The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a bigoted and clueless White guy who loathes the Black Lives Matter movement. According to Mr. Hart BLM is "vile, vulgar, and slimy" and African Americans who agree with the BLM movement are "belly-achers".
So, no surprise that he feels the same way about the Hispanic organization La Raza (AKA the National Council of La Raza, which is now known as UnidosUS).
Willis Hart: On La Raza... It means, the race. THE RACE; a proclamation that if a white group had made it would have been excoriated 24/7. And Hispanic isn't even a fucking race, for Christ (Mexicans for example are 20% European, 20% Native-American, and 60% Mestizo)!! I mean, hello!! (10/23/2017 at 6:19pm).
Wrong. La Raza does not directly translate to "the race". Well, it is "often translated into English as race", but there is more meaning behind the term. "La Raza" isn't simply and just about race. It's actually not about race at all, because (as Willis correctly points out) Mexican isn't a race.
The Spanish term raza translates as "race" or "people", Spanish raza having the meaning of "race, ethnicity; breed, strain, lineage". The term originated in the 1925 book, La Raza Cósmica (English: The Cosmic Race) by the Mexican writer José Vasconcelos. He described la Raza Cósmica as the product of gradual racial mixing that was already underway in the Latin world. Vasconcelos believed that eventually all of the people within the former Spanish Empire would be completely mixed into a new race. The term expresses ethnic or racial pride. (Wikipedia/La Raza).
Note that the originator of the term said "La Raza" is "the product of gradual racial mixing". Does Willis know this? Obviously not. He makes an assumption and gets outraged based on his (incorrect) assumption. BTW, you might also have noted that "The term expresses ethnic or racial pride", which is something else that would very likely cause Hart's blood to boil.
Why is it that non-Whites can have "racial pride" but Whites can't, Hart wonders. His conclusion (I'd bet) is that it's non-White people who are racist (more so than Whites). But the TRUTH is that, when White people say you're inferior (which is what happened here and in Mexico) it isn't racist to try and counter that.
Oh, and yes, there is racism in Mexico.
The enduring taboo subject [in Mexico] is skin color, whether an individual's complexion betrays an allegiance to the Spanish who conquered the Aztec empire in 1521 or the Aztecs who were conquered. It's no exaggeration to say that, in this country and especially in this city [Mexico City], the best, highest-paying, most important jobs often seem to go to those who, in addition to having the best education and the strongest connections, have the lightest skin. (In Mexico, racism hides in plain view by Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor. 11/20/2012).
That an oppressed people form an organization to spread pride is a NATURAL reaction. A White group HAS made such a proclamation, btw. These groups are known as the KKK, Neo Nazis and White Nationalists. They're racists because White people haven't been oppressed!! Not on this continent, in any case. A FACT that the clueless Hartster ignores. If Whites had been oppressed and their taking pride in their race was a push-back against that oppression, the situation would be different. BUT THEY HAVEN'T BEEN.
When a race that has been historically the perpetrators of oppression takes pride in their race, it's because they're racists. It's because they LIKE the fact that they are members of the oppressor class. Despite their BULLSHIT cries of "reverse racism" and insistence that it's Black and Brown people who are the "real racists".
Willis Hart is one of these people, btw. He is a racist and a bigot in addition to being a clueless White guy. The (deliberate?) cluelessness and racism seemingly go hand-in-hand with these types. Hard to believe he isn't a Trump voter. A Trump defender, yes, but not a Trump voter.
Why did UAE Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed travel to New York in December of 2016 to meet with members of the Trump transition team, including Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn and Jared Kushner? Yes, Trump was the president-elect at the time, but he was NOT president. Surely such a meeting could wait until Trump was sworn in.
More importantly, why did Bin Zayed enter the US without notifying the Obama Administration, which is customary? This unusual and suspicious act was noted by our intelligence agencies, who decided that Bin Zayed should be surveilled while in the US. Because a foreign leader sneaking into our country might have some national security implications.
