Sunday, August 28, 2016

Willis Hart (A Racist Misogynist) Slams Al Gore For Suggesting African Women Should Be Empowered

Clearly the idea of empowering women seriously pisses off the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, as when Al Gore suggested that women should be empowered via education so that they can decide when and how many children they have, the creep's response was to fling lies at the former president.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Al Gore's Recent Calls for Population Control in Africa Sound Creepily Similar to the Lingo of Early 20th Century Eugenicists... [video: Al Gore on African population] As his segregationist father smiles down upon him, this creep. (8/26/2016 AT 11:10pm).

The video in which Al Gore calls for "population control" according to Willis Hart (0:50).

In the 50 second clip Al Gore says "I think that, the wonderful work that Bill and Melinda Gates are doing, for example, illustrates how crucial it is... because, depressing the rate of child mortality, educating girls, empowering women, and making fertility management ubiquitously available - so women can choose how many women, and the spacing of children. Is crucial to the future state of human civilization. Africa is projected to have more people than China or India by mid century. More than China and India combined by the end of the century. And this is one of the causal factors that must be addressed".

So, you hear any "calls for population control" or any language "creepily similar to the lingo of early 20th century eugenicists"? I know I sure as hell don't. I hear Mr. Gore calling for women to be educated and empowered so they can decide how many children they have and when they have them (not "eugenicists").

And, given that is ALL Mr. Gore says; that (educating and empowering women) MUST be what the racist misogynist Willis Hart is objecting to. According to an article by Brigid Fitzgerald Reading, a staff researcher at the Earth Policy Institute, "Education leads to lower fertility and increased prosperity. A growing world population will undoubtedly contribute exponentially to "spreading hunger and poverty, along with the conflict and disease".

And Willis Hart slams Al Gore for suggesting there is something that can be done to empower women so they can make better choices? Is he such a hater of women that he wants them to stay uneducated, barefoot and pregnant rather than see them empowered? Or is it just that we're talking about African women? I mean, what's influencing him here more - his hatred for women or hatred for Black people?

I'm going to guess both. I would also add that his hatred for Al Gore is surely another factor. But whatever the reason for this idiotic post, the Hartster is surely a racist misogynist creep in my book.

As for eugenicist-type thinking, Herbert Spencer (a popular author during the 19th century who was one of the foundational thinkers in the development of the Libertarian economic philosophy) "supported strict limits on the government and even opposed many forms of charity towards the poor [and] also believed that neither government nor private charity should interfere with this process of natural selection" (SWTD #280).

This kind of thinking is clearly Objectivist. Ayn Rand believed the poor should die as well, advocating that what should be done (re poor starving people) is nothing. So "nature will take its course" (SWTD #343). Which is, I'm thinking, at the root of Willis Hart's objections.

Poor Africans growing their populations and thus "spreading hunger and poverty, along with the conflict and disease" being the outcome he WANTS. Because it's the "natural selection" (poor die/rich prosper) that Ayn Rand believed in. BTW, I should note that Africans don't need some White man (Al Gore) to tell them what to do here. I'm sure what Gore is saying is being said by intelligent Africans. But Al Gore talking about empowering women surely can't be harmful. Unless you WANT people to die. Poor people, specifically. In this case poor Black people.

Poor people dying in large numbers (via widespread famine) being a likely wet-dream for classist racists like Willis Hart, an anarcho-capitalist Libertarian Ayn Rand worshipper (OST #135).

Image: An image that might cause Willis Hart to chuckle with delight? Although these kids aren't dead yet (at least when the pic was taken), so perhaps he'll only be happy when richer nations stop trying to help. Cutting off aid being something WTNPH has advocated, quoting Libertarian economist James Shikwati (SWTD #165).


OST #175

Saturday, August 27, 2016

Willis Hart (A Misogynist) Sez That If You're Female & In The Public Eye, You've Got To Be A "Babe" (Regardless Of Age)

In a 8/24/2016 commentary, the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart criticizes Hillary Clinton not for Benghazi or her email server (as he has in the past) but for not being a "babe". And he does this via an exceptionally stupid observation regarding HRC aide Huma Abedin.

Willis Hart: America's Next First Lady? [3X pics of Huma Abedin] Well, she is an improvement over the previous few (Mrs. Clinton herself, especially - SO not a babe). That's for certain (her ties to that radical Islamist publication, notwithstanding). (8/24/2016 AT 7:53pm).

If/when HRC is elected president, Huma Abedin will NOT be the First Lady, you moron! First Lady isn't a position that has to be filled. If we elect a woman president, obviously there won't be a First Lady. Or someone else will perform the duties of White House hostess. But won't be called "First Lady", as that could feed the HRC lesbian rumors. Which is foolishness an HRC administration wouldn't need to be distracted with (Pam Geller is Convinced That Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin Are Definitely Lesbians).

As for Huma's "ties to that radical Islamist publication", an 8/21/2016 NYP article notes that Huma worked (for 10 years) as the "assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother [Saleha Mahmood Abedin], who remains editor-in-chief". And then the article goes on to talk about objectionable articles authored by her mother (anti-woman's rights, US brought 9/11 on itself). And the assistant editor position is one Huma held while "she was also working in the White House as an intern for then-first lady Clinton".

Is this cause for concern? Perhaps. Wikipedia notes that "experts on Islam and the members of the journal's advisory board called [the NYP article] ridiculous [because the article] cherry-picked quotes and mischaracterized articles". Additionally, "CNN reported that those familiar with the journal described it as "scholarly, academic and nonpartisan [and that its content] does not raise red flags". NOT a "radical Islamist publication", in other words.

