baiting, which he does here as well with his reference to the "hands up, don't shoot narrative", which he has previously referred to as a "damned lie" and a "virulent lie".

The "virulent lie" from ANOTHER commentary where defends the law-breaking ranchers and refers to Montel Williams as a "fucking racist" (OST #92). Is he going to refer to this Finicum shot in the face baloney as a "virulent lie" when the evidence he's waiting for comes out?

Anyway, is it just me, or does anyone else find it disturbing that Willis defends Rightwing extremists (at least some of whom subscribe to the sovereign citizen nuttery that says "the United States government is illegitimate" and are considered by the FBI (some groups) to be domestic terrorists... but continually slams the BLM movement, lies about what they're protesting about and is "quite insulted" when Black people "bellyache" about cops shooting UNARMED Black suspects (OST #90).

Video: "On at least two occasions, Finicum reaches his right hand toward a pocket on the left inside portion of his jacket", Greg Bretzing, special agent in charge for the FBI in Portland, said in a statement. "He did have a loaded 9mm semi-automatic handgun in the pocket" (2:41).

OST #101

Concerning The Willis Hart Obsession With Rightwing Spun Fiction Re Hillary Clinton "Lying To Benghazi Families"

More Rightwing stoogery from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, again in service of sliming Hillary Clinton with lies.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Mrs. Clinton Told HER Family One Thing About Benghazi (i.e., that it Was a Planned Terrorist Attack) While Telling the Families of the Four Victims a Totally Different Thing (i.e., that it Was the Result of Some Youtube Video and that the Government Was Going to Go After the Fellow Who Made it) and Has Since Implied 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)... This woman is so venal and, while I agree with those on the left that Trump is a pecker-head, I really have to ask you here, has the man ever done anything as underhanded as this? I'm suspecting that he hasn't. (1/26/2015 AT 3:59pm).

First of all, who the f*ck does Willis think bribed (as per the definition of venal) Hillary to blame the Youtube video for Benghazi?

Secondly, Hillary DID tell her family (as well as a number of others) that Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack - and later (not "while") she DID tell the families of the four victims that the attack had something to do with the Innocence of Muslims YouTube video (IOM).

But Hillary did NOT lie! In both instances she was passing along the information she thought was accurate AT THE TIME!

Although the Rightwing "news media watchdog" Accuracy in Media goes with the "lie" BS as well.

"Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group", Hillary e-mailed Chelsea at 11:12pm on September 11, 2012 – even as the incursion raged on. At 3:04pm the next day, the then-secretary of state also spoke the truth to Hisham Qandil, prime minister in Egypt's Islamist Muslim Brotherhood government. She told him by phone: "We know the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film". It was a planned attack – not a protest. Based on the information we saw today, we believe that the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda". And yet, three days later, she flat-out lied to grieving American citizens about "an awful Internet video that we had nothing to do with". (13 Hours Confirms Obama's and Hillary Clinton's Lies about Benghazi by Deroy Murdock. Accuracy in Media 1/25/2016).

This Hillary "lied" BS apparently tracks back to a Conway Daily Sun (a New Hampshire paper) article.

...she [Hillary Clinton] then told George Stephanopoulos that she didn't tell the families the attack was a demonstration about a film. (Clinton Talks Iraq and Benghazi With The Sun Ed Board by Daymond Steer. 12/30/2015).

But Hillary's "no" was in response to George Stephanopoulos asking her "did you tell them it was not the film?". To which Hillary answered "no". As in, NO, she didn't tell them it (the attack) was not about the film - she told them it was about the film (as the transcript confirms). And she told that that because that is what they believed at the time.

According to The Benghazi Hoax (an e-book by David Brock and Ari Rabin-Havt which I have read) "Reuters correspondent Hadeel al Shalchi says that she "reported what people told [her] they saw that day, all of whom she met face to face".

Hadeel al Shalchi's Reuters reporting says "there were protesters present when the U.S. consulate in Benghazi was attacked" and the assailants were described as "part of a mob blaming America for a film they said insulted the Prophet Mohammad" (Reuters' Early Report Of Protesters At Libya Attack Raises Questions by Michael Calderone. HuffPo 10/15/2012).

It is true that some in the Administration (including Hillary Clinton) originally believed that the Islamist militia group Ansar al Sharia was responsible for the attack. Because (among other reasons) Ansar al-Sharia said it was them via Facebook. But they later denied responsibility.

