Thursday, February 25, 2016

Willis Hart Lies Re Trump Comments On Iraq War, Downplays, Spouts BS About Left Not Acknowledging Trump Truthtelling, Pats Self On Back

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart may be a weak bush apologist, but he's still a bush apologist. This time he misrepresents what Trump said during the 6th gop debate on 2/13/2016, in am effort to downplay "one of the most scathing denunciations of Bush & GOP on Iraq of any major presidential candidate ever" (which is how Glenn Greenwald described what Trump said).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Donald Trump Is the Only Republican Candidate Who's Had the Cajones to Bitch-Slap George W. Bush for His Ham-Handed and Ultimately Tragic Iraq War Policy... I'm not a big Trump supporter but I, unlike your average partisan stooge blogger whose entire existence is one mindless and gratuitous anti-Trump post after another, am willing to give credit where credit is due. And, yes, on this particular issue, Trump deserves some credit (not just for being right but for standing up to his own party and withstanding the boos - and, yes, there were many). Boom, done. (2/15/2016 AT 8:33pm).

Ham-handed and ultimately tragic?! No, Willis, Trump's words were not that mild!

Donald Trump: Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right? George Bush made a mistake, we can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty.

*Crowd boos*

Donald Trump: They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction – there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction".

*Crowd boos louder* (New Trump Booed for Reminding GOP of Bush's 9/11 Failure and Iraq War Lies by Jon Queally. Common Dreams 2/14/2016).

The bush administration LIED! There were no WMD and the bushies KNEW it! Trump says nothing about the Iraq war being "ham handed" or "ultimately tragic", Willis! Geez, if you're going to give someone credit for a "bitchslapping", how about giving them credit for what they ACTUALLY said? Instead Willis uses his own (much more mild) words (in the "both sides do it" apologist mode). Obviously Willis can't bring himself to address the fact that bush LIED.

BTW, I ABSOLUTELY am willing to give credit where credit is due... despite the fact that Trump has now walked back his "bitch slapping".

Trump: I Didn't Say George Bush Lied To Invade Iraq, But It's A Fact He Did Not Keep Us Safe On 9/11 (2/15/2016 Real Clear Politics article, excerpt) Trump said Bush lied about the existence of WMD... but did not explicitly say the former president lied to the country into war. "You call it whatever you want. I will tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction", Trump said...

bush lied about WMD, but he didn't lie us into war? Here I thought the entire rationale for war (or most of it) was that "we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud". If you say the bushies lied about WMD you're saying they lied us into war, I say.

But back to Willis Hart... while he gives Trump kudos, he obviously can NOT bring himself to say that bush lied about WMD himself!

Willis Hart: On the Fact that No High Profile Elected Democrat (Save for Possibly Dennis Kucinich) Has Ever Gone as Far as Trump Has in His Full-Throated Condemnation of George W. Bush (Calling Him a Liar, etc.)... Say what you want about Donald. He does have cajones and on this particular example, I say, amen. (2/23/2016 AT 8:36pm).

OK, so (this time) Willis mentions that Trump called gwb a liar, but does he AGREE with that statement? One might infer that Willis agrees, but he doesn't out-and-out say it. Why not? Perhaps because he doesn't think gwb lied?

Willis Hart: As for Mr. Bush "lying", I don't know if he lied or he didn't. (5/23/2012 AT 10:28am).

Willis Hart: You say that he lied but maybe he actually believed that Saddam had wmd and was simply wrong. (5/26/2012 AT 3:36pm).

Willis Hart: You gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero. (7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm).

Willis Hart: you've given me absolutely ZERO hard data that President Bush lied. No documentation, no inconsistent statements... nothing (8/2/2012 AT 8:38am).

Sounds pretty definitive to me that WTNPH rejects the idea that gwb lied about WMD. And I'm never read a retraction on Willis' blog. And, not only does Willis not think bush lied (at least at the time he made the above comments), but he previously stated strong support for regime change.

Willis Hart: I recognize now that Sadam pretty much had to go. I just wish that President Bush hadn't de-Baathified the country and disbanded the military in that those 2 things really strengthened the Iranian bastards. (6/28/2013 AT 8:39pm).

(Note: Willis thinks we should have gotten rid of Saddam via assassination. The 2 things he says should not have been done are his criticisms of how the war was conducted after the invasion and do not indicate support for going to war in the first place).

Yeah, those comments vociferously defending bush against lying accusations are all a few years old - and it's possible that Willis has since changed his mind. But, like I said, I've never seen a retraction. And, add to that this the FACT that Willis NEVER explains WHAT he's giving credit to Trump for. He only mentions a "bitch slapping" for an "ultimately tragic Iraq war policy" (without even mentioning the fact that Trump said bush lied) in his first post.

In his 2nd Trump-crediting post WTNPH does mention the fact that the Donald says bush lied. But does Willis agree? Who knows? Because Willis doesn't have the cajones to say BUSH LIED himself. Which is why I call bullshit on WTNPH for BOTH his praising of Trump AND his assertion that a "partisan stooge blogger" (a category I am positive he'd place me in) wouldn't/couldn't give Trump any credit.

I'm doing it right now myself. Boom, done. And I've heard others on the Left doing the same thing (see here for one example).

One last point regarding the Hartster patting himself on the back re his superiority to "your average partisan stooge blogger"... That just about makes me want to barf.

Video: Trump "bitch slaps" Jeb at the 6th gop debate on 2/13/2016 by pointing out that his brother did NOT "keep us safe" (1:30).

Supporting Document
[DSD #18] The Crappy bush Apologist. (A catalog of MANY comments by WTNPH defending bush re his invading of Afghanistan and Iraq).

2/28/2016 Update: I am retracting the credit I gave Trump for "bitch slapping" Jeb! with the truth about his brother. Which was the W lied about WMD in Iraq. Why? Because Trump has revised what he said at the debate. Now he doesn't know whether or not W lied (see SWTD #326).

OST #113

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

On The Offensive Suggestion By Willis Hart That Free Blacks In 1861 Winchester VA Would Have Voted For Secession (& Therefore A Continuation Of Slavery)

Another offensive commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he argues that the Civil War shouldn't have been fought and slavery should have been allowed to continue (note: some argue that if the Civil War had not been fought slavery would have eventually been phased out/ended, an assertion that I'm not at all sure is accurate, but this isn't a question I'm addressing with this post, only the claim by WTNPH that free Blacks would vote for seccession).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that in 1861 (According to Historian, Jonathan Noyalas, and the Official Virginia County Vote) Winchester Virginia Voted 81% in Favor of Seceding from the Union... The most telling statistic of all is that nearly half of the black population there was free... I wonder how those folks voted.

P.S. And, yes, I do have an anecdote here. According to Roger Delauter's book, "Winchester in the Civil War", an African-American women wearing a black crepe rosette badge in honor of Stonewall Jackson (who had recently died) was ordered by Union Forces to remove the badge and when she refused was banished from the town. People (whether they be Iraqis, Filipinos, or folks from the South) don't like being occupied apparently. (2/20/2016 AT 2:47pm).