In any case, just because Huma Abedin worked for her mother doesn't mean she shares her mother's views*. Or that she STILL shares them*. And HRC obviously disagrees with Saleha Mahmood Abedin's views* (*if Saleha Mahmood Abedin views are what Rupert Murdoch's NYP says they are). Also remember that Huma Abedin does not set policy. And, while the HRC campaign may not be addressing this presently, I'd be surprised if it doesn't come up before the election. Possibly in a HRC/DJT debate (if he doesn't chicken out).

This, btw, is a subject on which I'd have thought that Willis might go after HRC for. Given how much he hates HRC and Islam (being an Islamophobe). Instead he authors a post that has Huma as First Lady (a title I seriously doubt she'd want) and in which he ogles Huma while dissing Hillary. For their looks. As if that has ANYTHING to do with Huma as HRC's advisor or what HRC did as First Lady.

I'm surprised he didn't bring up the a-hole cartoonist Ben Garrison (a fellow misogynist) and his cartoon that says Melina Trump will make the First Lady position "great again" (this would be the drawing in which he depicts Michelle Obama as a frowning muscled tranny with a bulge). Given how much Willis seems to like this Garrison douche (OST #148).

BTW, I don't know if WTNPH is referring to HRC not being a "babe" now (at 69), or when she was First Lady (ages 46 to 52). Huma Abedin, in the pics Willis used, does look good at 40, while HRC (as FLOTUS) entered the White House at age 46 (1993-2001). But I think she looked pretty good then. Not many women get to the "elderly" age range and are still considered "babes" (Jane Fonda, Sophia Loren, Dolly Parton, Raquel Welch). But not women who age normally (don't get procedures).

But LOOKS are how the misogynist Hartster judges all women. Or most women (perhaps he gives women who share his political views some leniency). I mean, he's written many posts about how he watches Fox Nooz for the hottie anchor babes. Babes he has ranked based on hotness.

In any case, as for HRC not being a "babe", that certainly is not a requirement for First Lady that I have. Although I'd say Michelle Obama is a babe (despite what WTNPH's mancrush Ben Garrison thinks). Although I think HRC definitely (at least) started out as a babe (see image of 18YO HRC below, a picture I found attached to an article titled "Did you know Hillary used to be this hot?").

Images: [1] An 18 year-old Hillary Rodham is shown in her 1965 senior class portrait from East High School in Park Ridge IL. [2] HRC was 1st Lady from 1994 to 2001; this image is from 1995 when she was 48. Perhaps (at this point in her life) she isn't a babe any longer, but I think she looks pretty hot in this particular picture.


OST #174

Thursday, August 25, 2016

Willis Hart (A Racist) Believes A Majority Of Black People Are Stupid Dimwits Who Are Easily Fooled

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart can't, for the life of him understand why more Black people aren't conservative. It's because he thinks Democrats win Black votes by fooling them.

For example, he believes that Lyndon Baines Johnson said, in regards to signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference". The goal being to "have them ni**ers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years". Black people would be fooled into voting for Democrats, in other words.

This, despite the FACT that LBJ, after he signed the CRA, told his Press Secretary (Bill Moyers) "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come". So, instead of helping the party by tricking Black people into voting Democratic, he was actually concerned that he had hurt the Democratic party (by losing the South) (SWTD #228).

Another example of how Willis believes Black people have been tricked, is in regards to them giving up their babies for slaughter (by Planned Planethood). In order to "exterminate" the Black race. (That abortion is "Black Genocide" is a conspiracy theory Mother Jones awards a kookiness rating of "5 tinfoil hats" and which Ebony magazine says is a myth).

Willis Hart: From a 1939 Letter by Margaret Sanger to Dr. Charles Gamble, Subject - "The Negro Project"... "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members". And Mrs. Clinton relishes her recent Margaret Sanger Award. why exactly? (8/24/2016 AT 7:53pm).

Margaret Sanger "was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse [who] popularized the term "birth control", opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America" (Source: Wikipedia).

She is also a person who, today, is the subject of the RW conspiracy theory (the one Willis cites), concerning a plan to "exterminate" Black people via the convincing of Black women to abort their babies. Even babies they wanted, apparently, as most babies are. Wanted, that is. How can an entire race be exterminated unless every (or at least most) Black babies are aborted? Certainly you'd have to be consistently aborting more Black babies each year than are born. And for generations (which isn't happening).

In any case, what Sanger was actually talking about was her not wanting the word to go out that they (choice advocates) wanted to exterminate the negro population... BECAUSE IT WAS A LIE!

New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, argues that in writing that letter, "Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South... (Wikipedia/Margaret Sanger/Race).

Wikipedia follows that sentence by citing the "opposing view", which is the one Willis believes. As if either view could be true. But the conspiracy theory that Sanger wanted to exterminate the entire Black race is clearly absurd. Because it relies on the belief that Black mothers could be talked into aborting babies they wanted! Because Black people are so stupid they'd given up wanted babies. And nobody would notice the African American population was decreasing (to the point of being exterminated) until it was too late.

And there is also the fact that "Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects [and] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from MLK Jr [and] W.E.B. Du Bois, a civil rights legend [who] co-founded the NAACP".

So, MLK Jr and Du Bois were both fooled by Sanger, a virulent racist who wanted to exterminate the entire Black race? That's what we're supposed to believe? Because Black people have been totally fooled by the Left. For the life of them, racist Conservatives like the Hartster can't comprehend why African Americans vote Democratic in overwhelming majorities (LBJ getting 94% of the Black vote in 1964). Because the majority of Black people are dumb and easily fooled.