After which the State Department produced a report that said the attack had something to do with the IOM Youtube video. A report that was shaped by spokeswoman Victoria Nuland (a former Dick Cheney aid). Nuland insisted a reference to al-Sharia be deleted for political reasons. She says she was concerned that the inclusion of that information "could be abused by members of Congress to beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings" (Benghazi Talking Points Revisions Pushed By State Department).

So, just because we all eventually found out that there was no link between the attack and the IOM video, that does not mean Hillary Clinton "lied". There is no proof she lied. And this charge that Hillary has "since implied that the families are ALL lying" is also bullshit (as the video below proves).

As noted in the 10/24/2012 Reuters' article Clinton: Facebook Post About Benghazi Attack Not Hard Evidence, "intelligence experts caution that initial reports from the scene of any attack or disaster are often inaccurate"... although, in this instance, it appears the initial reports were correct and Ansar al-Sharia was responsible. Although militia leader Ahmed Abu Khattala (the Benghazi leader of Ansar al-Sharia) did also claim that the attack was in retaliation for the video. Even though "subsequent investigations determined... the attacks were premeditated" (Source)

Maybe there was not that much "fog of war" going on as there were people acting based on politics (according to David Brooks the "CIA... went into intense blame-shifting mode, trying to shift responsibility [and] out of that bureaucratic struggle, all the talking points were reduced to mush"), but there absolutely were some questions (as the Reuters reporting shows) and surely ALL possibilities (of what/who was responsible for the attack) needed to be investigated.

By the way, I should note that the "politics" involved were not the politics others (including Willis Hart) have alleged, which woulf be that the Obama Administration went with the IOM video sparking the attack because it being an al Qaeda affiliated terrorist attack conflicted with their "al Qaeda on the run" narrative (and the truth would hurt Obama's reelection chances).

A narrative they did not have, btw. As the authors of The Benghazi Hoax point out "Obama... never sought to declare an early end to America's stepped-up operations against terrorism" (see SWTD #230 for more information. This commentary, btw contains excerpted portions of that commentary).

The bottom line here is that it is NOT a "fact" that HRC "told her family one thing about Benghazi (or anyone else) WHILE telling the families of the four victims a totally different thing", despite what the Rightwing stooge Willis Hart thinks. Which he ABSOLUTELY is acting as in regards to HRC, whom he has been bashing non-stop on his blog for awhile. Along with Bernie Sanders. The Republican candidates? Not so much.

Video: George Stephanopoulos (ABC This Week 12/6/2015) asks Hillary Clinton "did you tell them it was not the film?". Hillary's answer is NO, she did tell the families that the attack and video were linked.

See also: Rep Alan Grayson On The Republican Charge That Hillary Clinton Did Something Illegal Or Dishonest Re Benghazi (1/28/2016) DSB #31.

Supporting Document
[DSD #21] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Suffers From A Bad Case Of (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he criticizes HRC, including in regards to the fake Benghazi scamdal).

OST #100

On Willis Hart's Trumpesque Misogynist Bashing Of Hillary Clinton For An Alleged Sex Crime Allegedly Committed By Her Husband

Clearly the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is no fan of Hillary Clinton, but IMO the following commentary crosses a line.

Willis Hart: On Mrs. Clinton's Claim that All Women Should be Believed When it Comes to Accusations of Sexual Assault... [Picture of Juanita Broaddrick]. Alrighty then. (1/19/2016 AT 1:13pm).

Note: Juanita Broaddrick is a former nursing home administrator from Arkansas who alleged in 1999 that United States President Bill Clinton raped her two decades earlier (copied from Wikipedia).

Not that you'd know any of this if you read Willis' post, which does not identify the person in the picture nor contain any information regarding the incident in question.

During a campaign event, one audience-member asked Clinton "You say that all rape victims should be believed, but would you say that about [Bill Clinton's accusers] Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and, or Paula Jones? Should we believe them as well?" "Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved on evidence", responded Clinton. (Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Says Hillary Should Answer for Husband's History).

I guess Hillary believes that these accusers are now to be "disbelieved on evidence". Frankly I don't know what happened, and the truth is nobody can say for certain. Point is, Hillary answered Willis' "alrighty then".

But my question is - is Hillary Clinton responsible for crimes her husband might have committed? Should allegations against Bill Clinton harm Hillary's campaign for the presidency? You know, given the fact that, even if the allegations are true (which they have never been proven to be), Bill likely lied to Hillary as well (I do not believe HRC knew of the rape and thanked Broaddrick for her silence).