Willis wonders how the free Blacks of Winchester VA voted, but with this "wondering" he ASSUMES that they did indeed vote. The information I was able to locate, however, says they most likely were not allowed to vote.

Encyclopedia Virginia: Once free, Africans and African Americans (blacks imported to Virginia from the West Indies or 2nd or 3rd generation Africans born in Virginia) were expected to live as members of the community, to become in some respects "black Englishmen". This meant owning land, voting, and paying taxes; it also meant keeping their lives separate from enslaved blacks. By the beginning of the 18th century, however, slavery had become more ensconced in VA and was defined almost entirely in racial terms. New laws restricted slaves' access to freedom and free blacks' ability to vote or hold positions of power. Many free blacks left or were ordered out of the colony, and those who remained tended to be poorer and identify more with enslaved blacks than with whites.. (Free Blacks in Colonial Virginia by Brendan Wolfe).

A "telling statistic"? What a dope. These free blacks (and yes, I checked that WTNPH fact as well, and it appears to be true [1]) most likely could not vote. But if any could, would they have voted to secede (and therefore continue slavery)? Frankly I find it offensive to suggest that they would (which WTNPH does, providing an anecdote to "prove" that).

BTW, according to Shenandoah At War (Shenandoah being a VA country located 68 miles south-west of Winchester) "slaves realized that any freedom Union soldiers could offer them was protected only so long as Union forces occupied the region"... which suggests that occupation might be viewed positively by African-American slaves.

Things improved for [Shenandoah] Valley slaves when Union Gen. Robert H. Milroy's division occupied the lower Valley on 1/1/1863 - the date President Abraham Lincoln's Proclamation took effect. An IN native and devout Presbyterian Milroy believed that until slaves were emancipated the Union war effort in VA would continue to stall. Milroy took the unseasonably warm weather on New Year's Day in the Valley as a sign from God that He had sent Milroy to the Shenandoah to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. "This day President Lincoln will proclaim the freedom of four millions of human slaves, the most important event in the history of the world since Christ was born", Milroy exclaimed.

Additionally Milroy's confidence in his mission of emancipation was further buoyed by two important historical connections that Winchester — the location of his headquarters - had with slavery's perpetuation. First, Winchester served as the home of Judge Richard Parker who presided over John Brown's trial in 1859. Winchester also served as the home of Senator James Mason who authored the controversial Fugitive Slave Law as part of the Compromise of 1850.

Valley slaves and civilians eagerly waited to see how aggressive Milroy would be in enforcing emancipation. On 1/5/1863 Milroy issued his own proclamation, "Freedom to Slaves" that stated he would do everything in his power to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation. (African Americans' Civil War in the Shenandoah, Shenandoah At War.

So, according to this source, Winchester was the HQ of a Union General who sought to enforce Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation, yet Willis says (in his post) that the people of Winchester didn't like being occupied... implying, of course, that the African American inhabitants of Winchester (free and slave) wanted VA to remain a slave state. And that they wanted the North to f*ck off. Basically, they were throwing their lot in with the Confederacy.

But, if that was the case, what explains the following...

The speculation of slaves and free blacks in Charles Town [WV, aprox 20 miles north-east of Winchester] at the war's outset typified the undercurrent of glimmering hope that permeated the Valley's slave population in the spring of 1861.


Once more former slaves and free blacks (who had been free prior to the war's outbreak) attempted to flee with the retreating Union army for fear of both brutal treatment by Confederate soldiers and being impressed into the Confederacy's service.

So, contrary to the picture Willis is attempting to paint (that free Blacks were with the Confederacy and actually voted to exit the Union), the FACT is that the African American population of Winchester (and surrounding towns), instead of being with the Whites and the Confederacy, had hope that the war would result in freedom for all Blacks (free and slave). And they got the hell out of there when the Union was forced to retreat. Instead of being eager to fight "the occupiers", as one might think they'd be willing to do... if Willis' picture-painting were to be believed.

No, the fact is that pre and post secession both free and enslaved African Americans knew (or were hopeful that) a war would bring freedom. So, perhaps with that in mind, free Blacks would have voted for to leave the Union in order to force a war that would bring freedom? (even though the evidence shows they could not vote). But I surely don't buy that the Winchester free Blacks would cast pro-Confederacy votes because they actually wanted the South to break off from the North... so that slavery could continue (and YES, the Civil War absolutely was fought over slavery; another fact the history-rewriting Harster continually denies, claiming instead that it was fought over states rights and tariffs).

This post by the Hartster in which he speaks of "the most telling statistic of all", is, IMO, further evidence of his racist mindset. What he's saying is that the South just wanted to be free. In fact, this is what EVERYONE (of all races) in the South wanted. As opposed to racist Whites wanting slavery to continue (and them secceeding because they worried that Abe Lincoln would end it). And, to me, saying that the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery but instead it was fought over freedom (for whites and BLACKS)? That's a perversion of history I find QUITE racist. Sorry, but yes.

[1] "In 1860 Winchester, a town of 3000 white inhabitants, had 675 free negroes, only nineteen less than half of the blacks of the town". (The free Negro in Virginia, 1619-1865 by John Henderson Russell).*

OST #112

Saturday, February 20, 2016

Surprise! Libertarian Blogger Buys Rightwing Spin Re Mitch McConnell Vow To Not Consider Obama Scalia Replacement

The blogger Willis Hart claims to be a Libertarian-leaning Moderate, but (as is so often the case) he allows the Rightwing media to inform his views.

Willis Hart: On Mitch McConnell's Threat to Block Any Potential Obama Supreme Court Appointment... It's unfortunate but being that Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing at the end of W's second term it's hard to be surprised by it. Welcome to D.C. in the 21st Century, folks. (2/17/2016 AT 7:50pm).

Not really, according to Media Matters... and yes, Media Matters is Leftwing. A source Willis would dismiss out-of-hand, most likely with a pejorative like labeling them part of the "Regressive media".

Media Matters: Media are making false comparisons between current Republican rhetoric and past Democratic actions and comments to undermine the president's pledge to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Unlike Democrats in the past, Republicans are indicating they will refuse to even engage in the nomination process at all, an abdication of their basic constitutional responsibilities that is unprecedented.

[quoting CBS, 2/15/2016] Schumer's argument was not one of timing and the closeness of the presidential election. He just didn't think much of either of President Bush's picks. Schumer's recommendation stemmed from his feeling that the Senate had insufficient information when it confirmed his two picks, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to the court.

"It appears we were not given the most accurate picture of the nominees we confirmed", Schumer said. "We were presented a misleading portrait". He accused both justices of making decisions that "flouted precedent" and, essentially, legislating from the bench. He argued that Senate had to "engage in conjecture" to understand the nominees' way of thinking and method of reasoning because their records were thin. (Media Use False Comparisons To Undermine Obama's Supreme Court Nomination).

Of course we don't know if Congressional Republicans will follow through with their threat yet, but Schumer objected to the nominees... he was NOT refusing to consider ANYONE... making the Willis' claim that "the Democrats did it too" bullshit.