So they did that (surveilled Bin Zayed) and passed the intel they gathered up the chain. Although first they blacked out the names of American citizens that Bin Zayed met with. Because Bin Zayed was the subject of the surveillance, not any Americans he met with. American citizens have rights in our country that a foreigner visiting does not. So, in order to protect those rights, the names weren't disclosed.
Susan Rice, in her capacity as President Obama's national security adviser, looked at these reports and decided that, in order to understand what the purpose of the meeting was, knowing the names of who Bin Zayed met with was necessary. So she requested that they be "unmasked". The names, however, would only be revealed to Rice and others on her team (as well as the president, I presume). Point is, the names were not publically disclosed. Or even disclosed to a large number of people within the Obama administration.
According to the Right, this is what Trump was talking about when he (via Tweet) accused President Obama of wiretapping him. But that's bullshit. It was Bin Zayed who was being surveilled, not Trump. Everything that was done was on the up-and-up and 100 percent legal.
Their complaint now is that Susan Rice, when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (a Republican representing California) told the world that he had discovered that Susan Rice requested that the American names (in the intel report on Bin Zayed) be unmasked, lied. Nunes said "it was possible the access to NSA information could have been used improperly for political purposes". An unproven accusation. Also Trump "won". So what were the "political purposes" the intel was used for?
None according to President Donald Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster. He said Susan Rice did nothing wrong. Anyway, after Nunes whined (in an effort to validate Trump's "Obama wiretapped me" tweet), Susan Rice denied that she unmasked Trump transition team members.
(Note that my transcript below is of a YouTube created by a #trumpdupe going by the moniker Hard Bastard. This would be the same idiot Willis cited when he authored a post about how CNN faked a rescue by one of their reporters of a Hurricane Harvey victim. Even though the rescue was real... see OST #210).
Transcript of discussion between Judy Woodruff of PBS Newshour and Susan Rice on 3/22/2017.
Judy Woodruff: ...in the last few hours we've been following this disclosure by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, that, in essence, during the final days of the Obama administration, during the transition, after President Trump had been elected, that he, and the people around him, may have been caught up in the surveillance of foreign individuals. And their identities may have been disclosed. Do you know anything about this?
Susan Rice: I know nothing about this. I was surprised to see reports from Chairman Nunes on that count today. I mean, let's back up and recall where we have been. The president of the United States, accused his predecessor, President Obama, of wiretapping Trump Tower...
Hard Bastard Commentary: And he did biotch! he did it! *laughs*.
Susan Rice: Nothing of the sort occurred.
Hard Bastard Commentary: Lie.
This idiot "Hard Bastard" laughs a lot during his YouTubes. Anyway, it is easy to see why the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart loves Mr. Bastard's Youtube #trumpdupe bullshit. He's a fake news fool.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that We Now Know with Absolute Certainty that Susan Rice Lied Through Her Molars On PBS Earlier this Year Regarding the Unmasking of Trump Officials [Hard Bastard Video, see bottom of post].
And how is the media responding to this? Let's just say that they don't seem too concerned (the fact that they haven't mentioned the lie, the fact that they've have been spinning like a top to make it seem like her actions were justified, the fact that they've been doubling-down on the thoroughly discredited Russian narrative, etc). (9/18/2017 at 4:38pm).
There is no need for the media "make it seem like her actions were justified", because they WERE justified! Which is why, as per a 4/12/2017 CNN News story, an unnamed "congressional intelligence source", "described the requests made by Rice as normal and appropriate for officials who serve in that role to the president". A determination that Trump's own national security advisor, McMaster, agreed with.
So why did Rice (on the PBS Newshour) deny knowing what Nunes was talking about? It was because she "wanted to win another news cycle" according toDavid French of the National Review (in a 9/14/2017 article).
So Susan Rice didn't tell the complete truth. To "win the news cycle" or for some other reason. I don't know. I do note, however, that in the PBS Newshour video she pivots back to Trump's idiotic tweet. Her "I know nothing about this" was not the truth, but her "nothing of the sort occurred" IS accurate. Obama never wiretapped Trump Tower. The laughing idiot Hard Bastard is wrong. Willis says nothing about that. Instead he's offended by inaccuracies from Susan Rice. Inaccuracies from Trump aren't worth mentioning. Even though the moron whose video he puts on his blog repeats the Trump "Obama wiretapped me" lie.
