On The Fact That Congressman James Clyburn Was 100% Correct When He Said That The Orlando Nightclub Shooting Had Nothing to Do With ISIS & Everything To Do With Gun Control

Regarding the Orlando nightclub shooter, Congressman James Clyburn recently said, "this gentleman, it is now being revealed, had a lot of hate, and it seems that some of it was self-hate. And consequently this is not about ISIS, this is not about any kind of foreign terror. This is about guns in America and whether or not we're going to have some kind of moderation to this Second Amendment just as we have to the First Amendment".

OK, except for the killer being a "gentleman" I'd say Clyburn is right. Unsurprisingly the Libertarian gun nut blogger Willis Hart disagrees.

Willis Hart: On Congressman James Clyburn Saying that the Orlando Nightclub Shooting Had "Nothing to Do with ISIS" - this Despite the Fact that the Killer Himself Had Stated the Exact Opposite - and that it Had Everything to Do with Gun Control - this Despite the Fact that None of the Proposed Pieces of Legislation Would Have Stopped this Latest Atrocity... This ass-hat is a perfect example (and, yes, there are examples on the Republican side as well; Louie Gohmert, Steve King, Mitch "the Bitch" McConnell, etc.) of why we really need to go back to citizen legislators and ditch these career politicians who aren't just too detached from their constituents but from reality, too. "Had nothing to do with ISIS". Come on!! (6/25/2016 AT 11:21pm).

Asshat? Because Clyburn thinks people on the No-Fly list shouldn't have easy access to guns? Further proof of Hart's extreme gun nuttery. The shooter Omar Mateen pledged allegiance to Islamic State leader abu bakr al Baghdadi, and (according to co-workers) claimed he had family connections to ­al Qaeda and was a member of Hezbollah, two opposing terrorist groups that have clashed repeatedly in Syria.

Proof he was talking out of his ass and his actions were NOT directed by ISIS. Although maybe Willis thinks al Qaeda and Hezbollah are now allies?

People who are filled with hate will latch onto ANY reason to justify violent actions. The only way in which this incident is in any way tied to ISIS is that Mateen used ISIS to justify his actions. Which is what Clyburn was talking about.

Also, the legislation proposed by the Democrats would have stopped Mateen from acquiring his weapons.

Senate Intelligence Committee vice-chairman Dianne Feinstein said Sunday that Democrats' proposed legislation, which aims to keep suspected terrorists from purchasing guns, would have caught Orlando shooter Omar Mateen. "Omar Mateen would have been picked up by this", she said on CBS "Face the Nation". (Dianne Feinstein: Dems' proposed gun law would have prevented Orlando by Emily Schultheis. Face The Nation 6/19/2016)

I suppose it's a much bigger hassle to be prevented from buying a gun than to be prevented from flying. I mean that sarcastically, of course. Apparently violating a person's due process is just dandy if all you're doing if f#ucking with their livelihoods (in that many people fly for work). The point is that IF you're going to have a "no fly" list because people on it are suspected of having possible terror ties, maybe we should take a look at any requests from them to buy guns? Sounds like common sense to me.

But gun nuts like Willis Hart clearly lack common sense. Given the fact that polls show the asshat Hart in the minority and completely detached from reality when it comes to gun control.

92 percent of respondents favored expanded background checks, 87 percent supported prohibiting convicted felons or people with mental health problems from buying guns and 85 percent were in support of banning people on the terror watch list or on the no-fly list from buying guns. (Poll: Gun control support rises after Orlando shooting by Tyler Pager. Politico 6/20/2016)

So Clyburn isn't detached from his constituents, but doing exactly what they want him to. Which is to not kowtow to the NRA as his Republican colleagues do.

BTW, Mitch McConnell is NOT known as "the Bitch". His nickname is the turtle. A nickname that is WIDELY known. Yet another (though significantly less important) fact from which the Hartster is detached from reality regarding.

OST #153

Willis Hart Economic Illiteracy So Profound He Believes Immigration (Legal Or Illegal) Does Not Depress Wages "For The Most Part"

Seems that the "facts" the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart knows are frequently ones that can be learned in an "introductory" or "101" class. And thus people who don't "know" then are freaking morons. This despite the facts (as he see them) not being the facts.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Donald Trump's Economic Illiteracy Is so Profound that He's Seemingly Unaware of the Fact that Immigration Doesn't Just Move the Supply Curve (Pertaining to Labor) but the Demand Curve, too (and Hence Wages Are NOT Pushed Down for the Most Part)... I guess that they didn't offer Econ 101 at the Wharton School during his tenure there (that or he skipped a shitload of classes). (6/12/2016 AT 9:49pm).

