Saturday, April 30, 2016

Is A Move Or Trip To Oklahoma In Willis Hart's Future?

After hearing about a recent ruling by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, it occurred to me that the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart might want to either move or vacation there to take advantage of the unanimous decision that says oral sex with an unconscious person is not rape.

In Oklahoma, it's legal to have oral sex with someone who's completely unconscious, the state's highest criminal court has ruled. ...the Court... found that a teenage boy was not guilty of forcible sodomy after having oral sex with a teenage girl who was so intoxicated after a night of drinking that she had to be carried to his car. "Forcible Sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation", the judges ruled on March 24.

...some legal experts note that Oklahoma's forcible sodomy law only prohibits oral sex with someone who's unable to provide consent because of mental illness or mental disability, not because of intoxication or unconsciousness. Therefore... the court's ruling was appropriate. The state has a separate rape law that protects victims who are too drunk to consent, but only in cases of vaginal or anal penetration, not oral sex. (Here's Why Oral Rape is Not Rape in Oklahoma by Samantha Michaels. Mother Jones 4/28/2016).

So the judges DID NOT say that intoxication equals consent. If they had I'd definitely not be surprised if Willis hopped on a plane ASAP to get to OK for some "consensual sex". But getting to orally rape a woman after getting her liquored up doesn't sound bad (if you're a raper).

Willis, if he doesn't move to OK, may be scheduling an OK vacation very soon, I think. I say this due to many many commentaries Willis has authored for his blog in which he laments the fact that the man sometimes gets charged with rape when two drunk people have sex and the woman "has second thoughts" the next day (OST #136).

BTW, given Willis' constant and long-lasting hand-wringing over a problem (false rape charges) that represents 2-8 percent of accusations, while not seemingly caring much (or at all) about the fact that that less than half of incidents of rape are even reported and only three percent of rapists actually receive prison time, it's no surprise he's "racking his brain" regarding drunken sex possibly being "non-forcible rape".

Willis Hart: Non-Forcible Rape? I'm really racking my head on this one, folks. The ONLY thing that I could come up with is a 20 year-old having consensual sex with a 17 1/2 year old, some borderline statutory rape type of situation. I really think that Mr.s Ryan and Akin need to take a minute and flush this bad boy out a little. Agreed? (9/4/2012 AT 7:29 PM).

Yeah, if a man gets a woman drunk and has sex with her, might that be "non-forcible rape"? Because highly inebriated or unconscious women don't resist (at least not much). But that likely didn't occur to the Hartster because, in his mind, if a woman is too drunk to say NO, that's the same as saying YES... provided the man is drunk as well, I'm gathering (from his many posts on the subject).

See also: Rape-publicans will soon be descending on Oklahoma to sexually assault underage girls (4/30/2016 commentary from the blog Disaffected And It Feel So Good).

OST #139

Thursday, April 28, 2016

On The Racist Blogger Willis Hart Criticizing Beyonce (Using Foul Language) For "Buck-Dancing & Jiving with Some Idiotic Blond Weave"

Another racist post from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, this time his ire directed at the incredibly successful singer/performer Beyoncé Knowles.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Beyonce Can Do One Fucking Minstrel Show After Another (Buck-Dancing and Jiving with Some Idiotic Blond Weave) and Not Be Called a Coon (Her Fist in the Air Stunt Evidently Giving Her Some Street-Cred) but Ben Carson, a Noteworthy Pediatric Neurosurgeon, Gets Called One Simply for Having an Opinion.

Yep, this unfortunately passes for logic among groups such as the New Black Panther Party, Black Lives Matter, etc.. And the thing is, they don't even understand what cooning is, for Christ sakes (the fact that it involves behavior and NOT opinions)! How embarrassing and quite a drop-off from Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington, Ed Brooke, Thomas Sowell, etc., wouldn't you say? (3/7/2016 AT 3:44pm).

Actually, no, I would not say. Ben Carson is being criticized for saying ridiculous things... such as comparing women who get abortions to slaveholders, saying ObamaCare is worse than slavery, Jews could have prevented the Holocaust if they had guns, being gay is a choice because prison turns people gay, there's no such thing as a war crime, and many more (source).

As for Willis saying "they don't even understand what cooning is"... first, who the hell is this "they"? Sounds like he's implying that the New Black Panthers (who are unaffiliated with the "old" Black Panthers) and Black Lives Matter (or affiliated individuals) have referred to Carson using this slur? Who knows? I Googled (and results were returned), but when I searched the pages for the word "coon", I found it was not present.

Perhaps if I looked harder/longer I could find something, but I'm honestly not going to waste my time with such bullshit. Bullshit because Willis is the one who doesn't know what "cooning" means. According to a 10/7/2015 Mediaite article "within the black community... Coonery [applies when] poor Blacks embarrass bourgeoisie Blacks".

So, Carson, being a "bourgeoisie Black", CAN'T be guilty of "coonery". Neither can Beyonce, as the term applies to poor Blacks only. When used by middle class & wealthy Blacks. When used by Whites "they are slurring all black people". So, when Willis suggests Beyonce is a coon, he's slurring BOTH Beyonce and Ben Carson.

An offensive term Willis Hart uses (although he dishonestly attempts to put the word into Black mouths) BECAUSE HE'S A RACIST!

The ONLY reason he refers to Beyonce's performances as "minstrel shows" is because she is Black. The ONLY reason he describes her performances (the non-audio aspects) as "buck dancing and jiving" is because she's Black. And the ONLY reason he criticizes her "idiotic blonde weave" is BECAUSE SHE IS BLACK! I mean, does anyone think that he would level similar criticisms against a White performer? Of course not.

As for the criticisms of Ben Carson "for having an opinion", the criticisms (such as I noted above) have to do with his political statements and are not related to his career as a "noteworthy pediatric neurosurgeon", you fucking racist dumbass!

Image: Beyoncé Knowles performs during the 2/7/2016 Super Bowl 50 halftime show. It was the performance of Formation that PO'd (White racially-biased) Conservatives like WTNPH, because the music "video also featured imagery closely aligned with the #BlackLivesMatters movement". (Why the Beyoncé controversy is bigger than you think).