President Obama did NOT order Trump Tower wiretapped. What happened was that "people around him, may have been caught up in the surveillance of foreign individuals" (as per the Judy Woodruff question to Susan Rice). Susan Rice said she didn't know anything about it, even though she did. So she "lied". I don't know what her reasoning was for being less than honest, but I don't really care. Because there are bigger lies and more important questions to be answered.
Why did Bin Zayed travel to NY to meet with president-elect Trump (without informing the Obama administration)? I've heard that the meeting was part of an "effort to establish a back-channel line of communication between Moscow and President-elect Donald Trump". WTF is up with all this back-channeling between Trump and Russia, especially BEFORE Trump was inaugurated? Did the subject of discussion have something to do with Trump and Russia colluding?
IMO the answer is YES. We should be looking into it to find out, at least. Willis, of course says no, don't look into it. Because the "Russian narrative" has already been "thoroughly discredited". "Thoroughly discredited" because the metadata attached to the WikiLeaked DNC emails shows that "the download occurred at a rate that was too fast for the internet". Except that the metadata that's being looked at is what exists after the files were passed from the Russian hackers that stole them to Julian Assange. And (hello!) metadata can be manipulated! Motherboard (an online tech news publication by Vice Media) reports that "the metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings".
Proof that Willis Hart is a #trumpdupe. He focuses in on "lies" from Susan Rice, but ignores lies from the Trump Administration. Why did Devin Nunes meet with someone secretly at the White House prior to his press conference about the unmasking? As per NBC News "it's unclear why Nunes would have to go to the White House to seek a secure location to view classified material, since his own committee has a secure room in the Capitol where Nunes and his aides review secret documents on a daily basis".
It was "unclear" because Nunes lied about using the White House as a secure location. He went there because someone at the White House was his source. Bloomberg's Eli Lake says "this distinction is important because it raises questions about the independence of the congressional investigation Nunes is leading".
Nunes, who has referred to the investigation as a "witch hunt" (parroting Trump), lied because his goal in "investigating" the Trump-Russia investigation is to exonerate Trump. As opposed to looking at the facts and reaching a conclusion based on those facts. That's why lied about individuals at the White House being his source.
But the Hartster is not at all concerned about these consequential lies. Instead he focuses on an inconsequential lie from Susan Rice. And, if the purpose of Susan Rice's lie was to "win another news cycle" as David French says, then it surely is completely inconsequential. As opposed to Nunes' lie, which was to facilitate the clearing of the Trump Administration without a proper investigation (something he clearly has no interest in doing because he's already decided there's nothing to the allegations).
Video:Hard Bastard says "Susan Rice Lied About Unmasking Trump Campaign Members, Media Lauds Her". While the video runs over 20 minutes, I only watched until just under 9 minutes, so I don't know what Hard Bastard bullshit this #trumpdupe spews in the remaining 11 minutes.
Sometimes you just have to shake your head in disbelief. Like when the racist-in-chief insisted that (in regards to the events in Charlottesville) both sides were to blame. And that, on the Nazi/KKK side, there were some "very fine people".
Sentiment the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart apparently is in agreement with. Although he, unlike Trump, never even said that Nazis and KKKers were in the wrong (I refer to Trump's 2nd scripted and reluctantly read statement). Because ALL Hart's outrage is directed at the people protesting racism.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Hordes of Young, Lost, Stupid, Illiberal, and Fully Indoctrinated College Students Apparently Think that by Shouting People Down, Tearing Down Statues, and Calling Anyone Who Disagrees with Them a Nazi or a Racist, They Are Somehow Putting On Display Virtue and Moral Superiority. Not a legacy that I'd be proud of and I seriously doubt that down the road they'll be proud of it, either (those that ultimately develop critical thinking skills, I'm saying). (9/9/2017 at 8:28am).