What Willis is overlooking here (intentionally?) is standard of living. While immigrants (legal or illegal) do need goods (food, clothing, shelter, etc) and therefore more supply is needed to fill their demand, they frequently come from poor countries and are therefore accustomed to getting by on less. And (especially if illegal) willing to work for less (perhaps for wages paid under the table). Or, due to the fact that they're here illegally, employers are willing to take advantage and pay less (no overtime, hours off the clock, other wage theft) to not report them to ICE.

So, for Willis to claim that "wages are NOT pushed down for the most part" is FALSE! This is one of the things you'd expect Donald Trump (as a businessman) to know. Although, when it comes to his supporters, he absolutely could be lying (fearmongering), in that the message to them is "the brown person is taking your job!". That's part of the reason his duped supporters want a wall on the Mexican border.

Although, even though we can't believe what Donald Trump says, we can look at what he has done, which is to hire foreigners.

...Donald Trump turned down 94% of American job applicants to his Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach FL in favor of foreign workers brought in under the H-2B visa program ... this turns out not to be the first time that Donald Trump has undermined American workers to expand his profit margin. That has been his M.O. throughout his career. In the early 1980s... In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court, members of House Wreckers Local 95 alleged that, to avoid paying union employees their pension and welfare benefits, Trump (and the contractor he used for the job, Kaszycki & Sons) brought in some 200 undocumented Polish workers to demolish the Bonwit Teller building that then occupied the site of the future Trump Tower. Thomas Macari, a vice president of Trump-Equitable and its manager in charge of the demolition of the Bonwit Teller Building, was on the site regularly. According to the court opinion, Macari "was involved in every aspect of the demolition job. He knew the Polish workers were working off the books, that they were doing demolition work, that they were non-union, that they were paid substandard wages with no overtime pay, and that they were paid irregularly if at all". (Donald Trump Thinks American Workers Aren't Good Enough for the Trump Organization by Ian Tuttle. The National Review 2/25/2016).

This, I think, is proof that Trump knows what he's talking about and isn't "economically illiterate". Given the fact that he has personally benefited from wages being pushed down by the hiring of foreign workers (which, while they were here legally under a visa program, didn't prevent Trump from taking advantage of them). This being the thing Willis said "for the most part" doesn't happen. Right.

The article excerpt above from the Conservative magazine, the National Review, which is a publication that has been described as "the bible of American conservatism". And whose authors include "paleo-conservatives, neo-conservatives, tea-party enthusiasts, the deeply religious and the agnostic, both libertarians and social conservatives, free-marketeers and the more protectionist".

Obviously the article must have been written by one of the protectionists, as many conservatives (IMO) know immigration depresses wages (especially illegal immigration) and want the depressing to continue (as it benefits the oligarchs they worship). Which is why the GOP politicians blather on about a border wall that will never be built (due to construction/maintenance costs which would be astronomical and logistical/legal issues).

If we were to deal with illegal immigration in a way that actually worked (comprehensive immigration reform including a path to citizenship and a national e-verify program) Conservative politicians wouldn't be able to gin up votes from racist constituents any longer (at least not as much). I mean, this is precisely the reason Trump made a border wall a signature issue in his campaign. One has to wonder, however, how his supporters would react if he were elected (and the wall not built. Which it would NOT be).

In any case, Trump knows hiring foreign workers over Americans depresses wages. The National Review knows it (or, some authors who work there know it). Making foreign workers into Americans (legal immigration/a path to citizenship for undocumented workers) depresses them less (Illegal Immigrants Depress Wages: So, Make Them Legal Immigrants, Forbes).

Because American workers have protections that bolster their wages (minimum wage, unions, etc). And they have rights that they are aware of, and so can't be intimidated and forced to work for less. The Trump situation (btw) being proof that we need to do something not just about illegal immigration (employers illegally hiring them, actually), but employer abuse of worker visas (The fix is in: Proof that H-1B visa abuse is rampant).

Which is why I say American jobs should be (almost exclusively) for American workers. If an employer can PROVE they can't find an American to do the job... well, we might need to bring in some foreign workers under a work visa program. But that should be a last resort.

But Willis doesn't bring up ANY of these issues AT ALL. He simply states that Trump is "economically illiterate" on the issue. A claim I think I have disproven. Trump's own actions show he is very literate when it comes to screwing American workers by hiring cheap foreign laborers.

BTW, I'm sure that Willis is completely oblivious to the fact that his argument (which there is a grain of truth to, as I pointed out) applies to labor outsourcing as well (which he supports. Although Libertarians refer to the exporting of jobs as "free trade", which it isn't). In that workers involved in the manufacture of goods for American markets have no effect on our demand curve at all (as they buy their goods and services in their home countries. You know, because that's where they're located).