OST #138

Monday, April 25, 2016

Willis Hart To Win Nobel Peace Prize?

Is the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart a potential future Nobel Peace prize winner? He just might be, if the organization he writes one of his "notes" to takes his advice.

Willis Hart: Note to ISIS... Hey guys, I have a suggestion. Instead of engaging in mass-executions and suicide attacks, you try a little something different. Like, I don't know, maybe construct a functional sewage system, hire a few traffic cops, build and maintain a half-way reliable electrical grid - you know, basic civilization stuff. No, it isn't as exciting as playing soldier or as psychologically comforting as thinking that there's a actually a god who rewards murder and mayhem with an afterlife of unlimited jail-bait but you gotta grow up sometime, fellas'. (4/11/2016 AT 4:22pm).

OK, so now that Willis has pointed out the flaw in the logic of ISIS, I'm sure they're going to change their ways and follow Mr. Hart's advice ASAP. Because you know someone high up in the ISIS ranks reads Contra O'Reilly.

Anyway, now that Willis has solved the ISIS/terrorism problem, I'm positive that, in appreciation, the citizens of the world will demand that he be awarded a Nobel Peace prize. You know, because, unlike Obama, he actually brought about peace.

Or, he is about to. Now that ISIS is aware of what they're doing wrong (thanks to Hart's note), it's only a matter of time before they start behaving themselves and doing exactly what Willis has prescribed. Because they will recognize the wisdom behind his words. Also because (upon realizing that they've been wrong all along) will be greatly ashamed. And realize they DO need to grow up and stop fantasizing about martyring themselves in the name of Allah (by blowing themselves up/murdering others) and receiving their "jailbait" reward in the afterlife.

Although the Koran states that believers receive "companions of equal age [who are] well-matched... pure beings" known as Houri. However, "some scholars argue that the promise of 72 virgins is a mistranslation". Also (however), according to Ibn Warraq (referring to The Syro-Aramaic reading of the Koran) "the context makes it clear that it is food and drink that is being offered, and not unsullied maidens or houris".

But Al-Tirmidhi (824–892) did write that an "houri is a girl of tender age". So, jailbait? This might very well be what ISIS suicide bombers believe they're going to be rewarded with in the afterlife. Anyway, given that they're fanatics, they'd probably want to chop off Willis' head... as opposed to reading and following the advice he gives in his "note".

I suppose I could be wrong, however, and that when Gary Johnson is elected president, he will appoint the Nobel-Peace-prize-winning Willis Hart to a prominent cabinet position (or Gary might even select him as his VP). In order to take advantage of his extraordinary wisdom.

By the way, there is also the fact that all the territory occupied by ISIS is actually parts of other countries, ruled by other people. If ISIS fighters put down their weapons and started constructing functional sewage systems, hiring traffic cops, and building and maintaining reliable electrical grids... they'd be shot and killed. Or arrested, tried and executed. You can't start acting like a government when you're not one. Because the actual government views your militia as belligerents.

I mean, when/if they win the war, then they likely would do these things (as their goal is to set up a strict Islamic state/Caliphate). They have to win the war FIRST, however. Are they "playing soldier", as the dense Hartster puts it, or are they freedom fighters? Yeah, I think that (at least in their view), they're the later. And freedom fighters have to win first BEFORE doing things governments do.

In other words... Willis again shows how much of a total moron he is. Oh, and "murder and mayhem"? They view us (the United States, Europe & allies) as the ones engaging in this, and they're only retaliating.

OST #137

Friday, April 22, 2016

How Many Women Has Willis Hart Raped?

Which is the bigger problem, fabricated rape charges resulting from a woman having drunken sex and regretting it later (or simply regretting having sex, drunk or not), or actual rapists getting away with their crimes sans punishment?

Me, I'm going with the latter, given the fact that less than half of incidents of rape are reported, only three percent of rapists actually receive prison time, and Republican politicians think that women can't get pregnant from rape (even though there are 32k rape pregnancies in the US per year)!

Yes, it is true that 2-8 percent of rape charges may be false, but on college campuses across the nation, surveys show that students think 50 percent of the charges are fabricated! Almost certainly explaining why less than half of rapes are reported (because women fear not being believed).

Yet, despite these facts, the misogynist blogger Willis Hart has authored literally dozens of commentaries lamenting the huge problem that exists of women lying about getting raped. And, no, that it's a "huge problem" isn't something he's actually written, but given the huge number of commentaries he's written on the subject, I think it's fair to assume he thinks it is.

Commentaries such as the following.

Willis Hart: On the Assertion that Women Should Be Believed Absolutely... It's ludicrous and it's patronizing. Of course women lie and they probably do it as often as men do [Link]. That and do we really and truly want to put men away for 20 years just 'cause the woman had some second thoughts the next day? Come on! (4/21/2016 AT 8:31pm).

Willis' link is to a Science Direct article titled "Gender differences in lying". According to the abstract "aversion to lying has been consistently observed in sender–receiver games [and] women have demonstrated greater aversion to lying for a small monetary benefit" (what the actual article says I don't know because there is a $35.95 price attached).

Note the article (at least according to the abstract) concerns lying when there is a monetary benefit to be gained. The article has NOTHING to do with rape. Yet Willis (king of strawmen and non sequiturs) makes such a connection.

Frankly Willis' obsession/fixation on the topic of women lying about being rape (which is very rare and very outside the norm) is something I find disturbing. And it makes me wonder, has Willis Hart been "falsely" accused of rape? I would not be surprised if he had, given commentaries such as the following.

Willis Hart: On the Notion that Whenever Two Consenting Albeit Impaired Adults Have Drunken Sex Only the Fellow Is Considered a Rapist... How is THAT not sexist; a) to the man in terms of unfairness and b) to the woman for treating her like an infant, or at the bare minimum a double-standard? It sure as hell seems like those things to me. (3/24/2016 AT 10:26pm).