In any case, note that Willis doesn't bring up (has never commented on) the rape allegations against Donald Trump (from his ex-wife Ivana who previously claimed that The Donald tore her clothes off and violently assaulted her).

This would be the same Trump who recently described Hillary's 2008 primary defeat by Barack Obama by saying she "got schlonged" (a sexist reference to the stereotype of Black men having large members?), and who had the termerity (given his sexist provlivicities) to levy the sexism charge at Hillary, saying she can't get away with "playing the women's card on me".

Well, I don't know how Willis thinks he can get away with what he's doing (using allegations against Bill Clinton to harm Hillary Clinton's presidential chances) when he's never ONCE brought up these allegations in a discussion about Bill Clinton's presidency. Fact is, Willis has more frequently PRAISED Bill Clinton.

Willis Hart: On Bill Clinton Being a Cheater... Fair enough. But after 13 years of noncheaters, maybe a cheater is exactly what we need again. (9/25/2013 AT 4:26pm).

Granted, he's talking about cheating and not rape (allegations), but what the hell does WJC's cheating have to do with his presidenting? Yet, here Willis makes that connection, saying (in essence) so what if WJC cheated? "Maybe a cheater is exactly what we need again" he says, which is miles away from criticizing the dude for raping/cheating (allegedly/factually).

So, I guess it was OK for Bill to cheat, but it's not OK for Hillary to make a statement about believing women who allege rape because of the Juanita Broaddrick allegations? Hell yes, this strikes me as Trumpesque hypocrisy and misogyny. Absolutely.

Further hypocrisy is that Willis believes that 90 percent of women who report rape are liars. He slams Barack Obama for quoting a "thoroughly discredited" CDC study that found 1 in 5 women who are today college-aged will ultimately be raped. Willis says it's actually 1 in 50, and that the 1 in 5 stat comes from women who were intoxicated, had sex, then regretted it (OST #81).

So the Hartster's "alrighty then" is obviously ONLY in regards to Broaddrick, in that he's enthusiastic to have her believed because it could hurt Hillary's candidacy and NOT because he thinks women should be believed. To hear Willis tell it, the REAL problem is women falsely accusing innocent men of rape. And that believing women when it comes to sexual assault is the LAST thing we should be doing.

OST #99

On Referring To The Exploitation Of Labor By Not Paying A Living Wage As "Removing the Bottom Rungs Of A Ladder"

No person with his head screwed on properly would get behind such a boneheaded frame, and yet we have these supposedly intelligent politicians suggesting that we kowtow to the wealthy elites who want to steal from working people by eliminating the minimum wage (more of the fruits of the working man's labor should go to them instead of those doing the actual work).

How dumb is that? As Abraham Lincoln said "capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed". Yet Republicans and Libertarians continue to push the false meme that raising the minimum wage would cost jobs when research shows this to be false.

Of course, the fact that we already have hundreds of thousands of young black males frozen out of the labor market NOW makes this even more idiotic (not to mention, tragic) and I really want to ask these buffoons why, when if you put more money into the hands of working people by paying them a living wage which would act as an economic stimulus, they are so opposed to paying working people a fair living wage (as opposed to forcing them to continue to live in poverty and only just get by via social safety net programs which are functionally subsidies to the large corporations)?

I suspect it's because they're either brainwashed true believers who actually buy this bullshit, or they're wealthy worshipping stooges who find comfort in deception (they accept the lies of the Libertairan "lumanaries" without question because it serves the "greater good" of further enriching the already wealthy). And I'm convinced that with some of them there there are racist motivations for wanting to keep young African American males working for low wages.

As for which category the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart falls into, I can't say for certain. I suspect it's more of the former and less of the later, but given how much this dude seems to worship wealthy people, I can't say for certain.

OST #98

On Willis Hart's Trumpesque Obsession With Bashing Rosie O'Donnell

As most people know, there has been a long standing feud between the actress Rosie O'Donnell and current GOP frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nomination Donald Trump. The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is similarly obsessed with bashing Mrs O'Donnell.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Rosie O'Donnell Played Betty Rubble in that Stupid "Flintstones" Movie... I know that cartoon characters can't sue but can we make an exception JUST THIS ONE TIME? I mean, my God, what an insult. (1/19/2016 AT 11:12am).