Further proof of the Hartster's Libertarian economic illiteracy. I guess they didn't offer Econ 101 at Central Connecticut State University during his tenure there (that or he skipped a shitload of classes).

OST #152

On The Fact That When Like-Minded People Only Talk to Each Other They Tend to Get More Extreme

Listen to and read the writings of like-minded individuals too. I agree with the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, although I was wondering if he was (after I read the title of his post) going to admit something about himself that's been clear to many for some time.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that When Like-Minded People Only Talk to Each Other They Tend to Get More Extreme... Yeah, I refer to it as the Keith Olbermann/Columbia University/New York Times Syndrome; intellectually stultifying and dangerous. (6/9/2016 AT 4:29pm).

Hmmm, obviously that introspective revelation I thought MIGHT be contained within the sentence following the post title didn't materialize. Apparently he thinks this is a problem that occurs exclusively on the Left.

Regarding Keith Olbermann (who hasn't been on the air in the capacity of a Lefty pundit for SOME time), Willis didn't like it that his guests tended to be people who agreed with him. A observation that I admit is true.

However, as far as Lefty pundits go, Thom Hartmann is one who doesn't do this. On his program The Big Picture there is a segment called the Lone Liberal Rumble where Thom simultaneously debates 2 conservatives. A few days ago he had on his radio program the Tea Party Trump supporter Scottie Nell Hughes. Not to debate her, but to listen to what she had to say (a segment I found interesting, btw).

So this would make Hartmann the opposite of the kind of person Willis refers to. Although I doubt he'd EVER author a commentary praising Mr. Hartmann for this reason. He prefers to author commentaries criticizing the Left for refusing to listen to those on the Right. His praise seems to be reserved for Righties who listen to Lefties. Or Libertarians who listen to what Progressive have to say. They're clearly the MOST magnanimous in the Hartster's opinion.

Video: Matthew Vadum (Capital Research Center) and Patrick Howley (The Daily Caller) join Thom Hartmann. Perhaps it's just me, but does Vadum look like a sack of shit stuffed into a suit? Sorry, but I couldn't help myself. If anyone deserves to be judged harshly, this is such a person. Although he's likely someone Willis Hart would (or does) have a lot of respect for, given that he tells it like it is re Registering Poor To Vote "Like Handing Out Burglary Tools To Criminals".

OST #151

On the Fact that Willis Hart Is 94 Years Old and Still Believes in Libertarianism

So much for putting childish things aside.

Libertarians believe they're rebels, but they are really political children who scream through tears. Christopher Hitchens, in typical blunt force fashion, undressed Rand and her libertarian followers, exposing their obsequiousness toward the operational standards of a selfish society: "I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough". The rejection of all rules and regulations, and the belief that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want, is not rebellion or dissent. It is infantile naïveté. (You're Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham by David Masciotra. AlterNet 6/5/2015).

Also...

Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy. It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence. (Here's Why Libertarians Are Mostly Men by Kevin Drum. Mother Jones 6/5/2015).

So, despite being 94, Willis is but a childish little boy. Whereas Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders embraces the fact that we're all in this together.

The denial of the collective interest and communal bond, as much as libertarians like to pose as trailblazers, is not the road less traveled, but the highway in gridlock. Competitive individualism, and the perversion of personal responsibility to mean social irresponsibility, is what allows for America to limp behind the rest of the developed world in providing for the poor and creating social services for the general population. (You're Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham).

That Willis is 94 is just a guess, btw. Although I do know that he isn't a young man. Also known is that Willis previously considered himself to be a "Moderate Democrat" (Willis: "I like to refer to myself, Lista, as a Rockefeller Republican/Boren Democrat").

His path to Libertarianism has been an evolution. Although I'd call it a devolution, given the fact that most people (males, mainly) abandon Libertarianism when they grow up.

8/9/2016 Update: "I'm 54 years old" WTNPH wrote on 8/29/2011, meaning that he was 59 or 60 when this post was published. (this factoid added 2 months after post publication because I just ran across it).

OST #150

On The Fact That Many Libertarians & Conservatives Are Are Not Too Concerned About Corporate Bureaucracies But Are Obsessed With Governmental Ones

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart reveals this trait in a 6/3/2016 blog post.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Hard-Left Always Seems to Think that We're Just One Bureaucratic Layer Away from Perpetual Nirvana... Keep going to the well, don't they? (6/3/2016 AT 10:08pm).

Nirvana? Hardly. Such a thing is not possible here on earth. Bureaucracies are comprised of people, and people are flawed. Although bureaucracy is a necessity.