Add to this the fact that this obvious misgonyist also frequently blogs about how people who believe that patriarchy is a real thing are "conspiracy nutcases", gender pay inequality is a "discredited meme" and that "radical feminists" are the source of these "thoroughly discredited concepts"... and I've got to wonder.

Wonder, because Willis seems really pissed at all the lying bitches. So, while Willis Hart may have raped zero women, the number could also be one or more. Surely this would explain why he hates women so much. Although the reason could simply be that he's a typical Libertarian female-hating asshole.

The Libertarian "goddess" Ayn Rand authored fictional novels in which the male "hero" raped and the women liked it. Perhaps Willis, as a Libertarian who "worships Ayn Rand" (a paraphrase of his words) thinks that is how sex should work. That if a man wants a woman he gets her liquored up and when she "consents" he takes her.

I could be wrong, but I think that it's quite likely that Willis has raped and that his victim regretted getting raped... and that explains all these commentaries about something that (while it does happen) is rare. Much more frequently a woman who was raped is disbelieved, even though she's telling the truth. And that Willis suggests otherwise? IMO that makes him a rape-enabler. Not that his blog specifically enabled any rapes, but his mindset (that this is a HUGE problem) surely isn't conducive to creating an environment where the real problem (that women are disbelieved when they are telling the truth) gets addressed and dealt with.

And, btw, who the hell does Willis think is asserting that Women should be believed ABSOLUTELY? I mean, is legislation about to be passed that would lock men up immediately (without a trial) if they are accused of rape? No. All I've heard some people say is that we should act as if women are telling the truth when the say they're raped (but investigate/have a trial). Absolutely nobody is saying what Willis suggests some (unnamed) people are (absent sourcing). This is another of the Harster's fucking strawmen, in other words.

Supporting Document
[DSD #22] Drunkenness Equals Consent, Women Lying About Being Raped When They Had Drunken Sex And Regretted It Later Is A Big Problem, Rape Culture Is A False Meme (A catalog of numerous commentaries by WTNPH in which he argues that women lying about being raped is a HUGE problem).

Image: The "minstrel" Marc Lamont Hill tweets fact about rape that the misogynist Willis Hart rails against frequently on his Libertarian blog.

OST #136

Thursday, April 21, 2016

Does Willis Hart Subscribe To The Cockamamie Economic Theory Known As Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism?

Either the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart subscribes to it, or admires/used to admire another blogger he thinks subscribes/subscribed to Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarianism (the truest/purest form of Libertarianism).

Willis Hart: On Going from an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian Who Worshiped Ayn Rand and Who Thoroughly Despised the Progressive Left to Somebody Who Essentially Signs-Off on Every Cockamamie Leftist Notion Under the Damned Sun from Demonizing Fossil Fuels to Playing the Race-Card to Demagoguing on Income Inequality, Class Warfare, etc... That is exponentially far from normal behavior and, yes, when you throw in the whole Jersey McJones alter-ego, it's damned near psychotic. (4/19/2016 AT 5:25pm).

OK, so Willis previously said "I am hardly an anarcho-capitalist". But I also do not recall Rational Nation (the individual Willis is referring to) voicing any support for anarcho-capitalist Libertarianism (AKA neo-feudalism on steroids). Fact is, when I linked to the WTNPH commentary on the RNUSA blog, the Rational guy said "I am not now, nor have I ever been an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian".

So neither RN nor Willis was/is an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian? No, I'm not buying it. Not in regards to Hart. For a few reasons. First, (as I already noted) anarcho-capitalism is the purest form of Libertarianism. And, as Noam Chomsky pointed out "the idea of free contract between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke". But it's a joke I know Willis believes. Although, instead of a joke, in a Libertarian's mind this is how the world should be - and would be a Randian utopia (because punishing the poors, whom Ayn Rand hated with a passion, is one of the primary goals of the sick ideology known as Objectivism).

Secondly, we do know that Willis Hart hates Progressives with a passion. So with this praise of who he believes Rational Nation used to be, he transfers to Nation his hatred. And (I'm theorizing) that we aren't dealing with just one instance of transference. It's everything Willis attributes to (the imaginary) past Rational Nation that really applies to him.

Which means he is the Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian. Perhaps he changed his mind? Given the fact that Hart is a person who has been getting more and more radical over time, I find it quite likely that he has "progressed" to the most insane form Libertarianism.

And Willis is likely with Rand in her hate for the poor (as well as anyone who believes in democracy and disagrees with the idea that society should be organized to benefit the plutocrats). And he most likely agrees with Ayn Rand's views concerning the less fortunate (she thought they should die. A feeling she held so strongly that she killed millions of poor "moochers" and Statists in her revenge porn* novel "atlas shrugged").

Why? Because he said Rational Nation worshipped Rand (it's transference again. Remember I said everything Hart said he used to admire in the Rational guy is, in reality, qualities he admires in himself). Willis Hart is the guy who is an Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian who worships Ayn Rand and who thoroughly despises the Progressive Left.

And he also very frequently whines constantly about "demonizing fossil fuels" (AKA acknowledging the scientific community's consensus on climate change), "playing the race-card" (acknowledging racism exists not just as a fringe issue, but as a systemic problem) and "demagoguing on income inequality" (not bowing down and worshipping at the feet of the wealthy as he does).

Conclusion? The behavior being exhibited by the Harster is exponentially far from normal and, yes, when you throw in the whole Jersey McJones alter-ego delusion (Willis believing that the blogger Jersey McJones is a sock puppet of Rational Nation), it's almost certainly a sign of psychosis.

(*Revenge of the overtaxed plutocrats).

Image: A simple depiction of why Libertarians love the psychotic anarcho-capitalism idea; it's a system under which worthless scumbag poors are forced to submit to their wealthy superiors... or die.