Yeah, I think that Willis being so upset about Rosie O'Donnell playing Betty Rubble has something to do with him previously proclaiming that this fictional cartoon woman is his choice for "the world's greatest brunette". Although that was 2 months before the above post. And, all this outrage concerning a movie that came out in 1994, which some people might find more than a little strange.

Anyway, Willis assumes that Betty Rubble (were she not fictional and could say who she would want to portray her in a live action movie) would object to the selection of Rosie O'Donnell. Which is, of course, bullshit. I mean, the holders of the Flintstones copyright were obviously FINE with the selection of Rosie O'Donnell. Not only did they not sue, but they gave their go head/blessing and therefore there was no insult.

By the way, when I say that Willis' obsession with Rosie O'Donnell is Trumpesque, I mean that his hate O'Donnell very often takes the form of commentaries with a misogynist undertone.

As moderator Megyn Kelly (of the 1st Republican debate) pointed out, Trump has referred to women as fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals. As with Trump, many of WTNPH's criticisms of females that express left-leaning opinions are based on what they look like.

For example, here is a particlarly disgusting "commentary" concerning Joy Behar.

Willis Hart: For Erections Lasting More than Four Hours?... [Picture of Joy Behar] Yeah, this ought to do. P.S. And, yes, it even works on blind fellows in that simply after an utterance or two (the voice combined with what she says), boom, gone. (12/14/2015 AT 8:08pm).

No reference to anything substantive in either of these posts, only misogynistic attacks on "Leftist" women the Hartster does not like based on what they look like. It isn't as if Willis criticizes O'Donnell's acting in the Flintstones movie. We all know that his beef is based on her appearance. Also, I think Joy Behar looks pretty damn good given the fact that she's 73 years old!

OST #97

Willis Hart An Expletive Liar Re Bernie Sanders' 18 Trillion In New Spending

An outright lie from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in regards to Bernie Sanders and his proposed "new" spending (if he is elected president).

Willis Hart: On Bernie Sanders Claiming that America Can Pay for His $18,000,000,000,000 in New Spending Partly Through the Savings Made Possible by His Proposed Single-Payer Healthcare System... What the ignorant Mr. Sanders fails to realize is that there has NEVER been a government entitlement program that has ever come in even close to the projected cost... I mean, I understand that the average primary voter is about as dumb as a box of rocks and essentially salivates whenever he or she hears the two words, "free stuff", but you gotta be honest... and... try be logical... as opposed to living in a fantasy world... no? (1/17/2016 AT 8:47pm).

No. The person living in a fantasy world is Willis Hart with his completely imaginary claim of 18 trillion in NEW spending. This is the not the first time Willis has mentioned this totally bogus claim (OST #75). This is a claim, btw, that comes from a dishonest author at Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. In a 9/14/2015 article by Laura Meckler titled "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion" Meckler refers to "new spending over a decade".

But the spending is NOT new.

...while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we're already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it's by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. ...the bulk of what Sanders wants to do is in the first category: to have us pay through taxes for things we're already paying for in other ways. ... Depending on your perspective on government, you may think that's a bad idea. But we shouldn't treat his proposals as though they're going to cost us $18 trillion on top of what we're already paying. (No, Bernie Sanders is not going to bankrupt America to the tune of $18 trillion by Paul Waldman. The Washington Post, 9/15/2015).

In other words the 18 trillion the WSJ deceptively portrays as NEW spending is actually money we are ALREADY spending. Bernie simply wants to change HOW we spend it. Instead of individuals spending the money (as they do now), government would spend it. But the lying author of the WSJ article does mention this AT ALL in her hit-piece on Senator Sanders.

Instead the article plays up the "price tag", referring to "new spending", "new taxes" and how "centrist" Democrats think this is a bad idea. Others who think this would be an bad idea are ignorant lying Libertarians like Mr. Hart. I mean, there could be some honest criticisms to levy here.

For example, I know Willis opposes instituting a single payer system in favor of a "free market" (or "market based") system. This "free market" basis for healthcare wouldn't work, but at least if Willis put forward this arguement it would be an actual argumement. As opposed to a flat out lie.

For the record, Willis HAS put forward this argument (see here), but not in conjuction with the lie about Bernie Sanders's 18 trillion in "new" spending.

Note that in the linked to post Willis says it is an "idiotic assertion that competition won't bring down the cost of healthcare", but it is actually Willis' argument that is idiotic... because the world's 25 wealthiest nations, all provide universal healthcare... except for the United States (and, no, Obamacare is not universal healthcare). (See SWTD #261 for my post refuting WTNPH's assertion that competition WILL bring down health cares costs).