Or "dim-witted", as per the Wikipedia entry for "Minstrel show". "Minstrel" being a racist term WTNPH likes to apply to African American Liberals.

Image: 94% of African Americans voted for LBJ after he signed the 1964 CRA. Proof that Black people were totally fooled by the CRA, which was only a "little something". It quieted the stupid Blacks down, even though it was "not enough to make a difference"... according to racist Conservatives.

See Also: Wikipedia/Black Genocide Conspiracy Theory/Abortion.

OST #173

Tuesday, August 23, 2016

Willis Hart Is An Anti-Gay Bigot

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart professes to be opposed to discrimination against gay people, but he's deluding himself.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a California Judge Recently Ruled that the Internet Dating-Site, Christian Mingle, Must Allow LGBT Applicants. How ludicrous is that?

a) The proprietors of that site apparently don't feel comfortable serving gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. and it shouldn't be the role of the government in a free society to force them to do it at gunpoint. b) It's a huge slippery-slope (what's next, forcing a Jewish dating-site to allow the al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade to sign up with them?). And c) There are more than enough alternative dating-sites (some of them actually meant for gay Christians - HELLO!!) that would be more than willing to take the money and so why in the hell would someone want to give their hard-earned cash (20 something dollars a month) to someone who apparently doesn't want it and where you probably wouldn't get any dates? It makes zero sense and enough already with this virtue-signalling and coercion cocktail. (8/22/2016 AT 3:56pm).

First I'd like to point to a possible tiny point of agreement. This concerns an internet business, so, unlike with a brick-and-mortar establishment, it's A LOT easier for someone to take their business elsewhere. Unlike say, in a small town where there may be any one florist or baker, and the gay customer the "Christian" business doesn't want to serve CAN'T take their business elsewhere.

But Willis is in favor of allowing these "Christian" businesses to discriminate in ALL cases. But I ask, why should a gay customer think first, before entering a business intending to purchase goods and services, "is my business wanted"? And, how are they supposed to know the business owner in question doesn't want their business? A "gays not served" sign in the window?

And, if you saw such a sign, would you not think "this business discriminates". So, I've got to wonder, why are some varieties of discrimination acceptable to Libertarians like Willis Hart, whereas others are not. Would he be OK with a sign in the window that said "Blacks not served"? Or "disabled people not served"?

Which is why the tiny point of agreement I previously identified as "possible" isn't. Even if it's easy for the gay customer to take their business elsewhere - especially when we're talking about an online business - WHY should any kind of discrimination be OK? I think most of us know the answer. Which is that it is not OK.

So, while Willis CLAIMS that his concern is "coercion" of the anti-gay business owner (and why don't they just take their business elsewhere), the FACT is that - the way he thinks things should work - that "Christian" business owners should be able to discriminate (against only gay people?)... it enables bigotry.

And what's the difference between actual bigots and bigotry enablers? Not much from the point of view of the person being discriminated against. Which is why I say Willis Hart is an anti-gay bigot. I mean, he fully and vociferously supports this kind of bigotry (with MANY commentaries on his blog).

You're either ant-discrimination, or you're pro-discrimination. And Willis Hart has made it VERY clear which side of the issue he comes down on. He's pro-discrimination. VERY pro-discrimination. He frames it as an opposition to "coercion", but I say, "what's the difference". People get discriminated against whatever the argument is.

And yes, I absolutely view ALL Libertarians who use the ridiculous "anti-coercion" argument to enable discrimination as bigots and possibly racist. Depending on whether or not they think placing that "no Blacks served" or similar sign in a store window is "coercion".

BTW, "virtue signaling" is another of the Hartster's favorite terms. Along with "SJW" (Social Justice Warrior). But he knows the judge was doing this, how? Much more likely the judge was simply following California law? According to what I read the "Unruh Civil Rights Act [is] an anti-discrimination law in California that requires businesses to provide full and equal accommodations regardless of sexual orientation".

Perhaps the judge was even a Conservative that was personally opposed to "coercing" Christian Mingle into accepting gay customers, but had no choice? Because of THE LAW? What a dope. Also, I read two article, and neither identified the judge by name. Might it be hard to virtual signal when people don't know who you are?

I mean, given that virtue signaling is done "primarily to enhance the social standing of the speaker". So HOW can the social standing of a speaker be enhanced if the identity of said person is unknown? OK, so obviously some people know who the judge is. So maybe whoever the judge is, they were "virtue signaling". But I doubt it very much. More likely is that the judge was simply IMPARTIALLY following CA law.

Image: Should signs such as this one be allowed? Or should the law "coerce" business owners into removing such signs? Note that the article the image (below) is attached to is "1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds" (6/4/2014 MSNBC article by Morgan Whitaker). Religious grounds, or the EXACT SAME reason WTNPH strongly argues that business owners should be allowed to cite in defense of them discriminating against gay people.


OST #172

Saturday, August 20, 2016

Willis Hart Goes Out On A Racist Limb (Re The Nightly Show Cancelation)

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart sez he's "going out on a limb" with a guess, although he isn't framing his guess as such. Sounds to me like he's asserting (sans proof, as usual) that his guess is exactly what happened.

Willis Hart: Larry Wilmore's Explanation as to Why Comedy Central Deep-Sixed His Show? I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, racism (you know, as opposed to the much more plausible reasons; the show sucking big time, him not being particularly humorous, piss-poor ratings, etc.). (8/19/2016 AT 10:11pm).

Larry Wilmore has absolutely NOT given any such explanation. Or indicated that he believes racism is why The Nightly Show was canceled. How about the fact that Trevor Noah, the man who replaced Jon Stewart, is a Black man, and Comedy Central says they are happy with Noah's ratings? (so I'm going to say no racism from Comedy Central).