OST #135

Monday, April 18, 2016

Demolishing BS From A Total Moron Re The Fact That Blacks Are Arrested Disproportionately To Whites 4 Committing The Same Crimes (Moron Sez They Aren't)

A 9/02/2015 HuffPo article by Kim Farbota says "there is a common conservative narrative that indicates the disproportionate incarceration of black people is not the result of systemic racism, but rather of shortcomings within the black community". The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is one such Conservative, making just such a case in a recent blog post.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Black Arrest Rate Is Nearly Identical to the Statistics Derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey... This all but demolishes the charge that blacks are arrested disproportionately to the crime that they commit in that it makes no sense whatsoever that victims would falsely accuse black folks as opposed to trying to nail the true perpetrator. It also seems to point out that, while, yes, there are no doubt some biased cops out there, the vast majority of those in law enforcement are simply doing their jobs and apprehending who they're supposed to. Unless of course you're paranoid. (4/17/2016 AT 4:33pm).

"Black people commit more crimes than white people" is also a factor in the Conservative narrative (as per the HuffPo article) and it's basically the argument Willis makes in his post.


(1) If a black person and a white person each commit a crime, the black person is more likely to be arrested. This is due in part to the fact that black people are more heavily policed. Black people, more often than white people, live in dense urban areas. Dense urban areas are more heavily policed than suburban or rural areas. When people live in close proximity to one another, police can monitor more people more often. In more heavily policed areas, people committing crimes are caught more frequently. This could help explain why, for example, black people and white people smoke marijuana at similar rates, yet black people are 3.7 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. (The discrepancy could also be driven by overt racism, more frequent illegal searches of black people, or an increased willingness to let non-blacks off with a warning).

(2) When black people are arrested for a crime, they are convicted more often than white people arrested for the same crime. ...whether or not a defendant can afford a reputable attorney. The interaction of poverty and trial outcomes could help explain why, for example, while black defendants represent about 35% of drug arrests, 46% of those convicted of drug crimes are black. (This discrepancy could also be due to racial bias on the part of judges and jurors.)

(3) When black people are convicted of a crime, they are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration compared to whites convicted of the same crime. When a person is convicted of a crime, a judge often has discretion in determining whether the defendant will be incarcerated or given a less severe punishment such as probation, community service, or fines. One study found that in a particular region blacks were incarcerated for convicted felony offenses 51% of the time while whites convicted of felonies were incarcerated 38% of the time. (Black Crime Rates: What Happens When Numbers Aren't Neutral by Kim Farbota. The Huffington Post 9/2/2015, Updated 1/19/2016).

Yeah, that all sounds totally fair. Also note that that the article refers several times to victimless drug crimes. So, while Willis says "I would legalize marijuana immediately", he totally ignores victimless crime in his comparing of Black Arrest rates and the Statistics derived from the National Crime Victimization survey.

Gee, I wonder why. Perhaps because looking at victimless drug crimes (and how African Americans are arrested at a much higher rate than Whites for these crimes) doesn't fit his narrative. That narrative being that "law enforcement are simply doing their jobs" in arresting Blacks who are much more criminally inclined than Whites. And, no, racism absolutely is not a factor... unless you're "paranoid".

"White people are more likely to deal drugs, but black people are more likely to get arrested for it" according to a 9/30/2014 Washington Post article by Christopher Ingraham. So, more "paranoia"?

Jonathan Rothwell of the Brookings Institute: Arrest data shows a striking trend, [which is that] arrests of blacks have fallen for violent and property crimes, but soared for drug related crimes. As of 2011, drug crimes comprised 14 percent of all arrests and a miscellaneous category that includes "drug paraphernalia" possession comprised an additional 31 percent of all arrests. Just 6 percent and 14 percent of arrests were for violent and property crimes, respectively. (link).

Which isn't to say that I think there is no disparity when it comes to arrests of Black people for crimes in which there is a victim. What statistics derived from the National Crime Victimization Survey is the Hartster referring to?

Perhaps I could figure this out if I did a little more digging, but I'm not inclined to do so, given the fact that I've already demolished Hart's racist BS simply by pointing out the FACT that he totally ignores victimless crimes (drug crimes, traffic violations AKA "driving while Black", etc).

Image: Here's a pretty astonishing chart on the skyrocketing number of arrests of black Americans for nonviolent drug crimes. What it shows is that Blacks are far more likely to be arrested for selling or possessing drugs than whites, even though whites use drugs at the same rate. While other crimes are down. So it's clearly drug arrests driving the disparity, yet WTNPH ignores this fact... for some reason (his racism).

OST #134

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Hillary Clinton Will Be Convicted, Go To Prison Over Her eMail Server, & End Up Campaigning From Behind Bars (All Of This Occurring B4 Voting In November)

I think it's finally happened. The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has completely lost his marbles. By which I mean he's flipped his lid; gone totally bonkers. And who knew that it would be delusions concerning the 2016 potus hopefuls that would push him over the edge?

Willis Hart: On the Fact that, While I'm Not a Huge Trump Supporter (Johnson's My Candidate), I Do Take Some Solace from the Likelihood that at Least the Dude Won't be Forced to Run his Campaign from a Prison Cell or from a Pre-1990 Time-Machine in Which the Old Soviet Union Still Exists... Yep, there is that. (4/16/2016 AT 9:43pm).

My Theory as to WTF Willis is talking about?

Obviously, Hillary Clinton is the one who is going to be forced to run her campaign from behind bars. Because an indictment is coming soon (maybe Willis reads NewsMax?). But she's also going to be convicted and imprisoned - and all of this before voting in November! Because we all know how speedy the justice system operates. At least in the fevered imagination of someone afflicted with (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome, apparently (SWTD #333).

As for running a campaign from a "pre-1990 time machine in which the old Soviet Union exists", maybe he's referring to Ted Cruz? Or, is this a "Bernie Sanders is a Commie" reference? What Willis is talking about is unclear.

In any case, I guessed that Willis read about the coming Hillary Clinton indictment on NewsMax because they recently ran a story in which Ronald Kessler (an individual who WTNPH praises as "a 2-time winner of the Peabody award and an individual who has consistently criticized presidents from both parties") was reported to have said (on NewsMax TV's The Steve Malzberg Show) that a Hillary Clinton indictment is coming "definitely before November".