Why shouldn't people carrying Nazi and Confederate rebel flags be called a Nazis or a racists? They're carrying the flags, so they're OBVIOUSLY self-identifying as such. Also, WTF is wrong with speaking out against these things? If people have the free speech right to protest the removal of statues honoring traitors, surely other people (non racists) have the right to counter-protest? Apparently the Hartster believes they do not.
BTW, all these Confederate statues were NOT erected immediately following the end of the Civil war (1865), but during the Jim Crow/KKK-ascendant era (1900-1910), and then again (more monuments built) during the Civil Rights era (1955-1960). Obviously the point of the statues was not to "honor our history" but as a message to African Americans. "We liked it when you were slaves and don't be getting it into your heads that you're in any way equal" is what these statues are meant to say to Black people.
It's long past time for these monuments to White superiority to go. We need to get rid of them. The people who want to keep them (people who took to the streets chanting "Blood and Soil") are the illiberal ones. They are narrow minded and bigoted. As are the people who support them (Willis Hart and his ilk). They are incredibly illiberal.
The counter-protesting "hordes" aren't putting on a "display of virtue and moral superiority" (to make themselves feel good about themselves, I guess)... they are counter-protesting because they are genuinely outraged. They are also in disbelief that this shit is still an issue in 2017 (I know I am, at least). But to Willis Hart it's "indoctrination"... to not be a racist! Or tolerant of racists, at least. Some of them are "very fine people", after all.
For the record, I am ANGRY that Trump is emboldening the "Alt-Right". Everyone who doesn't lack critical thinking skills should be. Because racism is STUPID. And people who think that the rest of us should sit back and say nothing because chanting "Jews will not replace us" while marching and carrying Nazi and Confederate rebel flags is free speech... these are the people lacking virtue and morals! Because they stand with the Nazis and "slavery was cool" enthusiasts.
As for why Willis Hart stands with racists and against people protesting racism... obviously it is because he is a racist and a bigot himself. I mean, condemning racism is an easy one. Although it's a test the so-called president also failed. Explaining why Willis is still writing screeds about how horrible Hillary Clinton is. And is largely silent about Donald Trump. Except to criticize people who don't like Donald Trump.
And (can you believe it?) he also blames the Left for these racist scumbags crawling out from under their rocks to march and protest in public! "What do you expect" he says. What with the Left "slandering" Whites as racist (HRC's whole "deplorables" comment, etc). Telling the truth, in other words. Un-f*cking believable! Although perhaps not so much, given the fact that Willis actually authored a pro-KKK post.
The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart may not have voted for Donald Trump, but he surely is a #trumpdupe. Not as big a dupe as someone who voted for, and continues to support everything the moron-in-chief does, but one thing Willis has made clear is that he's bought (hook, line and sinker) the BLOTUS' labeling of CNN as "fake news"
Willis Hart: On the Fact that it Looks as if CNN Has Staged Yet Another News Story [Video]. ...and with them being the heroes of course... Fake news indeed. (9/4/2017 at 10:50pm).
Here is the video Willis posted (32 minutes. Of which I watched the first few minutes).
Apparently this video was made by a conspiracy-minded "CNN is fake news" peddling Youtuber who "proves" that CNN faked a rescue of someone (in TX in the aftermath of hurricane Harvey) who accidentally drove into deep water (and his truck started drifting away).
So how did this dumbass (AKA "Hard Bastard") discover that the rescue was "faked"? The accident occurred while CNN reporter Drew Griffin was on camera. When he ran to help the Youtuber noticed (and pointed out on his video) that Drew was wearing shorts. However, when he pulled the driver from his vehicle (the guy who'd just driven into a river and whose vehicle was drifting away) Drew was wearing pants. Obviously he stopped to change before running to the rescue. Proof the "rescue" was staged.
However, as Snopes points out, there were a number of CNN employees there beside Drew Griffin (off camera). And they were all wearing red CNN jackets. When the Youtuber froze the video he had on the leg of Drew Griffin (showing Drew was wearing shorts)... it wasn't Drew Griffin but another CNN employee.