The point is that, while it might be true regarding what Willis says concerning "government entitlement programs" exceeding projected costs (I have not independently verified this, but I know it has happened), the alternative is letting people go without healthcare and letting people die (which costs money in lost productivity).

And don't forget that every other wealthy nation on the planet has figured out how to provide for universal healthcare AT A LOWER COST (US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health).

So, if Bernie Sanders' proposed single payer system ends up not costing what he's projecting? It would still cost less than what we're spending now. Which makes sense, given the fact that single payer is NOT FOR PROFIT. How could it NOT cost less if the profit is eliminated?.

According to a 9/23/2015 HuffPo article The Truth About Health Insurance Company Profits: They're Excessive "Wall Street investors are delighted with the industry's profits [and that] return on equity - a key measure of profits as a percentage of the amount invested... is a phenomenal 16.1%".

In agreement with the HuffPo article, a 3/5/2010 Economist article notes that "the better measurement is not profit, but return [on equity, or ROE. And that the healthcare industry's ROE is] a good deal higher than the average ROE in most sectors of the economy" (so, YES, healthcare insurer's profits ARE excessive, according to the Economist... if you're the type of person inclined to discount information coming from a source like the Huffington Post).

But the Hartster doesn't want to see "yet another government entitlement program" because he thinks it will cost a lot... even though the world's other wealthy nations all have universal healthcare and their costs are much lower than ours.

Conclusion? Willis Hart is a total moron (a true believing brainwashed/brain diseased "fiscal conservative") as well as a f*cking liar (given the fact that Bernie Sanders is NOT proposing "new" spending).

OST #96

Target Only Hires White People?

Does Target only hire White people? Seems to be that is what the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is saying in the following post (although I could be wrong).

Willis Hart: On Mrs. Obama's Target Story... Let's just say that it's been evolving (the fact that when she initially relayed it to Letterman it was a joke to underscore her height and that when she told it subsequent times it had morphed into some bigoted morality tale of the old white gal thinking that as a black chick Mrs. Obama HAD to be an employee - kind of a slap at Target employees but I digress). (1/13/2016 AT 4:18pm).

Michelle Obama being a Target employee is a "slap" at Target employees? If there was a "slap" wasn't it a slap at Target customers? You know, given the fact that (according to Michelle Obama) it was a CUSTOMER that thought Michelle might be an employee.

Anyway... as for Michelle's "Target story" changing... maybe she just reconsidered and it occurred to her that maybe the woman in question asked her to grab something from a high shelf not because she is tall... but because the woman thought Michelle might be an employee (because she's Black)?

I honestly don't know. Anyway, Michelle might be right, overreacting, wrong, or outright lying. Of course Conservatives believe she lies. Because she's a racist who is falsely accusing Whitey of discriminating against Blacks (for political advantage, I guess).

But back to Willis' alleged "slap"... Michelle implied the White customer might have thought she was an employee because she's Black, and that's an insult to Target employees? Does Willis believe that Target only hires Whites? Is that why suggesting a Target employee might be Black is a "slap"? And, if so, is this yet more evidence of the Hartster's racist proclivities?

Maybe, maybe not. Obviously he's among those who immediately attribute the worst motives to things the Obamas say and do (Michelle is lying and/or insulting Target workers).

OST #95

Willis Hart Moronic Whine Re "Secret" Comments Submitted To His Blog

Idiocy from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he whines about his public receiving comments! How dare anyone attempt to disrupt his echo chamber!

Willis Hart: On the Engaging in Behavior (Unsolicited and Unwanted Blog "Commentary") that if it Were Any Other Sphere of Life (Phone Calls, Letters, Showing Up at a Person's House, etc.) Would Probably Get You Arrested, Convicted, and Put in Jail but Because this Shit Can Be Done in Secret it Shamelessly and Moronically Continues Unabated... What's that they say, that you can only judge a person's morals by how they behave when no one is watching? Hey fellas, NO ONE IS WATCHING. (1/14/2016 AT 4:25pm).

WTNPH has referenced other comments that went unpublished in the past.

For example...

Willis Hart: I was obliquely accused by some pompous and marginally literate boob (with multiple handles, no less) of "coming out early tonight." It was an almost passive aggressive comment and, while it clearly wasn't as nasty as some of the other bullshit that's flied of late, I just don't tolerate it anymore and so I've banned his sorry ass. Arrivederci schmuck. (9/26/2015 AT 8:20pm).