Although Kessler thinks Obama will pardon her, but the "damage will have been done". By this I'm guessing what Kessler thinks will happen is that HRC will be indicted, she will lose the election (the damage), she will be convicted, and then Obama will pardon her.

Unless he's with Willis in believing that HRC will receive a trial of UNPRECEDENTED speed, be convicted and campaign from behind bars. I'm unclear as to what Kessler means. He says the pardon will come too late... so does that mean he's saying a pardon can't save her campaign (meaning he thinks an indictment, trial and conviction will ALL occur before voting in november).

If that's the case, then I'd say that CDS has driven him just as insane as it appears Willis is. If not? Then my assessment is that CDS has only resulted in a level of insanity somewhat lesser than the Hartster's.

In any case, note that Willis said he was "not a huge Trump supporter", by which I take it he means he's somewhat the Trump supporter? Does he think Trump would be a good 2nd choice behind Gary Johnson? And perhaps Willis feels this way because Trump's racism, bigotry and misogyny are in line with his own? I'm guessing yes, given the fact that Willis referred to Trump's racism, Islamaphobia and misogyny as "impolitic statements".

Image: Photoshopped image produced by a an individual suffering from CDS (Clinton derangement syndrome).

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, specifically in regards to the email controversy).

OST #133

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Who Are The "Psychotic Trolls" That "Now Have a Shitload More Time on Their Hands"?

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart frequently posts cryptic commentaries on his blog, although I do have a good guess as to what he means by the following...

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Couple of Psychotic Trolls Now Have a Shitload More Time on Their Hands... Just consider it my gift to society. (4/13/2016 AT 4:22pm).

My Theory as to WTF Willis is talking about?

Early last month Willis restricted comments to team members (thereby ending what he called "secret comments").

The result being that I can no longer post on his blog. This (I am quite positive) is what he's talking about. I am one of the "psychotic trolls" he is referring to.

But he refers to "trolls" (plural). Which causes me to wonder... who are the others? Is he referring to specific people... possibly Rational Nation and also possibly Flying Junior? Or are these other trolls figments of his imagination?

In any case, Willis has finally obtained the perfect echo chamber he so obviously desired. Now he can pretend that *if* anyone (beside himself) reads his blog, they're all nodding their heads in agreement. Or seething in anger because they know Willis is right (although they'd still like to post their delusional comments disagreeing with the sage Hartster).

Thank goodness Willis can now post, knowing he's 100 percent correct in whatever idiocy he writes. And not be distracted with the chore of deleting a bunch of "psychotic troll" comments (comments from anyone who disagrees with him... I'm guessing).

Although he might have convinced himself that, given that I can't comment, I've left and no longer read his blog. Which is why I have a "shitload more time on my hands". But obviously I didn't leave and I am still reading (this blog being the proof).

OST #132

Monday, April 11, 2016

Willis Hart Racist WTF: Objecting To Getting Raped Is Racist (A Great Many Leftist Feminists In Europe Don't Say)

White European feminist women want Brown Muslim men to rape them. Or they're actively refusing help from White males (if available) in preventing/stopping these rapes... because that would be racist. That this is the case is a "fact" according to the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart. Although he makes this claim sans attribution/sourcing.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a Great Many Leftist Feminists in Europe Would Seemingly Rather Get Raped by an Illiterate, Violent, and Egregiously Medieval Piece of Shit Scumbag Savage than Have One of Their White European Male Counterparts Defend Them in that that Would Be Racist... And the slow-bleed European suicide continues. (4/9/2016 AT 2:57pm).

WTF? And this is a "fact"? If it is, then where is the attribution or source that proves a "great many" "European feminists" hold this opinion?

Yeah, I do not FOR ONE SECOND buy this load of horse manure. Sounds to me like something Willis likely read on World Net Daily.

And, wanna bet that "egregiously medieval piece of shit scumbag savage" is code for (a brown) Muslim man? I mean, how the hell else could a WHITE WOMAN objecting to getting raped be "racist" otherwise?

The only thing truthful/accurate here IMO is that this is yet another of Willis Hart's racist rants. Misogynist too, in that Willis (yet again) expresses his disdain for feminism. And Leftists. Apparently the collision of the 2 (feminism and Leftism) can NOT result in anything but incomprehensible stupidity.

BTW, this sounds familiar, doesn't it? I refer to the "they're raping our women" mindset.

The Deadly History of "They're Raping Our Women" (Slate article excerpt) Racists have long used rape to defend their worst racist violence. Amid his [6/17/2015] rampage at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston SC - killing 9 people - 21yo Dylann Storm Roof reportedly told churchgoers, "You rape our women, and you're taking over our country, and you have to go".

Of the assertions in that statement, it's the first that has a long, deadly history. In the late 19th century, rape was a frequent justification for racist violence. "To palliate this record ... and excuse some of the most heinous crimes that ever stained the history of a country", wrote journalist Ida B. Wells-Barnett on lynchings in her pamphlet Southern Horrors, "the South is shielding itself behind the plausible screen of defending the honor of its women". Indeed, Wells points to a host of Southern newspapers that defended "lynch's law" with reference to an alleged epidemic of black-on-white rape. In one editorial, published by the Memphis Daily Commercial, editors declared, "The commission of this crime grows more frequent every year", and, "There is no longer a restraint upon the brute passion of the Negro".

As Wells-Barnett would show, however, there was no substance to the charge. "The world knows that the crime of rape was unknown during 4 years of civil war, when the white women of the South were at the mercy of the race which is all at once charged with being a bestial one"... (6/18/2015 commentary by Jamelle Bouie).

African Americans are members of a "race [that was] once charged with being a bestial one". Sound similar to the Willis tirade of pejoratives? A (brown) Muslim man is a "egregiously medieval piece of shit scumbag savage".

BTW, remember when I said that Willis' post sounded like his response was to something he read on WND? I was guessing. But after inputting "Muslim men raping European women", I found the TOP result to be a WND article titled "Europe's Muslim Rape Epidemic".