In fact, the Democrats were never even given an opportunity to follow through with Schumer's "threat", because there were no further SCOTUS vacancies after Roberts and Alito were confirmed WITH DEMOCRATIC VOTES. Which, I would say, is the biggest difference between the McConnell and Schumer statements... Schumer was talking about hypothetical appointments, while McConnell is speaking of an ACTUAL appointment. A fact that makes this McConnell/Schumer statement equating such a f*cking brain-diseased narrative.

BTW, the reason behind the Schumer statement? He made it because the Democrats felt snookered by both "balls and strikes" Roberts and "elections should be for sale to the highest bidder" Alito.

Senate Democrats regret supporting Roberts, Alito (excerpt from a 7/23/10 The Hill article by J. Taylor Rushing) Twenty-two Democrats backed Roberts in 2005, while four supported Alito four months later. From the rank and file to senior members, Democrats widely said they were particularly frustrated that Roberts, during his confirmation hearings, portrayed himself as an umpire merely calling balls and strikes. Instead, they say, he has joined the far-right wing of the court and been a leading voice in recent controversial 5-4 rulings.

Some of the regrets have been caused by two recent 5-4 decisions with which Democrats have disagreed. Most notably, the Roberts court voted 5-4 in June 2008 to strike down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, a decision that broadened gun rights and was a severe blow to gun-control efforts. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Anthony Kennedy signed the majority ruling.

Another ruling that had Dems regretting their support for Roberts and Alito? (this is the one that I alluded to above by pointing out that Alito believes that our elections should be available for purchase).

Feingold Slams Supreme Court over "Citizens United", Implies Roberts and Alito Lied Under Oath (excerpt from a 9/17/2010 Common Dreams article by Matthew Rothschild) Sen. Russ Feingold recently slammed the Supreme Court and strongly implied that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito lied, under oath, to the Senate during their confirmation hearings. In a speech on 9/10/2010, Feingold, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, denounced the "Citizens United" decision that the Court handed down earlier this year. Feingold called it "a lawless decision".

There was a lot of disatification with Roberts and Alito on the Democratic side, with MANY Dems saying they were mislead (Roberts and Alito Misled Us by Edward Kennedy, 7/30/2006). This is QUITE different than the reasoning the Congressional Repubs are currently putting forward regarding why they won't even consider an Obama nominee, which includes such nonsensical reasons as it being the last year of Obama's term. The Constitution doesn't say a potus can't nominate a SCOTUS judge in the last year of his presidency, Mitch! (Mitch McConnell's Arguments Against An Obama Supreme Court Nomination Debunked...)

"Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing at the end of W's second term"??! No, sorry Willis, he did not. But that Willis says this (in agreement with the BS Rightwing spin on their unprecedented obstruction) isn't surprising. Seems the Hartster LOVES these false narratives that paint both sides as equally horrible (because The "Both Sides Do It" Mentality Favors Republicans).

This "both sides do it" narrative is one the the Repubs play up, btw, because they realize NOBODY would buy it if they said they weren't terrible. So they TRY to make it seem like the Dems are equally horrible. This narrative also "gives advocacy to mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road third way types. But, more noticeably, it feeds into the idea of government is the problem" (WTNPH: "I have consistently praised bipartisan efforts... the Concord Coalition, Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, No Labels, The Third Way, the Wyden-Ryan compromise on Medicare, etc").

But the Democrats simply are NOT as bad as the Repubs. I mean, as a Democrat, I acknowledge there are a lot of problems on the Democratic side, but Democrats are still way better than Republicans. Just take a look at the respective potus hopefuls on both sides, for Christ! On the Republican side the candidates are arguing over cutting taxes, who will go to war faster with ISIS and Russia, which one will torture more, who's going to restrict a woman's right to choose harder, etc. And they're all going to take healthcare AWAY from people, of course.

Image: A political cartoon representing the reality of the "choice" between the GOP and the DLC. First there was Bill Clinton, then there was Barack Obama. Now we've got a REAL choice with the 2016 potus primaries. We can choose a genuine Progressive (Bernie Sanders), or go with the establishment's choice again, another DLC corporate Dem in Progressive clothing (Hillary Clinton).

OST #111

Wednesday, February 17, 2016

How The Libertarian Blogger Willis Hart Views The 2016 Democratic Primary

I think the following political cartoons sum up how the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart views the 2016 Democratic primary. You know, given the fact that he views the ENTIRE Left as Communist, incorrectly stated on his blog that it's a "fact" that Bernie Sanders has NEVER held a private sector job (and totally buys the LIE that Sanders is proposing 18 trillion in new spending), is in favor of as low a wage as possible for some workers (and refers to the idea of a living wage as "removing the bottom rungs of a ladder"), thinks the government's power to levy and collect taxes to fund social safety net programs is "confiscation" and believes many voters (the Democratic ones) vote for a candidate because they promised to confiscate property from some (better off) people in order to give it to them.

Oh, and because he completely trusts his well-being to parasitic transnational megacorporations, bought and paid for think tank fellows, and greedy power-hungry CEOs. These would the overpaid corporate heads who, in regards to their salaries, Willis says "in the larger scope of things they're also exceedingly insignificant" (when the truth is this is one reason "wages of most workers remain stagnant").

OST #110

Tuesday, February 16, 2016

On Hysterical & BS Claims From Willis Hart Of "Islamophobia Emanating From The Hard Left"

Yet more Islamaphobic BS from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On the Hysterical Claims of Islamophobia Emanating from the Hard Left... As you can easily see from this 2014 data, there are still far, far more hate crimes in this country directed at Jews than Arabs and so if there's any phobia at all it's still directed at Jews. Sorry, MSNBC schmucks. (1/4/2016 AT 8:40pm).

No, what I clearly see is that this chart lacks attribution and is not labeled as representing hate crimes for 2014. If I take Willis' word for it (that this chart is from a reputable source and that it represents 2014 data) what I see is that anti-Islamic hate crimes come in right behind the anti-Jewish ones. Is MSNBC being "hysterical" given the fact that (according to Willis' chart) 14 percent of all hate crimes are anti-Islamic?

In any case, Islamophobia can occur without it being a crime. So, obviously Willis' chart (representing all hate CRIMES) is not a record of all the instances of Islamophobia that occurred in 2014.

Also, according to the International Business Times, Willis is wrong and Islamophobia is on the rise.

Americans are more Islamophobic than they were four years ago. That's the disturbing finding from a survey released today by the Public Religion Research Institute. 56% of Americans surveyed agree that the values of Islam are at odds with American values, up from 47% in 2011. Christians - especially white Protestants - are the most likely to hold negative views of Islam.

The report also breaks down the survey results by political affiliation, and the outcome isn't that surprising: Over three-quarters of Republicans think Islam is incompatible with the American way of life. With their callous responses to the Syrian refugee crisis, Ted Cruz, Chris Christie, and the rest of the GOP candidates seem to be giving voters exactly what they want. (New Republic article by Esther Breger. 11/17/2015).

Anyway, the way Willis' post is worded, it sounds like he's saying that the "hard Left" is being Islamophobic, when they're actually talking about Islamophobia emanating from elsewhere... including the hard Right (3 quarters of it). But, despite Willis' poor wording, I figured out what he was blabbering about. The schmuck is PO'd that MSNBC is reporting on the FACT that Islamophobia is on the rise (hatred directed at Muslims regardless of whether or not the result is a prosecuted crime).