Wilmore's show did tackle race related issues, however, so there might be something to what Willis is saying. Frankly I'm surprised the Hartster didn't throw out this suggestion and then AGREE with it. But Willis' take would be that, because Wilmore covered things such as the Black Lives Matter movement (which Willis hates, saying they're "vile, vulgar and slimy"), that it was Wilmore's racism that turned off White viewers.

Because, in the world of racist Whites like Willis Hart, it's Black people who are the racists, not Whites.

Willis Hart: Yeah, there's racism in America alright; blacks hating whites being the bulk of it. (5/29/2016 AT 8:31pm).

Yeah, so I don't know why Willis didn't say the Nightly Show was canceled due to racism... the racism of Wilmore. Because, with Willis, if you're African American and not a Conservative, everything bad that happens to you is because of your race. This is how Conservative racists like Willis view Black people who aren't Conservative (the majority of African Americans). Not that I would agree with him (at all). I watched and enjoyed the show and was (and am) quite disappointed that it's canceled. So, no, I do not think it "sucked big time".

The real reason Willis thinks The Nightly Show sucked big time (and I do not believe I'm going out on a limb here) is because Wilmore and his contributors and guests were having that honest discussion on race that Willis does NOT want to occur. He says he does, but his idea of an "honest discussion" is that the discussion starts with Black people admitting they're huge belly-achers (his word) and that racism is not as big a problem as Black people are making it out to be.

As for the real reason cited by Wilmore as to why he thinks his show was canceled?

[Wilmore] does fault Comedy Central for not taking more time to cultivate both programs, which broke ground by presenting an all-black block of late-night talk shows. (Did Race Play a Role in Larry Wilmore's Downfall? by Adam Howard. NBC News 8/19/2016).

An assessment I agree with. I think they should have given it more time to find an audience. It took awhile for The Daily Show to evolve and become as popular as it is today. 4+ years according to Wikipedia, which says "the show's 2000 and 2004 election coverage, combined with a new satirical edge, helped to catapult Stewart and The Daily Show to new levels of popularity and critical respect". So, TDS first aired in 1996, but it wasn't until 2000 that it took off.

IMO I think the show should have been expanded to a full hour. That way the round table discussion could have lasted longer. Although, given the fact that this is when some serious discussions took place, the viewership might not have agreed. I read one post mortem that cited a lack of laughs as a reason why the ratings weren't good.

Yes, I thought the Colbert Report was a funnier show, but I doubt Comedy Central will ever replicate the success of Colbert. Whatever comes next, I seriously doubt it's going to be a hit. Yeah, it sucks for them that they lost Colbert, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

Although in the case of Willis Hart, that would be a racist cookie (because the dude's a racist). And I'm sure he hated the show. But racists like Willis were NOT the target audience. Although they did need some White viewers, and I think the honest discussion on race they were having may have made some Whites a little uncomfortable. Whites not as racist as Willis, but still a little biased when it comes to things like discussing race relations.

Conclusion? Yeah, I think racism was a factor. In that the focus of the show (which was originally going to be titled "The Minority Report") made Whites uncomfortable. Or they just aren't interested. Being White and not having to deal with the problems/issues Black people have to deal with (explaining the "piss-poor ratings").

But, to repeat, Larry Wilmore's did not give this explanation. About this Willis Hart is lying.

Video: Jon Stewart shows up for the last episode of TNS. According to Stewart, Wilmore "started a discussion that was not on television when you began". This would be the honest discussion on race relations that racists like Willis Hart would almost certainly characterize as vile and vulgar. Because they didn't start the discussion by immediately conceding that the majority of Black grievances are invalid (4:34)

OST #171

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Willis Hart Lies & Delusions Re Democratic Socialists Desiring Government Confiscation On A Frightening Scale

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart hates the Progressive Left. As far as Democratic Socialism goes, his hatred for it is even greater. Although he did once indicate that he believes that the ENTIRE Left is Communist, so it's possible he makes no distinction between the current Democratic Party and Democratic Socialists (OST #102).

Regardless, it is a fact that, back when Bernie Sanders was a 2016 potus hopeful, Willis went after him more than Hillary Clinton. Below is one example, a commentary in which he lies about what it says on the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website.

Willis Hart: On the Democratic Socialists of America (Bernie's Fellow Fascist Buddies) Website Stating that "In the Short Term, We Can't Eliminate Private Corporations but We Can Bring Them Under Democratic Control"... The key words here of course being, IN THE SHORT TERM (meaning that in the long term government confiscation on such a frightening scale is exactly what these assholes want).

And don't you just love the way that they mask this whole tyrannical use of government force in such flowery jargon as "democratic control", as opposed to what it truly is - theft? Of course, the saddest part of all is the fact that its effective, with the average voter in America being a) dumber than a box of rocks (all too willing to accept the whole "free lunch" narrative) and b) easily bribed ("free stuff for me!!"). Yeah, I'm not very optimistic here. (4/19/2016 AT 4:33pm).

So I Googled on the phrase that Willis puts between quotes in his commentary. The only result Google returned was Willis' own website. Removing the quotes, however, did yield a result. Turns out Willis edited what he found on the DSA website by removing one word (which I cap in red in the REAL quote below).

Question: Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism?

Answer: In the short term we can't eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under GREATER democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable. (Democratic Socialists of America website).

The ACTUAL key word here of course being, "encourage". But Willis stops short (with his quote), leaving this out so he can falsely claim their goal is "government confiscation". As for "in the short term", I doubt we'll ever eliminate private corporation. Or publically held corporations ("held" by "the public" in that stock in the company is publically traded). The best we can hope for is to pursue the "encourage" strategy, I think. Via laws that make the creation of cooperatives easier. Or by laws that give tax breaks to owners of privately held companies who sell to their employees.