OK, so do I need to do any more Googling to see if there is any validity to Willis' claims, or can I assume that he's full of shit without doing any more research? I'm going with the later and NOT the former. Sorry, but I think the fact that WND is fear mongering on this issue tells me all I need to know about what's going on here (it's flat out racist demagoguery).

OST #131

Saturday, April 9, 2016

Evolving Willis #2: Abraham Lincoln 180 Degree Flip-Flop

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart claims that he hasn't changed. He once authored a post in which he found the suggestion so ridiculous as to be amazed that someone would actually suggest it.

Willis Hart: On the Claim that I've Changed... I've changed? I'VE CHANGED? Wow, huh? (11/15/2015 AT 9:02am).

Wow? No, the only thing I'd say "wow" to is the number of examples one could give that the opinions of Willis have changed RADICALLY. To illustrate this point I have created this series of posts... which I have labeled using the tag "Evolving Willis" (Note that this is only the 2nd one in the series, but there will be more).

The shocking 180 degree flip-flop I examine in this post concerns Mr. Hart's feelings regarding the 16th president of the United States.

Willis Hart: The Five Greatest Presidents in U.S. History IMHO... 5) Teddy Roosevelt (trust-busting, conservation, "speak softly but carry a big stick"). 4) Harry Truman (strong anti-Communist, pro-business, "the buck stops here"). 3) John F. Kennedy (the Cuban missile crisis, cut taxes, "ask not what your country can do for you"). 2) George Washington (yes, he was a slave-holder but he also founded the damned country). 1) Abraham Lincoln (the Emancipation Proclamation, saved the union, "four score and seven years ago"). (9/23/2011 AT 6:58pm).

Wow, indeed! In the opinion of Willis, Abe is the #1 greatest prez ever? Looks like it, me buck.

Or so he used to believe... apparently. At the time, but no more.

Willis Hart: On Lincoln Equating "Departing from" with "Destroying"... Delusional, illogical, and right up there with his contention that the Union preceded the states and his absolute ignoring of the 9th and 10th Amendments (where one could quite readily assert the right to self-determination) and replacing them with one of his own. (12/12/2015 AT 9:32pm).

So Willis went from heralding Lincoln for keeping the Union intact, to condemning him for it (and calling him "delusional" to boot). Does this mean that Willis was delusional when he proclaimed Abe to be the #1 greatest prez because he "saved the union"? Or maybe Willis is delusional now, given the fact that Lincoln generally IS considered one of our best presidents?

New ranking of U.S. presidents puts Lincoln at No. 1, Obama at 18; Kennedy judged most overrated. (article except) 2014 we surveyed 162 members of the American Political Science Association's Presidents & Executive Politics section and asked them to rate the U.S. presidents. ... Abraham Lincoln was rated the greatest president, with an average score of 95 out of 100. (Washington Post 2/16/2015).

How experts determine if Obama, others are "best presidents". (article excerpt) In 2014, NYT columnist Paul Krugman's claims that Barack Obama should be considered one of the best recent presidents has generated a lot of debate. But how do historians and political scientists rank leaders over a long time span? ...historian Arthur Schlesinger, who decided to poll other historians about the past performance of presidents. Schlesinger polled 55 historians about 5 rating categories for an article in Life magazine. ...his list included George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. (Constitution Daily, blog National Constitution Center blog).

Note that the "The American Political Science Association (APSA) is a professional association of political science students and scholars in the United States" and the "National Constitution Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to explaining the US Constitution and what it represents [which] regularly hosts government leaders, journalists, scholars, and celebrities for public discussions including presidential debates".

Groups with some authority to produce these rankings, in other words. Although rankings produced by public polling produce similar results. here is one such ranking that puts Abe in the #1 position (The Top Tens), and here is another that rates Washington #1 and Lincoln #2 ( Point is, Willis is in the minority with his assessment of Lincoln.

Negative opinions of Lincoln aren't generally seen until you look at what Libertarians and far-Right nutjobs say. And that's where they get EXTREMELY negative.

Mises Daily (Libertarian think tank) Confronting the Lincoln Cult by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 6/3/2002.

World Net Daily (A Far-Right extremist website know for indulging in conspiracy/racism/bigotry) Lincoln's Legacy of Corruption by Ilana Mercer, 2/13/2002.

Note that if you go to Wikipedia and enter "Lincoln cult" you will be redirected to the page for Thomas J. DiLorenzo. BTW, that people who promote the idea that Abe Lincoln was one of our best presidents are members of a "cult" is a meme that Willis subscribes to.

Willis Hart: A Very Simple Question for the Cult of Lincoln... If Mr. Lincoln was so opposed to slavery, then why did he not abolish it in those places where he had the power to; the northern and border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland, numerous counties in West Virginia, and the northern occupied parts of the Confederacy (New Orleans and other sections of Louisiana)?

That, and why did the dude wait until it looked like the South was winning before he put forth this wonderful Emancipation Proclamation (which, again, only made slavery illegal in the Confederacy)? Da' ya' think that maybe it was because he was trying to stir up a little bit of trouble down there? That's my theory. (3/19/2014 AT 9:26pm).

I have a very simple question for the Willis, which is, is the belief that Lincoln was one of our best presidents held by people in a "cult" or is it more of a mainstream consensus? To me it definitely looks like the latter and not the former.

For the record, I understand the (Libertarian-informed) argument Willis is making. I just don't think it's accurate. That argument being that "if there had been no Civil War, the South would have abolished slavery peaceably".

The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Civil War (excerpt from a review of the 10/21/2008 book by Mother Jones author Nick Baumann)... I find the idea of the slave states voluntarily giving up their slaves to be really, really dumb. The Southern states seceded largely because they didn't want to be ruled by Lincoln, who had argued against expanding slavery into new territories. The Confederate constitution says, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed".