Not sure who it might have been that submitted that comment (if anyone. Maybe Willis made it up or imagined it). It was not me, however. Although I have submitted a number of comments to Willis' blog that he decided not to publish. So he might be talking about me. Actually, I think it's quite likely he's talking about me, as I frequently stop by his blog to read and leave a brief comment or two.

I'd like to point out, however, that Willis Hart's blog is open to the public and by designating his blog as PUBLIC he is soliciting comments. Secondly, the ONLY reason these comments are "secret" is because Willis does not publish them! (Obviously if he published them they wouldn't be secret).

If he only wants agreeable comments he could change his blog settings so that only approved people could comment. Or he could make it so that only approved people could even SEE his blog. He is choosing to not adjust these settings and thus leaving his blog open for PUBLIC view and PUBLIC comment (and soliciting comments with these settings that he selected!).

In regards to his assertion of phoning, sending letters to and showing up at the home of someone being analogous to submitting comments to a PUBLIC blog - I say bullshit. His home is private, his blog is not (by HIS CHOICE!).

IMO him selecting these settings (making his blog PUBLIC) is analogous to him placing a sign outside his home inviting people in to look around. And, if he did that (invite anyone in with a sign), the police would tell him to take a hike if he attempted to have people who took him up on his offer arrested. The cops would tell him to take down the sign and lock his door.

BTW, I hereby declare to the world that I submit comments to Willis Hart's blog... thereby making me commenting on his blog not a "secret". And, while nobody may be watching this blog (OST), it too is open to the PUBLIC - so that invalidates his judging of morals by how someone behaves when no one is watching (since anyone can view this admission, thereby making it a public admission).

OST #94

Willis Hart Molests The Truth Re Contra O'Reilly Post On How It's A "Fact" That Salon Gives Pedophiles A Platform To Explain Themselves

Another commentary from self-identified "Libertarian leaning" blogger Willis Hart in which the pervert molests the truth. A post in which the truth-molester perverts the facts.

On the Fact that Salon Give Pedophiles a Platform to "Explain" Themselves but Doesn't Give Such an Opportunity to Global Warming (err, I Mean, Climate Change) Skeptics, Free-Market Libertarians, Pro-Life Republicans, etc... They must perceive the pedophile as a victim (more so than even the children, I guess). (1/11/2016 AT 3:39pm).

It's quite clear that Willis doesn't care about the victim of his constant perverting and molesting of the facts. Which would be the Truth. I mean, there is no reason for him to guess (Willis sez that Salon "must perceive the pedophile as a victim... more so than even the children, I guess").

Why guess when a quick Google search reveals what actually happened? Which I did, and found that Salon DID publish an article by a self-described pedophile. However, this individual goes on to say that he believes he is a pedophile (attracted sexually to children) because he was molested as a young boy... but that he's never acted on this attraction.

In fact the author says (in a followup article) that he outed himself so we can "all work together to end child sexual abuse [because] children are "legally, morally and psychologically unable to reciprocate my feelings and desires". (I believe him because someone who had actually molested kids would never out himself and DARE people to uncover his crimes).

Anyway, the point is that (given the fact that this admitted pedophile has never acted on his desires) there are no victims... as Willis claims. In the title of his post Willis implies pedopiles are explaining why they molest kids in Salon articles, which is FALSE. And the body of his post Willis says (via guess) that the Salon people who decided to publish the (two) articles do not "perceive the pedophile as a victim", which is also FALSE.

But Willis obviously did not bother to look this up for himself. Clearly Willis read an article from a Rightwing source (according to the author "my pedophilia essay outraged the right. My attempt to humanize a real problem brought out their nastiest rage"). CLEARLY Willis read one of these Rightwing outraged responses

And it was Willis' reading of the Right's 2nd hand take that lead to his molesting of the truth (via vile guesses that have Salon editors seeing pedophiles as victims). Another incorrect guess being WTNPH's assertion that Solon published articles by "pedopiles" (plural). No, it was just the one (two article by ONE person).

But Willis obviously doesn't care enough to find out if his guesses are anywhere near the truth. He makes his guesses (which make the editors of the Liberal Salon out to be horrible people who think molesters of kids are victims), then launches into a non-sequitur that has him making a nonsensical connection to Salon not publishing climate change denying and Libertarian "free market" bullshit.