The accident was NOT staged, in other words. And WHY THE HELL would changing from shorts to pants be something someone faking a rescue would do? Obviously, that the man in shorts was someone else makes a hell of a lot more sense. But the stupid gullible Hartster believes that CNN faked the rescue and that CNN is fake news. Because they report negatively on Trump, apparently.
Snopes: We were also able to view the raw footage of CNN’s rescue, and can confirm that the only things of note edited out of the original footage were a few off-camera curse words and roughly 90 seconds of a blurry street sign.
This conspiracy theory hinges on the idea that Drew Griffin changed from shorts to pants in the middle of his report. And although we still aren’t sure how this detail would be relevant in the staging of a rescue, this video actually shows two different men, Griffin and his producer Brian Rokus, wearing similar red jackets. (Did CNN Stage a Hurricane Harvey Rescue Video? Claim: CNN was caught staging a dramatic rescue during Hurricane Harvey. Verdict: FALSE).
BTW, I'm pretty sure that Willis Hart hates Snopes. I distinctly remember citing Snopes in response to Willis BS on WYD. I can't find it via Google, however. I'm thinking the exchange must have taken place in a thread that the blog proprietor Lisa deleted. That, or I'm just not searching on the correct words. In any case, I'm fairly certain that Willis is not a fan of Snopes (his buddy Rusty thinks CNN is the same as HuffPo). Surely he'd dismiss this debunk. I'd be quite surprised if he accepted it, given his hate for CNN.
Among other news organizations he hates, including MSNBC, The New York Times, The Washington Post, PBS and many others, I'm sure. Because he's with Trump in calling any story that doesn't conform to his "fake news" narrative. But these organizations aren't fake news. "Fake news" had (and has) a specific meaning within the context of the 2016 POTUS election (and the aftermath).
The Russians employed thousands of paid internet trolls and botnets to push out disinformation and fake news at high volume focusing this material onto your Twitter and Facebook feeds and flooding our social media with misinformation. This fake news and disinformation was then hyped by the American media echo chamber and our own social media networks to reach and potentially influence millions of Americans. (Real News About Fake News by Robert Schlesinger. US News and World Report 7/12/2017).
Fake news helped Trump win. He co-opted the term to refer to actual news organizations that report on him negatively (though truthfully). And Willis Hart is absolutely a full bore Trump dupe for buying into this 100%-the-opposite-of-the-truth BULLSHIT.
Image: Pic attached to a 1/11/2017 Washington Star News (which describes itself as "news from the right") article that says "during his first press conference since July, President-elect Donald trump confirmed what many journalists, citizens, and fact-checkers have long suspected: CNN is fake news". Right. Trump "confirmed" that CNN is fake news. Just like Willis Hart "confirms" that most of what he blogs about is factual (simply by using the phrase "on the fact" in starting a large majority of his posts).
The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart does it in an 8/26/2017 commentary.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that of the 19,632 Muslim Migrants that Flooded Into Finland During the First Nine Months of 2015, Over 15,000 of Them Were Adult Males and Only 2% Were Actually Syrian [Sputnik News Link].
Yeah, I guess that "women and children first" is only something that the oppressive white Christian West observes these days. Oh well. (8/26/2017 at 11:32am).
Is this true? According to Keith Ellison "about three-quarters of (Syrian refugees) are women and children. A full third of them are kids under 12 years old". PolitiFact says this statement is 100% accurate. Ellison said this on 1/29/2017 in a CBS Face The Nation interview.
Ellison made this comment as pushback to DJT's claims that Syrian refugees to Europe "there look like very few women. Very few children". Also that the refugees are "mostly strong, powerful men" (a claim that PolitiFact says is 100% false).
I don't know about Finland specifically (I unsuccessfully tried to debunk Willis' Finland Sputnik story)... However, I'd like to point out that Finland is in Europe. Also, Sputnik News (as per Wikipedia) "is a news agency, news websites and radio broadcast service established by the Russian government-controlled news agency Rossiya Segodnya [which has] has been widely accused of bias, disinformation and being a Russian propaganda outlet".