Obviously we've got a problem with antisemitism as well (and it may be larger), but it boggles my mind how the Hartster can post the chart he did and (based on what it shows) conclude there is NO "phobia" directed at Muslims. Sounds if he's dismissing the antisemitism as well when he says "if there's any phobia at all"... there is, you schmuck... the chart YOU POSTED shows there is (the crime portion, at least).

BTW, I also take issue with Willis' claim that MSNBC represents the "hard Left". MSNBC actually represents the Insider/institutional Democrat point of view. For the true Left POV, see Free Speech TV.

Image1: A chart the schmuck Willis Hart posted to his blog sans attribution (therefore who knows where it comes from, making it impossible to ascertain whether or not it might be accurate).

Image2: A 2015 chart showing how Islamophobic Americans are, disproving the schmuck Willis Hart's claims of "hysteria". Source: American Values Survey from the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to research at the intersection of religion, values, and public life (PRRI's Wikipedia page).


OST #109

Saturday, February 13, 2016

Note To Olivia Wilde, Staunch Democrat & HRC Supporter

Change the lock to your dressing room or make sure it's locked/secured from the inside. A Libertarian gorilla named Willis Hart claims to have your dressing room key in one paw and the Fort Knox key in the other. Although I suspect it's a bottle of booze in that other paw. And I suspect he plans to use the alcohol to get you blackout drunk... so he can take advantage of you. By which I mean he'll rape you, then claim you voluntarily got drunk and regreted consenting to sex.

Thus ends my "note" (which won't be read by the person it's addressed to). But that never stops Willis (who has posted a note to someone who was deceased at the time).

As for what prompted me to write this note...

Willis Hart: On the the Likelihood that JFK, Al Smith, and the First Mayor Daley Would Be Proud of the Present-Day Democratic Party... Yeah, I'm gonna go with, somewhere between zero and the odds of a gorilla parachuting down to earth with the key to Fort Knox in one paw and the key to Olivia Wilde's dressing-room in the other. Extremely unlikely, in other words. (2/11/2016 AT 10:02pm).

I think this proves that Willis' claim of being a reasonable middle-the-road moderate who criticizes both sides equally isn't quite true. I mean, he does criticize both sides, but he clearly despises one side more than the other. He does not, for example, have a derisive pet name for neocons (whom he dislikes intensely). He just calls them neocons. But Progressives, or "Regressives" as he calls them?

BTW, that's what Willis is REALLY talking about in his post. The fact that it's Hillary and Bernie who are running on the Democratic side. And the fact that Bernie is pushing Hillary to the Left, with each of them promising more government programs (and more government spending). But the fact of the matter is that both parties have moved to the Right (Noam Chomsky: Republicans & Democrats Have Shifted to the Right, and the GOP Is "Off the Spectrum").

Yes, it is true that the 2016 Democratic presidential contenders are running to the Left, but that is what ALWAYS happens. Then they move back to the (supposed) Center after getting elected (Bill Clinton and Barack Obama both did. Hillary very likely will). The difference this time is that a GENUINE Progressive is running this time. Bernie Sanders, if elected, won't move back to the "center", because he has been a Progressive for his entire political career. Hillary, not so much.

But, that Hillary has taken more Progressive positions in response to Bernie, has Willis writing ridiculous commentaries such as the one above. As well as others in which he spouts nonsense like referring to Sanders as a "economically illiterate Socialist buffoon".

So, would JFK, Al Smith, and the first Mayor Daley be proud of the present-day Democratic Party... because they've moved so far to the Left (Willis doesn't say this, but we all know it's what he means)? I'm going to go with NO. No, because the Democratic Party has moved to the Right, not the Left. (Democrats Have Moved to the Right, Not the Left).

BTW, while Willis might like to bang Olivia Wilde regardless of her political leanings, the fact is she is a "staunch Democrat" as well as a HRC supporter.

Article author: So I know you're a staunch Democrat - what were you feeling... when Hillary officially announced her campaign?

Olivia Wilde: I think Hillary is a really exciting candidate for so many reasons... I think it's really important to protect our new health care law and I think Hillary would be focused on that. I think the equal rights of women in this country is something that's still not a law and she would absolutely be focused on that. Our justice system is a mess and she's aware of that [indicating support for Black Lives Matter?]... My dream is that [Elizabeth] Warren would be Hillary's V.P... (Olivia Wilde: Why I'm Backing Hillary Clinton For President by Melissa Leon. The Daily Beast 4/22/2015).

Yeah, so when Willis parachutes down to earth and opens the door (using the key) to Olivia Wilde's dressing room... I'm sure she's going to scream and tell Willis to get the hell out (and then call security).

OST #108

Thursday, February 11, 2016

So, Just How Much Does The Un-Factaholic Willis Hart Love Donald Trump?

So, just how much does the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart love Donald Trump? The following commentary makes me wonder.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Donald Trump Supposedly Said that "Eminent Domain Is Great"... I've tried to be fair with Donald (the fact that I a) don't like being part of a bum's rush, b) find his critics every bit as obnoxious as he is, and c) appreciate the fact that the dude's deviated from the neocons on more than a few occasions). But this is a view that I cannot tolerate.

The fact of the matter is that eminent domain is one of the most loathsome and abusive acts that the government engages in (the fact that it isn't being used just for roads and bridges anymore but for private enterprises as well, the fact that there's already an abundance of property that can be used for development, the fact that a lot of the property taken through eminent domain never gets developed, etc.) and if Trump considers it "great" a pox on him. There, how's that for fair and balanced? (2/2/2016 AT 5:06pm).

Notice that Willis doesn't differentiate between necessary uses of eminent domain and abuses. He does say "it isn't being used just for roads and bridges anymore", but does that mean he thinks using it for roads isn't an abuse? Trump has abused eminent domain when he tried to use it to steal some old woman's house because he wanted it for "a new limousine parking lot for the nearby Trump Plaza hotel and casino"... and Willis is talking about Trump... so perhaps we can assume it's only the abuses he objects to. But I think he might be opposed to the government using ED for ANY use.

In any case, according to a subsequent comment, Willis says "this is a deal-breaker for me". Figures that Trump's race-baiting WASN'T a deal-breaker, given the fact that Willis has this in common with Trump. Might this explain why Willis says that he finds Trump's "critics every bit as obnoxious as he is". Because it's really obnoxious when the Donald's critics go after him for his comments regarding Mexicans who illegally enter the US being rapists because "somebody's doing the raping"?

Maybe not. Willis called those comments "despicable" and "vile shit". Although I'm thinking he said that because (as a Libertarian) he's 100 percent in favor of there being as large a labor pool as possible (because this drives down wages). But, despite being "despicable" and "vile"... still NOT a deal-breaker.

Perhaps it outraged Willis when Trump was denounced for implying that Megyn Kelly was a bitch on her period who asked him unfair questions (during the first GOP debate)? Perhaps not. Willis did author a minor rebuke. Although he might believe that Trump's detractors went too far. Kelly is a chick, after all, and as we all know, the Willis thinks the primary purpose of Fox "news women" is ogling.