As if there aren't a plethora of sites where this idiocy is spewed with great frequency and in large volumes. As if Conservative big money interests aren't contributing boatloads of cash to Rightwing and Libertarian think tanks who engage in climate change denying or "free market" proselytizing to get their message into the mainstream in a big way. Right.

BTW, I read both Salon articles (I’m a pedophile, but not a monster from 9/21/2015 and I'm a pedophile, you're the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine from 9/30/2015) and agreed with the author when he said "no problem was ever solved by refusing to understand the issue".

He also spoke of encountering a lot of "willful ignorance" which brought to mind Willis Hart. This post of WTNPH (from his blog Contra O'Reilly) being yet another example of how the Hartster elevates willful ignorance to an artform.

(My interpertation of Willis' post: I don't know, I'm just going to guess and my guess is going to make out a Leftwing news/commentary source out to be engaged in despicable behavior because I hate Progressives so much).

Not that I don't do this myself... read a Leftwing criticism of the Right and then not go to a Rightwing source to get their take. But I don't portray myself as someone who distrusts and is critical of both the Left and the Right. Unlike the hypocrite Willis.

OST #93

Montel Williams Is Black, Therefore His Views On The BLM Versus Rancher Showdown In Oregon Are Race-Based & Montel Is A Racist

Another example of hyper racial consciousness from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart (a subject I first addressed with OST #91).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Out of Work Talk-Show Host, Montel Williams, Recently Advocated that the Government Show a "Massive Use of Force" and Institute "Shoot to Kill" Orders as a Means to Settle the BLM Versus Rancher Showdown in Oregon... Yeah, I don't seem to recall him advocating shit like this when black people were destroying a large section of Ferguson, Missouri (including a senior center and a CVS pharmacy) over what ultimately proved to be one of the most virulent lies of recent memory (the hands up, don't shoot narrative). It must have been an oversight (you know, as opposed to him being a fucking racist and hypocrite whose only goal is to denigrate white people and glorify the state). (1/6/2016 AT 9:56pm).

First of all, what a freaking surprise that Willis finds an angle to write about this story which doesn't have him criticising the law breaking ranchers while going after African American protestors. No, wait, that the racist Hart would refuse to criticise the White ranchers isn't a surprise at all.

Another non surprise is the fact that a Conservative opinion site had the exact same thought... while Googling for some more info, I found a story on the "Independent Sentinel" titled "To Be Fair, Montel Williams Must Want Shoot to Kill Orders in Ferguson and Baltimore Too" (the author of this article, Sarah Noble, describes herself as an "ex-liberal").

By the way, "protest leader Ryan Bundy told Oregonian politics reporter Ian Kullgren that he was willing to kill and be killed if necessary to sustain the occupation" (Extremist Group Calls for Oregon Militants to Be Willing to Die). My guess is that this statement is what Montel was referring to and that he did not mean what he said literally.

If he did mean it literally? I don't agree. Unless the militants start going through with Ryan Bundy's call for them to be "willing to kill", the law should seek to end this peacefully.

In any case, it's obviously because Montel Williams is Black that the hyper racially conscious Willis concludes he is a "fucking racist". I mean, what if a White guy had said this? I was watching the Stephanie Miller show yesterday and Stephanie read a news story about Bundy saying they were willing to die... and the Mooks (her co-hosts) all said "OK". I did not take this "OK" literally. Nor did I think they said it due to them being racist (against Whites).

As for Willis not seeming to recall what Montel said when "black people were destroying a large section of Ferguson, Missouri"... I did not recall either. So I Googled and found what he said.

Ferguson‬ – is this really how you think your going to raise the LEGITIMATE issue of the disconnect between law enforcement and the black community? By burning down a pizza restaurant and looting a beauty shop IN YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD! ... THIS IS NOT HOW TO DO THIS – you've badly damaged the chances of making progress on the issue you so badly want to raise. ... This is insane. There is NO JUSTIFICATION. (Montel Williams blasts Ferguson riots by Jennifer Brett. The Atlanta Journal Constitution‎'s Buzz Blog 11/25/2015).

OK, so he didn't call for the use of lethal force to stop the protesters, but neither was he defending what they did. But Willis probably doesn't recall that. Why? IMO it's because Montel is not someone expressing his opinion as someone who is a part of the "we're all fucking humans" group. He's a "fucking racist" because he's a BLACK MAN expressing his opinion (via tweet) on (presumably all) White law breaking ranchers illegally occupying a bird sanctuary (and threatening to kill federal officials/other representatives of the law).