In either case, passing laws to make it easier for employees to form co-ops (by buying businesses from owners or shareholders WILLING TO SELL) involves absolutely zero "tyrannical use of government force". So, when Willis sez confiscation "is exactly what these assholes want" what he is referring to are his own paranoid delusions. I mean, to see how absolutely full of shit Hart is, all we need to look at the state of corporate enterprise in European democratic socialist countries. Here we have highly profitable corporations that include IKEA and Volvo in Sweden and Siemens in Germany.

Are any of these corporations worried about the possibility of "government confiscation"? Are they expending funds to lobby their respective governments to stop plans to seize their businesses and turn them over to their employees?

Perhaps Willis, if his post pointed to sources that indicated ANY of these fears are in any way possible (via a link to a news source that stated any democratic socialist nation was considering legislation that would enable the seizing of businesses)? Then maybe his fears could be considered real. As opposed to delusional conjecture based on 4 words from the DSA website ("in the short term"). From which he concludes that their long term agenda is "government confiscation on... a frightening scale".

Although, to conclude this it's necessary for him to ignore the word "greater". Use of which would indicate that they're in favor of increasing United States unionization figures (currently 7%) as well as the number employee owned companies (a a short list). Growing these two via regulations (making it easier to unionize and form co-ops) and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest (making it easier for employees to unionize, buy businesses and form co-ops) falls INCREDIBLY short of Hart's paranoid conspiracy involving "confiscation on such a frightening scale".

Keep in mind that we're talking about DEMOCRATIC Socialism, which would involve the citizens of the United States voting to move us toward a system under which the plutocrats have less control. Via regulations making such processes easier (democratizing businesses) we can achieve greater unionization rates and more co-ops. All possible without the use of "tyrannical government force" (which is never mentioned on the DSA website and is PURELY a product of WTNPH's fevered wealth-worshipping imagination).

I can understand why oligarchy worshippers such as the Hartster feel the need to fear monger/lie on this topic, however. That someone like Bernie Sanders actually won a lot of primaries (he gave the establishment candidate HRC a run for her money) seriously scares Willis. Hence all the commentaries on his blog regarding how the Democratic Party has changed (AKA gone increasingly Commie).

The Sanders movement is proof of how sick of plutocracy the voters are. Which is why the prospect of a Sanders presidency had Willis shitting his pants. And he's likely still shitting his pants thinking of the prospect that these voters might work to push (a likely) president HRC to work for more of what benefits The People (more democratic socialism). As opposed to benefiting the oligarchs (whom Willis loves). Hence all the ridiculous conspiracy theory bullshit from him (such as the post above).

Video: Toward a caring economy. Webinar presented by The Next System (1:24:52).

OST #170

Thursday, August 11, 2016

A Devolution Toward Increasing Gun Nuttery (Evolving Willis #3)

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is clearly a gun nut. In that he has nutty views about guns. He says he doesn't own any (or, not a "great many" at least), but I'm not sure I believe him. But even if he owns zero firearms, I STILL say he's a gun nut [1].

Due to his devolution toward increasing gun nuttery (agreeing with gun nut talking points). In this case it's him going from supporting the universal background check (UBC) to saying such a law would be pointless, in that enacting a UBC would have no effect at all. This we know because we essentially already have the UBC. And becsuse the gun show loophole is a "myth".

Willis Hart comments that show his devolution over time (2012 to 2016).

Very Strong Support

Willis Hart: ...the fact that people can still buy guns at gun shows without background checks is appalling. (6/30/2012 AT 6:46am).

Willis Hart: I think that getting rid of the gun-show loophole is the key here. No, not a lot of criminals buy their guns there (less than 1%, I believe) but I suspect that a lot of the straw purchasers do and if we can at least slow that down a little, I'm game. (1/25/2013 AT 8:12pm).

Willis Hart: You were totally right about him, Russ, and he [Dervish Sanders] is one of the main reason why I now fully support universal background checks. (2/13/2013 AT 8:35pm).

Strong Support

Willis Hart: yes, I am now strongly in favor of background checks. (3/4/2013 AT 9:35am)

Moderate Support

Willis Hart: I'm not necessarily saying here that I'm opposed to background checks, just that they're probably much more for for solace than they are preventative and that we really shouldn't be expecting much once they're instituted. (6/2/2014 AT 8:25pm).

Weak Support

Willis Hart: I'm not wedded to the number [limiting magazine capacities] or even the concept [background checks], just that something along those lines would probably be where I would be willing to compromise (4/22/2015).


Willis Hart: Yet one more leftist anti-gun talking-point bites the dust... (4/21/2015 at 8:20 PM). [Note: this PDF "proves" that the gun show loophole is a "myth"].

Strong Opposition
To the point of ridiculing president Obama for pushing for the UBC.

Willis Hart: On President Obama's Push for Universal Background Checks (Which for All Intents and Purposes Already Exist but I Digress)... Only if they include al Qaeda and the Saudi royal family... (2/4/2016 AT 10:00pm).

Yes, it looks like the Harster went from opposing the UBC to weakly supporting it, back to opposing it (said he'd compromise on the UBC on 4/22/2015 after he said it was 100% unnecessary on 4/22/2015). But what do you expect, he's a gun nut.

Case in point, that PDF that Willis posted a link to (in his 4/21/2015 comment), is a "fact sheet" from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (a national trade association for the firearms industry) that is pure propaganda. In that it utilizes a mixture of facts, half truths and outright lies the purpose of which is to deceive gullible people like Willis Hart.