Maybe he thought Trump wasn't implying that Kelly was on the rag at all, and was majorily insulted that people who don't like Trump drew that conclusion? It is a fact that Willis poo-poos the (very real) Republican war on women. Anyway, this apparently was also not a deal breaker.

Is it possible that Willis finds the fact checkers claims that Donald is a liar in regards to his claim that he saw on TV "thousands and thousands" of Muslims cheering in New Jersey? Does Willis find these criticisms "obnoxious", because, as Breitbart has reported "Trump 100% Vindicated" (because "Police... found eight men celebrating". "Thousands" or eight. What's the big diff? Question is, why does the media lie?).

But the answer again appears to be no. Willis himself got "obnoxious" on Trump when he said Trump was "confusing Jersey with the West Bank and, so, yeah, he probably flunked geography as well". Although readers of Willis' blog all know how much he loaths Islam. So maybe that's the subject on which Trump's critics are "as obnoxious as he is"?

Yeah, I'm going to say that could be it, given the fact that the Hartster has defended Trump's proposed Muslim immigrant ban. By which I mean that Willis said it might not be a good idea, although legal. To which I ask - why not a good idea? Given how much Muslims suck (according to Willis), why not ban them?

Although Willis is wrong about the ban being legal.

A flat ban on Muslim immigration would be unconstitutional under existing judicial doctrine, because it would flunk the basic doctrinal rule that every governmental action must have a legitimate purpose. Sure, such a law would be defended by the lawyer representing Trump's administration as having a valid purpose - presumably, the purpose of protecting national security. But just because a lawyer claims that a law is motivated by a certain purpose doesn't mean that the Court will accept the claim, even in areas where the Court gives Congress and the President a lot of deference. An outrageous claim can still be rejected as implausible. (Legal Experts Explain How Trump's Conservative Media-Backed "Ban Muslims" Proposal Is Unconstitutional by Nick Fernandez and Alex Kaplan. Media Matters 12/10/2015).

THIS clearly has to be the "bum's rush". At least a significant part of it, given that it's Media Matters who is saying this. And Media Matters is part of the (according to WTNPH) "partisan cesspool". Part of the "cesspool" of partisans bum rushing the poor Donald.

So, just how much does Willis Hart love Donald Trump? I'm going to go with just a little bit. Willis does give the Donald props because he's "the only Republican candidate who doesn't appear hell-bent on a second cold war".

Although... why the hell is it not Trump's position on trade that is a "deal breaker" for Willis? Trump says "only Sanders and I know US [is] being ripped off in trade Deals". I mean, for me, all those other things are deal breakers... and I AGREE with Trump on trade (so this isn't a deal breaker for me). But, given Willis' strong support for destroying American jobs by shipping them out to low wage 3rd world countries (to further enrich the already wealthy), I'd have thought Trump's trade position on trade would have been the deal breaker. Yet I can't recall him EVER blogging on Trump/trade. Could it be because he doesn't want to bum rush the guy?

In closing I'd like to remind people that Willis called the accusations of rape against Bill Cosby a "possibly a bum's rush"... and we all know how that turned out. The dude has 51 accusers (as of 11/21/2014), making it extremely unlikely that he's an innocent victim who did nothing wrong.

Which is why I think the facts clearly show that the Hartster's use of the the "bum's rush" is as OFF in regards to Trump as it was in regards to Cosby (and as OFF as he is when he starts SO MANY of his posts with the words "on the fact"). Although Willis might believe that the 51 Cosby accusers all got drunk and consented to taking quaaludes? You know, given Willis' belief that drunk sluts be making false accusations all the time.

OST #107

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

On The Fact That Willis Hart Apparently Does Not Give A Shit What The Truth Is Anymore (Re Him Falsely Asserting That It's A "Fact" That Bernie Sanders Has Never Had A Private Sector Job)

I'm not saying that the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has EVER cared that much what the truth is, given the fact that he frequently sticks with information gleened from Conservative or Libertarian souces (information that is frequently wrong). That doesn't stop him from writing commentaries where he refers to "facts" (in the titles) that are often not facts.

But I found the following WTNPH post to be especially egregious. I mean, info concerning Bernie's employment could have been easily found. Willis- didn't have to guess. Or, I'm guessing he guessed. Because he's wrong - and the facts that prove this could have been easily located. So... he didn't look? (Or maybe he's lying).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Bernie Sanders Has Apparently Never Had a Private Sector Job... Well that explains a lot (his lack of respect private property, free markets, entrepreneurs, etc.), hey, folks? (2/7/2016 AT 8:28pm).

False. Bernie Sanders has held private sector jobs.

[After] Sanders [graduated from] the University of Chicago [he was married and purchased some property with] some inheritance money from his father, who had died in 1963. [Following his divorce in] 1966... He bounced around for a few years, working stints in New York as an aide at a psychiatric hospital and teaching preschoolers for Head Start, and in Vermont researching property taxation for the Vermont Department of Taxes and registering people for food stamps for a nonprofit called the Bread and Law Task Force.

[After moving to Burlington Vermont] He worked some as a carpenter, although [a friend said] His carpentry... was not going to support him [because it was not good]. He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life.

"He was always poor", [said] another old friend... Sanders... was on unemployment for a few months in 1971. In 1977... he started a business... making low-budget films about people, places and events in Vermont and New England history that he felt were getting short shrift in the region's schools... His biggest project was "a 30-minute color documentary videotape"... about Eugene Debs... He priced it at $200 or offered it for rent for $35.

It was March of 1981 [that he became an] elected official, now making $33,800 a year [as mayor of Burlington], more than he ever had... (Bernie Sanders Has A Secret by Michael Kruse. Politico 7/9/2015).

What's the "secret"? According to a friend interviewed for the article I quote above, it's his person life. One source said "It's none of your f—-ing business" when asked a question about Sanders' personal life. Although, if he is the nominee, you can be assured that the Republicans will be all over this. Apparently Sanders did not do well in the public sector.

However, as the article notes, he DID have numerous jobs where his salary wasn't paid for with tax dollars. Sanders worked in the private sector until he was elected mayor of Burlington at the age of 39. Although he never did manage a Walmart, which Willis apparently believes is something the voters should require of a candidate before electing them president. Management in the private sector being a necessary qualification in the eyes of Conservatives.

But Bernie Sanders isn't running for president of the public sector, he's running for president of government. And Sanders ABSOLUTELY has proven to be successful in politics and doing the job he was elected to do. Whether it be mayor, member of the House of Representatives, or Senator. Which, not being a Conservative, makes him HIGHLY qualified in my opinion.

Anyway, my point is that Willis apparently simply does not give a shit anymore what the truth is. He just makes it up, apparently. Or gets it secondhand from some Libertarian or Conservative source (that's lying). Or maybe he heard it from Anthony Crispino.