Finally, how the hell does Willis come to the conclusion that Montel's call for the ranchers to be dealt with using lethal force (if serious) means Montel wants this done to "glorify the state"? Also, so the eff what if Montel is "out of work"? As far as I know Montel has plenty of money (not on welfare), so what business or concern is it of Willis Hart's whether or not Montel Williams is currently employed?

By the way, I don't consider myself a Montel Williams fan. I don't care for the fact that he's "a paid spokesperson for MoneyMutual, a lead generator for a payday lending service" (Wikipedia/Montel Williams/Payday loan controversy). I also have no idea what his politics are. I'm not defending Williams, only pointing out that I think the evidence shows that it's Willis Hart who is a "fucking racist and hypocrite". And that the Willis post I'm responding to is yet another example of the Hartster's hyper racial consciousness.

OST #92

On The Hyper Racial Consciousness Of Willis Hart

Another example of obliviousness from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, an oblivious White guy who simply does not get it. "It" being the fact that racism is still very much a problem in our country. According to this demagoguing blogger, "we're all f*cking humans, people". While this absolutely is true, what he means is that Black people should stop "bellyaching" about things that (according to Willis) don't exist.

Things like White privilege, institutional racism and microaggressions. But the reason that (for Willis Hart) these things don't exist is because HE doesn't have to deal with them. Or, he doesn't have to deal with the negatives. Being White, he only has to deal with the positives.

BTW, we all may be human and we all may have been created equal, but obviously some of us are more equal than others. White men being the most equal, given the fact that our society is a patriarchy (something else Willis argues against with many misogynist commentaries on his blog) with a long history of racism (slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights era, the fact that African Americans are more than 300 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a White person today, etc).

But the oblivious Hartster doesn't see it. In fact he argues against reality constantly on his blog. Like with this recent comment in which he says it's OTHER people who hyper conscious when it comes to race. When the reality is that it's Willis Hart who is hyper conscious about race. This fact PROVEN by his own blog posts. Commentaries where he focuses in on the race of whomever he has decided to complain about.

For example, here is a recent one where I fail to see what the race of the individual has to do with anything except Willis' own prejudices.

On the Fact that a Black Mother from Detroit Murdered Two of Her Children (the Other Two She Just Tortured) and Stuffed Their Carcasses in a Freezer... Yeah, I'm gonna go with, four black lives totally NOT mattering [Link]. (11/6/2015 AT 4:53pm).

And another one from 3 days earlier.

On the Fact that Not One but Two Black Women Threw Their Babies Off of Balconies in the Fordham Heights Section of the Bronx in Just the Past Six Weeks... So these stories get completely ignored by pro-blacks and the white liberal media but that image of the school-safety officer strong-arming a disruptive 16 year-old black chick gets wall-to-wall coverage (one CNN segment showed the visual 20-something times)? Unreal. (11/3/2015 AT 4:12pm).

What the hell does the mothers being Black have to do with anything? If "we're all f*cking humans, people" as Willis says, WHY does he pick out 2 stories in which two Black mothers kill their children... and make a POINT of them being Black. The original stories don't laser focus in on this fact, yet Willis does. Apparently because he thinks that stories like these somehow discredit the Black Lives Matter Movement (BLM).

Because he thinks that the BLM movement, a movement whose concern is institutional racism, should deal with issues that have nothing to do with institutional racism (in these two cases I'd say the issue is mental illness).

It's because the dude is hyper focused on race that he's making these bizarre arguments in an effort to discredit a movement he hates. Initially he argued that the BLM movement's concern over the police killing unarmed African Americans was hypocritical... because they are not equally concerned with criminals (BLACK criminals) killing Black people.

But that is a SEPARATE issue that the BLM movement was not started to address! Yet, Willis lies (OST #90), insisting over and over that BLM should be concerned about ALL the ways that African Americans die unnatural/premature deaths... Although (who knows), perhaps next he'll complain that BLM isn't addressing the fact that "black men have a 40% higher cancer death rate than white men [and] African-American women have a 20% higher cancer death rate than white women").

But being more prone to some diseases isn't something African Americans can be blamed for. While, with death by inner city violence can be. Yes, only on a small minority of them, but Willis believes ALL African Americans are responsible for the violence committed by African American criminals (as well as mentally ill Black mothers). Because he's quite clearly racist.

Or, at least he absolutely does NOT believe "we're all f*cking humans, people". In the Hartster's hyper-racially-conscious mind we're a species clearly divided by race.

OST #91