Following is an excerpt from "The Myth of the Gun Show Loophole". This would be the document WTNPH says causes a "leftist anti-gun talking-point" to "bite the dust".

Claim: The law allows unlicensed dealers to sell guns at gun shows.

Fact: Unlicensed dealers are criminals. It is true that a background check and other regulations do not apply if you are an individual that wishes to occasionally sell a firearm from your personal collection in a private transaction. ...all vendors leasing space at a show, including private parties, must agree to run background checks, regardless of whether they hold federal licenses or not. The vast majority of guns sold at gun shows go through federal background checks.

Yes, licensed gun dealers who possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL) must perform BCs when selling a weapon. The gun show loophole isn't a reference to these sales (as the propaganda from the NSSF tries to make readers think). The gun show loophole refers to private sales at gun shows. The section highlighted in red (above) is false.

Private sellers at gun shows are not required to run a BC, record the sale, or even ask for ID (source). And these legal sales do contribute to gun crime.

According to a 1999 report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) commissioned by President Bill Clinton, these legal transactions contribute to illegal activities, such as arms trafficking, purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers, and straw purchases. (Wikipedia/Gun Show Loophole).

It is also important to note that licensed dealers may sell firearms without doing a background check under the following condition. [is] legal for FFL holders to make private sales, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's personal collection at least one year prior to the sale. Hence, when a personal firearm is sold by an FFL holder, no background check or Form 4473 is required by federal law. (Wikipedia/Gun Show Loophole).

Obviously the loophole isn't a "myth", nor did Willis' linking to this NSSF "fact sheet" cause any "leftist anti-gun talking-point" to "bite the dust". According to the first video below, 1/4 to 1/2 of all gun show sellers are private sellers who do not have to conduct a BC [2]. So we're talking about a lot of guns here. Many of which *do* end up in the hands of criminals according to the ATF.

There is also the fact that (outside of gun shows), when one person sells (or gives) a gun to another there is no BC. According to PolitiFact "professors at Northeastern and Harvard universities conducted a gun survey in 2015... [and] found that 22% of the people who purchased guns - at gun shows, stores or elsewhere - underwent no background check".

So that's another ding to the Hartster's claim that "universal background checks... for all intents and purposes already exist" bullshit. A ding that brings the total for no BC up to 22% in regards to all gun transfers. Or, all gun transfers that could potentially be subjected to BC (not counting illegal sales and transfers, but there are already laws against doing that).

(Note: this commentary is the 3rd published under the "Evolving Willis" label. "Evolving Willis" being a series in which I document the political 180s of Willis Hart. AKA reasons he may view himself with suspicion).

Video1: Hidden camera video from gun show. Making it easy for criminals to buy guns [2] (3:30).

Video2: Undercover sting shows 19 out of 30 sellers broke the law. Under the law private sellers can sell firearms without a BC, but only if they have no reason to believe the buyer would not pass a BC. In this video the buyers specifically say they "probably couldn't pass a background check" (1:59).

[1] A gun nut (according to Wikipedia) is a term that "has been used to describe firearms enthusiasts who are deeply involved with the gun culture". I acknowledge that if you don't own a gun, then, under this definition, you are not a gun nut. However, as I wrote in SWTD #134, IMO the term "applies if said individual opposes reasonable legislation such as universal background checks". Also if they parrot pro-gun and NRA talking points. As Willis Hart does.
[2] Laws differ from state to state. That a quarter to one half of all sales at gun shows are via private sellers (and not subjected to BCs) is according to a report from WLWT, which serves the Ohio/Oklahoma area. Obviously these stats vary from state to state depending on state law.

OST #169. See also SWTD #279.

Tuesday, August 9, 2016

It's A Strange Ignorance Coming Down (Re WTNPH Discounting Evidence That gwb Allowed 9/11 To Occur)

Note that in this commentary the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart refers to me as a "colleague". This was before he banned me from his blog. Now I'm a psychotic troll, and he's restricted his commenting policy so that only team members can submit anything.

Willis Hart: It's a Strange Hate Coming Down... Our colleague, wd, is on the record as saying that President Bush MAY (yes, he gave himself a little wiggle room) have known in advance that 9/11 was going to happen, and let it happen as a pretense to start a war in Iraq. An interesting theory, isn't it? I do have to wonder, though. Is wd aware that, had those planes struck a little differently and the evacuation not gone so smoothly, it wouldn't have been 3,000 human beings dead? It would have been 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 human beings dead. Does he really think that Mr. Bush is evil to that extreme? Hm, I guess that only he can answer that, huh? (8/28/2011 AT 8:11pm).

Remember the PDB (presidential daily brief) from 8/6/2001 that warned Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US? Condi Rice fibbed and said "the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting". Implying there was no reason for them to act... "historical information based on old reporting".

But that is CLEARLY bullshit, given the in Ladin Determined To Strike in US warning contained within the PDB. You don't act when you're being WARNED?

An excerpt from the PDB (dashes denote redacted words).

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America". *snip*

Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in --, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack.

Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks...

Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. *snip*

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a -- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists.

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks...

Yes, there is "historical" data here, but it also says that bin Laden IS DETERMINED. More attacks WILL come. And this warning (and it absolutely was a warning) was delivered less than 4 months before the 9/11 attacks occurred. There were other warnings, however. Warnings that date back the early days of the bush presidency.

They're coming here: Bush admin. ignored multiple pre-9/11 warnings (11/14/2015 RT article excerpt) Disclosures from more than 100 hours of exclusive interviews with 12 former CIA directors reveal that the George W. Bush administration ignored repeated warnings of an Al-Qaeda attack before September 11, 2001, according to a new Politico report. ...