Also, what's up with Willis' non sequitur (of him falsely believing Bernie Sanders never held a private sector job) meaning he has a "lack of respect [for] private property, free markets, [and] entrepreneurs"? Progressives respect these things very much. Although (as a Progressive myself), I'd say the "free market" Willis refers to doesn't exist. Markets are the creation of government (which sets and enforces the rules). Progressives believe in regulated markets.

Other than that caveat, I agree with the things WTNPH lists. Willis lies with his constant bashing of Progressives (Bernie Sanders, while he describes himself as a Democratic Socialist, is one of the founders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus). Progressives (and Bernie Sanders) believe in private property, REGULATED markets and entrepreneurs. However, as Willis revealed earlier this month, he thinks the ENTIRE Left is Communist. So that might (partially) explain this idiocy (the WTNPH post referenced above).

Seriously, I REALLY think the Hartster might be suffering from some kind of brain disease. Given his recent reliance on Black & White generalizations (a la 1970s wrestling analogies) that have him characterizing the (wholly Communist) Left as purely venal and Libertarians as purely virtuous... I wouldn't rule it out.

OST #106

Sunday, February 7, 2016

So, Just How Much Does The Hateaholic TOM Love Willis Hart?

The reason I ask is due to the fact that the hate-obsessed blogger TOM keeps submitting comments in which he expresses great offense that I'd dare to disagree with the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

For example, my last post received the following TOM comment (which I sent to the Spam folder).

TOM (The Omelet Man): Love it when you set up separate blogs to spread your hate for individuals. HATE BLOGS! Thanks for proving me correct, dip shit, butt fucking, fag boy.

TOM appears to be quite angry about the very existence of this blog. Which he mischaracterizes as a hate blog, btw. I have no hate at all for Willis. I do think most of his political views are nutty. However, given the fact that I've never met Willis, I'd have to say that I don't have enough information to form an opinion on him (only his online persona, which, yes, I do not care for. But the actual person? I've never met him).

I do have opinions of what he writes. And, because Willis banned me from his blog I can't comment there, I created this blog so I'd have a place to continue commenting. TOM (as well as others) might disagree/think it was dumb of me to create this blog, but it is NOT a "hate blog".

TOM, on the other hand, is obviously filled with hate. This isn't hard to deduce. Just take a look at his comments. Clearly he loathes gay people. His use of the "f" word to describe a gay man makes that VERY clear. I don't have anything against gay people. I simply happen to be straight (I also do not know where RN lives, so TOM's accusations regarding who I'm having gay sex with make no sense).

There is also the (likely) fact that TOM is mentally ill, which might at least partially explain what's going on. According to Octopus TOM submits many comments to Progressive Eruptions and The Swash Zone.

Comments in which he expresses his hate for gay people. And makes BS accusations of "Jew Hate" (I presume. Octo references accusations of bigotry). Octo thinks "these behaviors are attributable to a medical condition" and therefore TOM might not "have control over these behaviors". Which leads him to conclude that TOM can't be held "accountable for behaviors over which he/she has no control".

Then he says "if you accept this conjecture, and the inferences drawn, these best course of action is to ignore this troll". Octo's conclusion is that it wouldn't be "ethical" to "subject this person to any kind judgement or ridicule"... but I disagree. Given the fact that this is only conjecture (as Octo points out). In any case, TOM told me that the TOM of Stay A While is dead. So, if that is the case, then Octo's conjecture is wrong (Octo said "I recall a few posts and comments that alluded to some kind of medical issue involving brain surgery". So maybe it was surgery that killed him instead of just scrambling his brains).

On the other hand, how the hell would TOM the troll know if TOM (of Stay A While) was dead or not? Proof, I think, that these 2 TOMs are the one in the same. I mean, the TOM that submitted the comment quoted above is the same TOM that commented on Sue's blog. Proof of this is that the Blogger ID# of this comment by TOM on Sue's blog matches the Blogger ID# of the comment above (they are both 02464117691722213136).

And there is also the fact that there are posts/comments on the blog Stay A While in which the Wordpress blogger uses the ID "TOM" accuses Sue of sending him "hate mail" and writes posts complaing of liberal haters and accusing Rational Nation of attacking his blog.

Apparently this dipshit thinks he can hide behind the fact that his blog is on another platform (and therefore deny that the two TOMs are the same person). But the hater posted to his wordpress blog using his Blogger ID, a DEAD giveaway that TOM of Stay A While, TOM who submitted comments to Sue's blog, and TOM who has been submitting comments to my blog are ALL the same sick asshole.

TOM (comment on Sue's blog): RN what an elitist comment from you. Don't address the issue, just make your smart ass, cultist remark. What a blog troll you are. (3/16/2011 AT 10:37am).

TOM (comment on Stay A While): ...that's not what bloggers like RN and others I'm describing do. And certainly insults are not part of an adult discussion. ... No doubt there is much to learn from mindless idiots, trolls, and other hypocrites. ... thanks for reading my blog! (4/17/2011 AT 8:01pm).

TOM (comment on SWTD): You don't post to often here, but it's nice you blog currently on your other hate blogs. Good job spreading hate. Almost as good as RN, not quite. (1/18/2016 AT 9:03am).

The ID# for all comments is 02464117691722213136, and in the second comment (the one from Stay A While) TOM says "thanks for reading my blog"... but wait, I thought that TOM was dead?

TOM: Hey stupid fag boy, did you figure out who I am yet idiot? I'll give you a clue. The TOM you keep talking about is dead, and I never was him, but thanks for the laughs. Now back to getting butt fucked by your fag boy buddy RN. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA. (2/05/2016 12:13 PM).

So some other TOM posts to Stay A While and says "thanks for reading my blog", but the actual owner of the blog (someone calling himself TOM, but doing so on Wordpress) says nothing? He doesn't say "this isn't YOUR blog OTHER TOM, it's mine". Right. You can stop laughing now dumbass. Just because TOM is now hiding his Blogger profile (where I assume it said that Stay A While is his blog) he thinks he can continue denying the obvious. What a f*cking imbecile!

So, that mystery? Solved. But the question still remains - why does this dipshit love Willis Hart so much? I mean, it is a fact that Rational Nation commented on the blog of Willis for a VERY long time. So, shouldn't the guilt by association (with Rational Nation) TOM is applying to everyone else also apply to Willis? Isn't Willis (because he was buddy-buddy with RN for so long) also a "Jew hater"?

OST #105

Friday, February 5, 2016

On Willis Hart Getting All Exercised Over The Existence Of Mt. Rushmore

Pure stupidity from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart regarding the erection of monuments in honor of dead leaders.

Willis Hart: On Mount Rushmore... Not only is this a dumb idea (glorifying politicians), it's a dangerous one (the fact that history is replete with charismatic leaders who the people have succumbed to and ended up six feet under or wishing that they were). And look at the four dudes who we've chosen to put up there; two slaveholders and two war-mongering crazies (though, yes, Washington and Jefferson are preferable overall to Roosevelt and Lincoln)! I'm telling ya', if it was up to me, I'd have sandblasted that sucker (Mount Flushmore is what I call it) decades ago. (1/21/2016 AT 5:02pm).

For the most part it seems as though Willis is opposed to the existence of this monument (Willis: "I don't think that there should be a Rushmore, period"), although there is one post where he says that his Mount Rushmore would consist of the faces of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Cleveland.