But in case you don't believe me, I asked retired army Lt. Colonel Robert Mackey, author of The UnCivil War and bona fide Civil War geek. Dr. Mackey, a combat veteran who was Assistant Professor of Military History at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, says it's "a heaping pile of bullshit" and offers up a few reasons why... [including the fact that] Slaves represented real property value. The South's biggest asset wasn't cotton, it was human beings.

[Post Civil War The South's] entire economic system... was based on sharecropping. Sharecropping only worked because the "New South" replaced [actual slavery] with [virtual slavery]. It was a form of slavery as well - just one in which "the owners" had no moral or ethical responsibility to care for the slave... since they had no "property rights" [ownership of their slaves].

There is zero evidence slavery would have naturally ended. There was no antebellum abolitionist movement in the South. On the contrary, the entire social system was set up to reinforce slavery.

Lastly, just imagine how easy it would have been for anti-labor industrialists to move factories South, where you not only did not have labor unions, but could contract for workers from their "owners" at a set, low rate. It would have been horror, and the death of any hope of democracy in America.

Frankly I'm more inclined to agree with this opinion than disagree with it. The Civil War, as horrific as it was, was what ended slavery. Slavery would not have ended without it. Although Willis disagrees.

Willis Hart: I'm also strongly of the opinion that we could have eventually gotten rid of slavery without 3% of the population being murdered (a substantial number of them being civilians as a part of Lincoln's "total war") and half of the country's total net worth being destroyed. Literally every other country in the world (Haiti being the exception) did it that way and so, why not us? (3/20/2014 AT 9:57pm

Would getting rid of slavery without a war have been possible? I'm not 100 percent sure, but (like I said) I'm inclined to believe with the statement that "there is zero evidence slavery would have naturally ended". As for Hart's other anti-Lincoln arguments, I'll leave them for possible future posts, although I have rebutted some of his arguments previously (see OST label CIVIL WAR and SWTD label CIVIL WAR).

The point of this post was to point out the RADICAL flip that the Hartster made regarding his opinion of Abe Lincoln. I mean, the guy takes umbrage at the suggestion that he's changed, but he clearly has. In that the "small L libertarian" has become much more Libertarian. In that it's the Libertarians who hold the opinion that Lincoln was a crappy president. As opposed to the mainstream opinion, which is that Abe was our greatest prez (or highly ranked among the best).

Supporting Document
[DSD #20] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Bought The Out-Of-The-Mainstream Libertarian "Lincoln Cult" Lincoln Hating Argument With Gusto. (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he attacks Abe Lincoln as a president who committed "atrocities" and was "majorily insane").

OST #130

Wednesday, April 6, 2016

How Many "Team Members" Does The Contra O'Reilly Blog Have?

My guess is one.

The Libertarian Willis Hart recently began restricting commenting to "team members", but since that time, it appears to me that zero comments have been left (I see none), hence my guess that Contra O'Reilly has but one "team member". That singular team member being Willis Hart.

Further proof that Willis is the only team member, IMO, are posts such as the following.

Willis Hart: On that Doltish Boston Sports Reporter (I Refuse to Mention His Name) Who Recently Claimed that UConn Was Bad for Women's College Basketball (the Fact that They're too Dominant, I Guess)
And I'm sure that he would have said the same exact thing if BC or UMass was dominating. Yeah, right. (4/3/2016 AT 5:01pm).

So, how the hell is anyone reading this supposed to know WHO this "doltish Boston sports reporter" is? One possible answer is that, seeing as Willis is the only team member (and he already knows who he's talking about), he does not care if someone else reads the post and has no idea who he's referring to (they can't comment anyway).

Not that I care who this person is. I couldn't care less, given the fact that I find sports competitions put on as "entertainment" to be perplexing. I mean, I can comprehend interest *if* the "fan" knows one (or more) of the participants. Otherwise, why should I care which group of strangers is victorious?


If anyone happens to read this who has also received and accepted a "team member" invitation from the Hartster... I'd be interested in hearing about it. Until then (or until I see anyone actually leave a comment), I'm sticking with my "team of one" hypothesis.

OST #129

Monday, April 4, 2016

Re Referring To A TV Personality You Dislike As A Smarmy, Hero-Worshiping, Intellectually-Challenged, Nearly Unwatchable, Bonkers, Left-of-Center, Slant-Headed, Buffoonish Wack-Job

The Libertarian Willis Hart does it in the following post.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Trump Allowed Himself to get Punked by the Smarmy, Hero-Worshiping, Intellectually-Challenged, Nearly Unwatchable, and Bonkers Left-of-Center TV Host, Chris Matthews... How embarrassing is that? I mean, if you can't match wits with a slant-headed, buffoonish wack-job like Matthews, what chance do you have amongst world leaders? Maybe the "establishment" is right for a change.

P.S. And as far as abortion (the issue that Trump flubbed) goes, I don't doubt that Trump gives a rat's ass about it and that dullard response to Matthews was strictly what he thought that his target audience wanted hear. The dude was pandering, in other words. (4/3/2016 AT 4:11pm).

(Note: Regarding the struck word - I replaced "don't" with "doubt" because I think it's the word Willis intended to use).

My one sentence response? Not enough pejoratives (and yes, I mean that sarcastically).

So my impression is that the Hartster REALLY doesn't like Chris Matthews. But why use this topic to bash him? This is the interview in which Trump said that he thinks abortion is murder and that women should be "punished" if they exercise their right to choose.

And Willis has no problem with the response... because he guesses that Trump is "pandering". So, if elected he'll leave things as they are, I guess. Although Trump did say he thinks it's a states' rights issue. Sure, because we should have different abortion laws in each state.

Makes a lot of sense that Willis would get behind/defend Trump on this, given the fact that Libertarians generally oppose abortion. No, wait. Aside from the Pauls, my impression has been that they're for a woman's right to choose (Libertarian Party Platform: Abortion is a woman's choice and does not concern the state).

BTW, all those pejoratives and Chris Matthews is still only "NEARLY unwatchable"? How many more insults would Willis need to add to the list for the "nearly" to go away, I wonder?