A key meeting took place on July 10, after the head of the Al-Qaeda unit at the CIA... "The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw" [Cofer Black, a CIA chief of counterterrorism] said. ... "It was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die" [according to Black].

Black and [CIA director George] Tenet requested an urgent meeting at the White House and met with Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. The president was on a trip to Boston at the time. Rice was told there would be significant terrorist attacks against the US in the coming weeks or months.

"The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al-Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States", said [Al Qaeda unit head, Richard] Blee, according to Tenet. Rice asked what they thought they needed to do, and Black blasted "We need to go on a wartime footing now!". Despite this warning, Black said the administration sat back.

The Politico article conclusion fits with Willis Hart's "strange hate" description, in that the author concludes that the warnings were actively ignored.

Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called "the Blue Sky paper" to Bush's new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat - "getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan"

"And the word back", says [CIA director George] Tenet, "was we're not quite ready to consider this. We don't want the clock to start ticking"... Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they'd been warned. (11/12/2015 article by Chris Whipple).

So it isn't just me who thinks that the bush administration ignored the threat that an attack was coming, and that, had they acted, they might have prevented 9/11. Note that the "word back" was that they did not want "the clock to start ticking", not that they weren't convinced.

That the attacks were ALLOWED to occur is a solid conclusion, IMO. As a pretext for invading Iraq. As per the stated desire of PNAC for a "new Pearl Harbor". (Wikipedia/Project for a New American Century/Critics: Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans).

The bush administration was also warned that hijacked planes might be used as weapons.

WH spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility".

However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement. The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?", warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building.

[Also] the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer [2000] that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools. (What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11).

Then there is the fact that the WTC was bombed previously, due to it being seen by al Qaeda as a symbol of the United State's economic power. On 2/26/1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower, killing 6 people and injuring more than a 1,000. Given the fact that the 1993 plan basically failed, in that those responsible had intended to bring down the entire structure and kill many more, I think our government should have assumed that another attempt was likely and only a matter of time.

When WTNPH says "does he really think that Mr. Bush is evil to that extreme" he predicates it upon his assumption that I said bush knew EXACTLY what was going to happen (that al Qaeda would fly planes into the WTC). But, while the bush administration might (or should) have been able to connect the dots and make some educated guesses as to what al Qaeda may be planning, they chose not to (didn't want the clock to start ticking).

bush, IMO, likely knew there would be an attack, but they had NO idea how bad it would be. My conclusions (which many others have reached) don't represent a "strange hate". Not strange and not hate. Only a rational conclusion based on an examination of the facts. Although I think hate surely would be justified.

Also, I say he LIKELY knew. I (of course) do not know with 100 percent certainty that bush knew an attack was coming. Given the fact that he (as president) was an incompetent doofus, maybe Cheney played him for the useful idiot (and that it's Cheney who is truly evil)?

Me, I'm thinking that Cheney (who was one of 25 people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, while bush wasn't) wanted a "benevolent global hegemony" which would be brought about by toppling Saddam. i.e. the domino theory which said that if the US "overthrows Hussein and creates a pro-Western democratic regime in Iraq, the example will increase internal pressure to open closed societies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria").

Whereas bush wanted to take out Saddam because he allegedly tried to kill his daddy.

During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number of reasons - in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, "After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad".

He was referring, of course, to an alleged plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, during his triumphal visit to Kuwait in April, 1993, 25 months after US-led forces chased Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and three months after Bush Sr. surrendered the White House to Bill Clinton.

While the alleged plot was never cited officially as a cause for going to war, some pundits... have speculated that revenge or some oedipal desire to show up his father may indeed have been one of the factors that drove him to Baghdad. (So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bush's Dad? by Jim Lobe. 10/19/2004 Republished by Common Dreams).

So, bush evil? Yeah, I think so. Because of his actions. Most evil people don't view themselves as evil. Remember that Osama bin Laden thought he was leading a religious crusade against the Great Satan. And believed he was on the side of God (AKA Allah). But would Willis Hart say OBL wasn't evil? I really, really doubt it.

Point is, we always determine evil by what evil does. Or what evil people do. In this case the evil of george w bush in ignoring the warnings and allowing 9/11 to happen. Something the evidence strongly suggests happened.

"Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" Public Policy Polling asked in 2009.Wikipedia notes that "27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded YES".

The Hartster's response (when I quoted these figures to him) was that people who responded YES are crazy. But wasn't it MORE crazy to ignore the clear warnings the bushies were presented with? I mean, if bush had done the job he was elected to do as CIC, which was to keep America safe, then 9/11 ABSOLUTELY could have been prevented.

In any case, and to my reason for writing this commentary, I'm not attempting to convince anyone that bush knew and purposefully ignored 9/11 warnings (as people in that camp will likely never be convinced), but only to point out that there is a lot of evidence that strongly suggests bush knew. And that I'm not crazy, suffering from a "strange hate", or "as far outside the mainstream as it gets" (another WTNPH assertion).

For the record, when I say that Willis Hart's ignorance is strange, I mean for someone as politically aware as he is. I don't mean that such an opinion is out of the mainstream, as many people are (either unaware) or don't believe that bush ignored 9/11 warnings. Willis' ignorance is strange because he knows these things (as I pointed them out to him in the comment thread of the post quoted above). Yet he still discounts the probability entirely. And berates anyone who gives it any credence as crazy.

So, it's a WILLFUL ignorance. This from someone I'd wager would accuse others of being willfully ignorant (him viewing himself as someone whose eyes are wide open, politically).

OST #168. See also SWTD #350.