Obviously it depends on WHICH politicians we're talking about. Clearly that one post proves that Willis is OK with "glorifying politicians"... it all depends on whether or not he personally agrees with the politics of the politician in question.

On the other hand, WTNPH has authored many more in which he says it should not exist or be destroyed. WHY so many commentaries in regards to this specific monument and none of our many other monuments honoring politicians? Washington DC has a lot of them, yet not one commentary where he says the Lincoln Memorial should be dismantled (which one might expect, given how much Willis hates Lincoln). Also no commentaries where he expresses an opinion in the affirmative re dynamiting the Washington Monument either (and so on).

Anyway, in regards to Willis' statement, "look at the four dudes who we've chosen to put up there"... FALSE. "We" did not choose. According to Wikipedia it was Gutzon Borglum, the sculptor, who "decided [Mount Rushmore] should have a more national focus and [he] chose the four presidents whose likenesses would be carved into the mountain".

I don't know why Willis would say "we" chose. Does he think there was a vote by all US citizens and we democratically selected George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln? It is true that "South Dakota historian Doane Robinson is credited with conceiving the idea of carving the likenesses of famous people into the Black Hills region of South Dakota in order to promote tourism in the region [and] Robinson wanted it to feature western heroes like Lewis and Clark, Red Cloud, and Buffalo Bill Cody"... but the sculptor decided on the presidents (although "President Coolidge insisted that, along with Washington, two Republicans and one Democrat be portrayed"). "We" had nothing to do with it (as per Wikipedia).

As for Willis' desire to "sandblast" Rushmore, this reminds me of the sentiments of another group.

Tracking a trail of historical obliteration: ISIS trumpets destruction of Nimrud [article excerpt] ISIS continues to bulldoze its way through the cultural heritage of Iraq and Syria, releasing a new propaganda video showing its fighters destroying Iraq's ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud in March. Nimrud lies close to ISIS' main stronghold in Iraq, the northern city of Mosul. The video... shows militants attacking the more than 3,000-year-old archaeological site with sledgehammers and power tools before finally using explosives to blow it up. The United Nations has previously described such deliberate cultural destruction as a "war crime"... (CNN article by Susannah Cullinane, Hamdi Alkhshali and Mohammed Tawfeeq. 4/13/2015).

So, as per this article (and given the fact that Rushmore is "listed on the National Register of Historic Places"), would the Hartster's desire to sandblast it be a WAR CRIME (if he acted on it)? He does say that "if it were up to him". Luckily it isn't up to him, as if it were destroyed it would surely cost South Dakota a lot in lost tourism dollars. One has to wonder why Willis hates the people of South Dakota so much. At least those citizens whose incomes are linked to tourism.

There is one valid criticism to be made here however, which is related to the fact that "the United States seized the area from the Lakota tribe after the Great Sioux War of 1876 [even though] the Treaty of Fort Laramie from 1868 had previously granted the Black Hills to the Lakota in perpetuity"... but none of Willis' idiotic diatribes have anything to do with the Lakota's valid gripes.

OST #104

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

On A Person Referring To Government Taxing To Fund Social Safety Net Programs As "Confiscation" & Implying Someone Who Votes For A Candidate Who Favors This Because They'd Personally Benefit As Lacking Morals

I would direct this individual to the Constitution, which reads as follows...

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; (Wikipedia/Taxing and Spending Clause).

Yes, this person (Willis Hart of the blog "Contra O'Reilly") is a Libertarian; and Libertarians don't believe that the Constitution gives Congress the power to tax to pay for "general welfare" items, but THEY ARE WRONG!

[Libertarians believe] Section 8 of the Constitution forbids the spending of tax money in order to help people, but if you actually read Article 1, Section 8 instead of just accepting [a Libertarian's] word for it, you'll see that [they are] just plain wrong. Article 1, Section 8 begins: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States".

The meaning of this clause is very clear: If a legislative action can be justified as providing for the general welfare of the United States, then Congress has the power to do it (other provisions providing some limitations, such as the guarantees of free speech and so on in the Bill of Rights). There's no provision anywhere else in the Constitution that forbids Congress from engaging in secular charitable action. (A Libertarian Ignorance of General Welfare Challenges Jared Polis by Congress Watcher. That's My Congress 12/22/2009).

The Supreme Court specifically rebuked the Libertarian interpretation with their 1/6/1936 decision in United States v. Butler, in which the majority opinion was that the clause granted "a substantive power... to appropriate", which is not subject to the limitations imposed by the other enumerated powers of Congress (source).

So, the Supreme Court has ruled that government DOES have the power to levy taxes in order to pay for the "general welfare". There is also, btw, no restriction on voters that says they can't cast their ballot for a candidate that promises some "general welfare" spending that might personally benefit the voter. In spite of what Willis might think.

Willis Hart: On Voting for Somebody Because They Promised to Confiscate Property from One Person and Give it to You... Has it really come down to that? I mean, are we that desperate and pitiful now? (1/31/2016 AT 8:40).

So, no. It hasn't "come down to this". This, I would figure, has ALWAYS been a factor for many voters. Voters who would not describe their motivations for selecting a candidate as either "desperate" or "pitiful" (or morally lacking). I would say they are acting in their rational self interest... and isn't this something Libertarians consider a virtue?

Secondly, I'd remind this person that the United States *is* a social democracy. The US isn't as strong a social democracy as the European social democracies, but we do have Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and other socialist programs... and these programs have entire voting blocks for which these programs play a prominent role (in regards to who these blocks vote for). Seniors on Social Security might be "desperate" and their situation might be "pitiful"... but are these voters "pitiful"?

Obviously Willis believes so (and looks down his nose at these people). Which reminds me of (as Media Matters described it) "Matthew Vadum's vicious diatribe against poor people".

Media Matters: What is a news network to do when an author compares poor Americans to criminals and says it's "un-American" to help them vote? If that network is Fox - the home of class warfare against the poor - the decision is to give that author a spot on TV the next day.

The day after publishing an article titled, "Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American", which contained such abhorrent statements as "[r]egistering [the poor] to vote is like handing out burglary tools to criminals" and repeatedly called the poor "nonproductive segments of the population", right-wing author Matthew Vadum appeared on Eric Bolling's Fox Business show to rail against President Obama's voter outreach plan. (9/3/2011 article by Zachary Pleat).

What I find pitiful is this kind of demonization of the poor (from the likes of Hart and Vadum. I bet the Hartster would love Vadum's article). I can absolutely see Willis agreeing that "encouraging those who burden society to participate in elections isn't about helping the poor. It's about helping the poor to help themselves to others' money".

BTW, I'd like to point out that this commentary from Willis (in which he calls voters acting in their own economic self-interest desperate and pitiful) lies in stark contrast with his previously stated support for the negative income tax.

Willis Hart: Yes, we do away with the minimum wage, completely. But then we replace it with a form of negative income tax, possibly along the lines of what Milton Friedman first suggested. [excerpt from "Thinking Outside the Wage"] (6/4/2012 AT 7:13pm).