Anyway, apparently "pandering" is OK in Willis the Trump defender's eyes. At least when it's not a Democrat doing it.

OST #128

Sunday, April 3, 2016

On OST (This Blog) Being A Site Where The Proprietor (A Slime That Feeds Off Others) Spends Hours Weaving Absurd BS (This, After Prowling Sites & Picking A Post)

This assessment of this blog (Oligarchic Stooge Talk or OST) being made on the blog of the Libertarian Willis Hart.

Rational Nation: Derve is who he is, slime feeding off others, and prowls sites, picks a post, and spends hours weaving absurd BS. I suppose you can classify him as you did. (11/15/2015 AT 9:02am).

Willis Hart: "spends hours weaving absurd BS" - Nobody cuts to the chase like you do, Les. I love it. (3/22/2014 AT 7:19pm).

Of course he loves it. Something he probably would't love so much would be this recent comment by Rational Nation (if he read it).

Rational Nation: for the links you provided. All I shall say is the particular individual responsible for the linked weblog vehemently disagrees with everything you believe in. He also fell off the cliff awhile back. But his good bud skackelford thinks he is very bright. (4/1/2016 AT 08:18:00 AM EDT).

The "particular individual" is none other than Willis Hart. Here Mr. Nation says WTNPH "fell off the cliff awhile back".

BTW, Mr. Nation did comment on OST for awhile (on a number of posts)... although he has not visited for some time (or not visited and commented, at least). Maybe he lost interest. Although he apparently had some interest in my "absurd BS" (AKA my "onslaught of absurdities"). For a while, anyway.

I took the interest to mean that Mr. Nation may have changed his mind regarding his prior harsh comments. I could be wrong on that, however. In any case, the harshness seems to presently be directed at Willis Hart. For good reason, IMO.

Anyway, it appears as though it's mutual; in that both of these fellows' opinions of each other have gone from favorable to not favorable.

Willis Hart: On the Never-Ending Insult-Ladened Pissing Contest Between the Doltish and Insufferable Radical Redneck and the Equally Doltish and Insufferable Rational Nation Over at Lisa's Blog... I was going to compare it to Romper Room but that would have been an insult to pre-schoolers everywhere. Immaturity on Barry Bonds dosage steroids is probably a more apt analogy. (3/30/2016 AT 5:17pm).

So Willis thinks his former buddy is "doltish" and "insufferable"... as well as immature? I have to say that, given the fact that these two were previously united in lobbing insults my way, this is a development that makes me chuckle.

OST #127

Friday, April 1, 2016

On Donald Trump Defender Willis Hart Lying About "What The Video Clearly Shows" Re Trump Lackey Roughing Up A Reporter

The Libertarian blogger, and frequent Trump defender/apologist, Willis Hart spins a bald-faced lie in defense of Donald Trump.

Willis Hart: On Breitbart's Michelle Fields Claiming that She Was Roughed Up by a Trump Lackey When the Video Clearly Shows that She Wasn't... How many more of these ludicrous incidents do we have to endure before we can finally conclude that women are just as capable of lying as men are and that we should probably be a tad more skeptical when these accusations (and worse; the Duke lacrosse case, for example) are thrown around? Me, I'm already there. (3/27/2016 AT 5:03pm).

When Willis says he's "already there", I assume by "there" he means a place where facts don't matter and he believes what he wants to believe. Because Fields is a liar and the video "clearly shows" she wasn't roughed up MUST be why the "Trump lackey" Corey Lewandowski was charged and arrested for misdemeanor battery by the Jupiter FL police.

This must also be why The Daily Beast has reported that "Video shows Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbing reporter Michelle Fields".

Despite the Trump camp's outright denial that any such altercation occurred, viewers can see at the 10-second mark that Lewandowski reached with his left arm for Fields's left arm, briefly grabbing her. Lewandowski's grasp then broke before he reached again, this time on her left arm, which is where Fields showed she was bruised the day after. (3/11/2016 Daily Beast article by Andrew Kirell & Justin Miller).

And, because the video shows Fields lies must explain why Washington Post reporter Ben Terris said "I had been a witness to the incident between Fields and Lewandowski".

Ben Terris: As security parted the masses to give him passage out of the chandelier-lit ballroom, Michelle Fields, a young reporter for Trump-friendly Breitbart News, pressed forward to ask the Republican front-runner a question. I watched as a man with short-cropped hair and a suit grabbed her arm and yanked her out of the way. He was Corey Lewandowski, Trump's 41-year-old campaign manager.

Fields stumbled. Finger-shaped bruises formed on her arm. "I'm just a little spooked", she said, a tear streaming down her face. "No one has grabbed me like that before". She took my arm and squeezed it hard. "I don't even want to do it as hard as he did", she said, "because it would hurt". (Inside Trump's inner circle, his staffers are willing to fight for him. Literally by Ben Terris. 3/10/2016 The Washington Post).

Ben Terris is obviously lying as well. And how stupid to do so when the video "clearly shows" they are! Although it doesn't. And the video showing that Lewandowski does grab Fields, and that there was a witness likely explains why Lewandowski was arrested. In my opinion. Fields being female having NOTHING to do with why she should be believed or not. Although the misogynist Hart apparently thinks Fields is getting the benefit of the doubt simply for being female (despite the fact that there is a male witness).

And, YES, I'm correctly labeling this as misogyny... because Willis is bringing up the Duke LaCrosse case due to his strongly held belief that women FREQUENTLY lie about being raped. When what he thinks actually happened (90 percent of the time) is that two drunk people had sex and the lying slut regretted it (OST #81).

Anyway, that Willis ludicrously says the video shows Fields is being dishonest (when it shows she is being honest) is proof (IMO) that the Hartster is a man that is VERY capable of lying.

Video: Jupiter police release video showing Corey Lewandowski grab Michelle Fields (0:11).

Supporting Document
[DSD #19] The Libertarian Trump Defender. (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he defends Trump, acts as an apologist for Trump, downplays Trump comments, or goes after Trump protestors).

OST #126