Friday, August 5, 2016

Nope. No Spell Cast Upon Me

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart writes a great many posts in which he objectifies women. Not unusual for a misogynist. But this one had me scratching my head.

Willis Hart: On the Strikingly and Uniquely Beautiful Australian Actress and Model, Lauren Orrell... As she casts her spell upon you. Once more, like cloves on the tip of your tongue. (8/3/2016 AT 4:26pm).

Nope, Lauren Orrell doesn't do it for me. What's strange here, is that this (IMO) is a bad picture. I did a Google search and found better ones.

For example.

This is a recent picture, I believe. I'm guessing it's 2 years old at the most, as the site I found it on was for her series Starting from... Now, which began airing in 2014. So, why she looks so much older in the picture Willis chose, I don't know.

In my opinion, Jennifer Lawrence is better looking. No "meh body" and no "butterface", as he says. Anyway, he clearly likes older women (although ones who look remarkably good for their age), so maybe his opinion on Jennifer Lawrence will be different 15 years from now in 2031 (when she'll be 40). If he's still alive.

Jennifer Lawrence at the 2016 Oscars.


This picture fits the bill for "she casts her spell upon you" MUCH more so than the picture Willis selected, I'd say. No disrespect to Lauren Orrell, but I don't care for that picture the Hartster selected. I don't have anything against older women, btw. In fact, many of the pictures Willis has selected in the past have appealed to me. But this is not a good one, IMO.

As for "cloves on the tip of your tongue", that sounds terrible to me. Pass.

OST #167

Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Willis Hart Is A Misogynist, A Racist, An Islamophobe, A Transgenderphobe, A Bigot, & A Defender Of Business Owner's "Right" To Discriminate Against Gay People

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart thinks he's making a joke (I guess). But he's only revealing his bigotry.

Willis Hart: Probably When They Trotted Out the Midget (err, I Mean, Dwarf)... What would be my answer to the question, "So, when did you finally realize that this Democratic convention was a pander-fest to top all pander-fests (with the only way that they could have scaled this oppression Olympiad being a black, transgendered, Islamic, female dwarf with ADHD and a dire need for free contraception)?" (8/1/2016 AT 5:20pm).

As opposed to the pandering the GOP did to appeal to their nationalist brown-people-hating Islamophobic base. The DNC's "pandering", on the other hand, was inclusive. Me, this is the kind of "pandering" I prefer.

Of course, as a White guy, Willis says NO to inclusivity. If you're going to pander, it should be (as it always has been) pandering to White Men. An opinion, which, as a Libertarian, makes sense that he hold.

...about two-thirds (68%) of Americans who identify as libertarians are men, and 94% are non-hispanic whites. Compare this to "steadfast conservatives", who were found to be 59% male and 87% white, or "business conservatives", found to be 62% male and 85% white... Clearly, the entire conservative movement is dominated by white males, but libertarians are the most male-dominated. (Libertarianism Is For White Men: The Ugly Truth About the Right's Favorite Movement by Conor Lynch. Salon 6/10/2015).

So, why are are Libertarians mostly White men? It's because Libertarianism is the perfect home for racists, bigots and misogynists who flat-out deny their prejudices.

Randal Paul, circa 1982: [E]very piece of anti-discrimination legislation passed over the past few decades, ignores one of the basic, inalienable rights of man — the right to discriminate. [Though] eliminating racial and sexual prejudice [had] noble aspiration, [anti-discrimination laws] necessarily utilize the ignoble means of coercive force. (attribution same as above).

Libertarians believe discrimination is a RIGHT. I'm not talking about free speech. Of course that's a right. I'm talking about "private businesses" that require licenses granted by the State to operate. Libertarians want these business owners to have the "right" to deny service to people for racist or bigoted reasons.

Take a look at Hart's blog and you'll find many examples of him standing up for this "right" of business owners to discriminate by refusing service to a gay person.

As for Hart's midget "joke", Little People of America (LPA) considers the word offensive.

Little People of America, the world's oldest and largest dwarfism support organization and an international, membership-based organization for people with dwarfism and their families, advocates to abolish the use of the word "midget". The word "midget" was never coined as the official term to identify people with dwarfism, but was created as a label used to refer to people of short stature who were on public display for curiosity and sport. Today, the word "midget" is considered a derogatory slur. The dwarfism community has voiced that they prefer to be referred to as dwarfs, little people, people of short stature or having dwarfism, or simply, and most preferably, by their given name.

When we surveyed our community about the usage and overall impact of the word "midget", over 90% of our members surveyed stated that the word should never be used in reference to a person with dwarfism. (LPA issues statement to abolish the "m" word. September 2015).

No doubt what the Hartster thinks is funny is his use of a term that he knows is considered to be offensive. Likely he views it as his way of thumbing his nose at those who advocate "political correctness". Politically Correct being a pejorative Conservatives apply to people who object when the Conservative/Libertarian insists on being an insensitive asshole.

BTW, note that Willis (in his commentary) rattles off all the groups of people he hates... Blacks, transgendered people, Muslims, and females (in general and those who believe in the importance of requiring insurance to cover birth control). He's authored many commentaries slamming people in these groups (click links for examples).

For the record, I've never seen him say anything negative about people with ADHD. Frankly I'm surprised that he didn't describe that female dwarf (in addition to being Black, transgendered, Islamic, and in dire need of free contraception), as also being a SJW, a radical Marxist feminist and a memeber of Black Lives Matter.

Supporting Document
[DSD #28] Rightwing Fundie Bakers Should Be Able To Discriminate (catalouge of WTNPH commentaries in which he argues that discrimination by business owners is a right).

OST #166