Doing away with the minimum wage is an idea that Conservatives love because it is (in essence) a subsidy to Big Business, in that it allows companies to underpay labor (Walmart being a HUGE offender here) and have the taxpayer make up the difference (SWTD #222).

Willis claims that we should "allow the market to set the true value of labor" but (if you get rid of the MW and institute a NIT) the result would be an EVEN GREATER undervaluing of labor (as he says, when you subsidize something you get more of it. Here the thing you'd get more of is low wage jobs... and they wouldn't be newly created jobs, they'd be existing jobs that employers could significantly drop the wages for).

But, setting that argument aside, where the hell does Willis think the government is going to get the money to pay a negative income tax? This would, of course, require more EVIL "confiscation" (of "other people's money"). Perhaps he's changed his mind on this and now thinks we should just let poor people die? I don't know.

In either case I say these views (government taxation as authorized by the Constitution is "confiscation" or "theft") prove the Hartster is a total moron as well as a stoogish true-believing plutocrat lover.

Image: The cartoon below was one of the results returned when I did an image search on "Negative Income Tax". Obviously the cartoonist does not have a positive view of it. BTW, notice that the stick figures who are non-payers are smiling... why the f*ck would people who are so poor that they don't have to pay income taxes be smiling?! F*cking ridiculous. Reminds me of the sitcom about happy homeless people (because they had no responsibilities) that was pitched to the Jack Lucas character in the movie The Fisher King.

OST #103

Monday, February 1, 2016

Willis Hart Absurdity Re The NYT Being A Communist Paper & "The Left" (In It's Entirety) Also Being Communist

Absurd broad brush painting by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart (in the context of reporting the NYT did on some South African politician) in which the dude asserts that the NYT (a for profit USA newspaper) is (1) A Communist entity, and (2) attempting to manipulate South African politics. Oh, and that "The Left" (in it's entirety) is also 100 percent Commie.

Willis Hart: On the Slanderous Attempts by the New York Times to Discredit Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Tar Him as a Puppet of Pretoria... The New York Times has a done a lot of bad and unfair reporting over the years but this was especially hideous. Buthelezi was a lifelong opponent of Apartheid and as the head of the Zulu nation (an entity that has been dealing with the Afrikaners for close to two centuries and way, WAY before the slantheaded ANC) the dude used to routinely fill up soccer stadiums, for Christ. Of course, we all know the real reason why the New York Times (Pravda on the Hudson) didn't care for Buthelezi. It was because the fellow believes in capitalism, private property, free trade, and a limited, republican form of government, all of which are antithetical to the left, and damn it all we can't have that.

P.S. They also couldn't control him (a la the rest of those "buffer Negroes"). That must have really pissed them off. (1/30/2016 AT 9:03pm).

This is pure idiocy, of course. I refer to his commentary concerning how The NYT and "The Left" is Communist. This assertion being particularly absurd given the fact that WTNPH determined I was an idiot after he came to the (incorrect) conclusion that I did not know there were different flavors of Libertarianism.

Willis Hart: On the Idiot and Libertarianism... What the idiot fails to comprehend (and this is a long standing problem with the idiot) is that libertarianism, just like with a lot of other things, is a) a continuum (from the moderate policy oriented libertarianism of the Cato Institute to the harder, more doctrinaire, orientation of the Mises and Ayn Rand Institutes) and b) a construct that has a great many permutations to it; neolibertarianism, paleolibertarianism (whose anti-immigration emphasis I fully reject), classical liberalism (insert Amity Shlaes and our colleague, RN), civil libertarianism (which actually includes a fair number of liberals), objectivism, anarcho libertarianism, etc.. I mean, I know that the simpler that person is, the more that this type of individual requires a clear-cut dichotomy, ideal types, etc., just to get frigging by in their life but enough. Enough. (1/28/2014 AT 7:51pm).

So, I guess that Libertarianism, just like with a lot of other things, resides on a continuum... but there is an exception with "the Left". He did say "just like with a lot of other things", not ALL things. The Left is obviously an exception to the "continuum" thing, in that everyone on the Left is Communist.

Although I doubt many people would agree with this assertion. I know I would immediately categorize anyone that did as being "simple", and wonder (based on the WTNPH post in question) if Willis Hart is the type of simpleton that requires a clear-cut dichotomy, ideal types, etc.

As for what Willis wrote about Mangosuthu Buthelezi, I'm going to have to admit that this is an assertion that I'm unable to ascertain the veracity of. Mostly because Willis neglects to link to any NYT article in which they engage in the alleged hideously unfair reporting.

I did find the following article, however.

Zulus' Buthelezi - Statesman or Scoundrel, He'll Count in Pretoria's Future [article excerpt] The African National Congress continues to denigrate him as a collaborator who it asserts does not really speak for blacks. The congress adherents assert that while their own leaders were in prison or in exile, Mr. Buthelezi was offered and accepted special treatment from a succession of leaders in Pretoria who were committed to maintaining apartheid. [However, Buthelezi says] "Apartheid is doomed... No matter how you analyze the South African situation, status quo apartheid politics is a thing of the past". (4/18/1990 NYT article by Christopher S. Wren).

Would this article fall into the "unfair reporting" category that Willis alleged? Who the hell knows. I mean, IF Willis wanted anyone to know WTF he was talking about, he could have given an example. But, as is usually the case, he does not. Leaving anyone reading his blog with the task of having to research the subject if they want to know what he's talking about. And, given the fact that Willis rejects most comments (including mine), all I can do is guess.

In any case, as you can see for yourself, the author of the article I found is only reporting what the ANC (African National Congress, a social democratic political party) folks are saying (the author isn't asserting any of this himself and likely isn't in a position to know if what the ANC says is true).

Proof that the NYT is a Communist paper that is (or was) attempting to manipulate South African politics - per the Hartster's assertion that they tried but "they also couldn't control him" which "pissed them off"? I say no, but that would be because Willis present no evidence.

I can state with 100 percent positivity, however, that capitalism, private property, free trade, and a limited, republican form of government are not all antithetical to the Left, in that (if it were) "the Left" (in it's entirety, which would include the Democratic Party - not just it's Progressive wing, but the 3rd Way adherents as well as the Blue Dogs, a group that Willis formerly identified with) would have to be dedicated Communists.

Which, I think that unless you're Simple like Willis is (apparently), we can agree is not the case. Not only not the case, but a charge that is laughably absurd. Yeah, there actually is an American Communist Party but it's membership is estimated at a paltry 2000 individuals, so they really are quite insignificant. This despite what loons like former Congressman Allen West might say.

Remember when West alleged that "about 80 House Democrats are members of the Communist Party" (a charge PolitiFact deemed pants on fire)? Well, apparently Willis thinks West was wrong - it isn't just 80 out of 188. He thinks all 188 are Commies.

This from someone who said he was supportative of Jim Webb's presidential run AS A DEMOCRAT! Webb might have started his political career as a Republican, but he did hold a Senate seat AS A DEMOCRAT... and therefore is a part of the Left and a Communist... according to Willis Hart. Makes me wonder... maybe Willis is a closet Commie? Or perhaps he's just an idiot.

OST #102