The German sociologist Max Weber argued that bureaucracy constitutes the most efficient and rational way in which one can organize human activity, and that systematic processes and organized hierarchies were necessary to maintain order, maximize efficiency and eliminate favoritism. (Wikipedia/Bureaucracy).

This isn't to say that there isn't a downside. Similar to how "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others", bureaucracy might be the worst administrative system governing any large institution, except for all the others.

Although Willis, as a Libertarian, of COURSE only ever criticizes governmental bureaucracies. They're the worst of the two, apparently. My guess would be it's because governmental bureaucracies are there to serve the people (and are answerable to them), whereas corporate bureaucracies exist to serve the profit motive (and are only answerable to the owners).

Anyway, in regards to bashing democracy, Libertarians go to that well a LOT, don't they? Clearly they believe there can never be too little government. No government perhaps being their idea of perpetual nirvana? For the rich folks, anyway. Surely it would be a ceaseless perdition for the rest of us.

OST #149

Another Example Of Willis Hart "Coming Out Early Tonight" (Transphobia, Trumpesque Bigotry, White Supremacistish Racism)

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart getting bent out of shape because "social justice warriors" fight back when racist Rightwingers spout off.

Willis Hart: Like with this Garrison fellow who did the Michelle Obama looking like a power-forward cartoon (which, yes, was somewhat distasteful but then a great amount of satire tends to be - HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The SJWs [Social Justice Warriors] went after him full-bore (he even got death-threats which makes SJWs no better than al Qaeda) and now he's more popular than ever. Oops, OOOOOOOOPS. (5/31/2016 AT 5:13pm).

The quote above is just a portion of his rant, which mostly concerns his outrage over racists on the Right being boycotted when they spew their racism. Though he ends with cheers because this Ben Garrison asshole supposedly is "more popular than ever". (Note: RationalWiki page for Garrison says he isn't an "overt racist", and I agree. His racism, like WTNPH's, is not overt).

The cartoon that Willis refers to (see below) depicts a butch Michelle Obama next to an image of Melancholia Trump (what a First Lady should look like according to the cartoon). Notice that there is a bulge in an area suggesting Michelle is a transexual. A "joke" Willis previously indicated that he found hilarious (wondering in a blog post which bathroom Michelle uses). You know, because she used to be a dude and due to new discriminatory laws should be using the men's room (OST #144).

The Left getting offended by the depiction of Michelle Obama as a transexual is very funny according to Willis. Even if it is "somewhat distasteful". Although some have disagreed wit the "somewhat" part.

A cartoonist has been accused of racism after he portrayed Michelle Obama as masculine and butch next to a pageant-ready Melania Trump in a controversial drawing. The cartoon – which has been branded "racist and misogynistic" – shows a muscular Mrs Obama wearing a green dress with a bulge in the groin area. (Make The First Lady Great Again?!? Racist Cartoon Compares A Butch Michelle Obama To Melania Trump).

Racist? Yeah, I think so. Misogynist? Absolutely. Transphobic as well. That's who Willis is cheering on (a sleaze who'd draw such a cartoon). But Willis, a Libertarian who SAYS he's "socially tolerant", has displayed bigotry for transexuals on several occasions; referring to a trans-woman as "some transgender" and assuming she's a Leftist (obviously all transgender people are Leftists, OST #140); thinks Garrison's bigotry is only "somewhat distasteful". As opposed to being highly offensive. In fact that is actually the super funny part. Leftists being offended. Or "triggered", as he puts it.

Here, it isn't a victory for the assholes, racists, transphobics, misogynists and bigots that Willis is offended by, but the "Social Justice Warriors" who take offense. Scumbags who, with Trump as the gop potus nominee (whom Garrison is a supporter of), have been GREATLY emboldened. And Willis too, apparently. The post above being another example of him "coming out early tonight". That phrase being code for displaying his racism, I'm guessing (from a comment Willis says a "marginally literate boob" submitted to his blog).

Ugh. Can there really be ANY doubt any more that this guy is a hardcore bigot? Frankly, I'm wondering if the Hartster is a White Supremacist given his recent comments re Black people being "the real racists".

I refer you to a Willis comment in which he says "there's racism in America alright; blacks hating whites being the bulk of it" (his conclusion after posting about black-on-white violent crime). Versus White Supremacists who "issued a statement saying that Dylann Roof had some legitimate grievances against Black people and that the group's website accurately and honestly reports black-on-white violent crime".

Image: Racist misogynistic transphobic "satirical" cartoon by Rightwing Trump-supporting slimeball Ben Garrison. Given that satire is "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc"... is this satire? I mean, I see the ridicule, but what vice or folly is being exposed? My guess is that (in the view of Rightwing racists like Garrison) it was "folly" to elect a Black man POTUS.

OST #148