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't believe anything they said. Not without independently verifying it. Something I attempted to do - I Googled for a debunk AND an independent verification. I couldn't find either.
Yet Willis links to Sputnik because (I'm guessing, as per his belief) Russia had nothing to do with the DNC hack. And Russia did not try to interfere in our election. Because Vladimir Putin is an honest man. Or (more likely) because HRC and her campaign people (Podesta, Mook, etc) are all evil liars who have staffers murdered and concoct "Russia narratives" to explain election losses.
According to Forbes "Sputnik International reported fake news and fabricated statements by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest during the 2016 US presidential election"... but the Hartster obviously thinks they're a trustworthy news source. My suspicion is that, given the fact that this story is telling him things he likes hearing (playing to his Islamophobia) he takes it for granted that the story MUST be true.
i.e. Willis Hart is a fake news fool. And (it surely looks like) Hart shallows the same fake news that Trump cites to gin up his bigoted anti-Muslim base. Pathetic.
Ed Butowsky is "A Dallas, Texas based financial adviser and frequent Fox Business Network commentator" (per Wikipedia). Rod Wheeler is a private detective and former DC homocide detective ("another black man who doesn't tow the party-line" according toWillis Hart).
As per an 8/1/2017 Slate article "Butowsky offered to pay for Wheeler to investigate the death of the DNC aide [Seth Rich]". This is a conspiracy theory that says Russia never "hacked" our election. Instead, the DNC WikiLeaked material was downloaded by a disgruntled staffer named Seth Rich who passed it on to Julian Assange.
Later, Rich was murdered at the direction of Hillary Clinton. Because the Clintons have a long history of murdering anyone who crosses them (i.e. the Clinton Body Count, a conspiracy theory that says "Bill Clinton has assassinated fifty or more of his associates").
Russia was absolutely NOT involved according to this conspiracy theory. Could this be what actually happened? Is the "Putin directed hackers to steal the DNC's data" narrative bullshit? Willis Hart says YES. "Can we finally read this stupid theory its last rites?" the Libertarian blogger asks in a recent post (one among many in which he presents evidence "debunking" the Left's "narrative" that Russian hackers stole the DNC's data).
But it's actually Willis who is buying into fake news. This according to a recent Daily Beast article.
Trump Told Fox News to Frame Dems for Seth Rich Murder, Lawsuit Claims [excerpt] Private investigator Rod Wheeler sued the cable-TV network in federal court on Tuesday, alleging it falsely quoted him in an article saying slain DNC staffer Seth Rich had contact with Julian Assange's rogue publishing operation. Wheeler accuses Fox News regular and pro-Trump money manager Ed Butowsky of coordinating between the channel and the White House in an effort to frame Rich for the leaks and imply Democrats had a hand in his death.
Wheeler's lawsuit includes screenshots of text messages with Butowsky, including an exchange two days before the article was published in which Butowsky wrote: "president [Trump] just read the article. He wants the article out immediately. It's now all up to you. But don't feel the pressure". (8/1/2017 article by Andrew Kirell).
This was in regards to a piece (by Fox News contributor and journalist Malia Zimmerman) that Fox later retracted. Because it didn't meet their "standards" (they said). But Sean Hannity picked up the gauntlet. Even after being warned by Fox to drop the story, he continued to push the conspiracy theory.
Sean Hannity (5/23/2017): "For those accusing me of pushing a conspiracy theory, you are the biggest phony hypocrites in the entire world. This issue, it's so big now that the entire Russia collusion narrative is hanging by a thread. If... there was a whistleblower within the DNC - a truth-teller that was actually the source for WikiLeaks, not Russia - working with the Trump campaign. These are questions that I have a moral obligation to ask... (Hannity on Seth Rich coverage: "I retracted nothing" by Joe Concha. The Hill, 5/23/17).
My Theory? Putin had Seth Rich murdered so he could frame him for the DNC "leak". Or maybe it was Trump or Trump operatives. Google "Trump murdered Seth Rich" and you'll get results from others theorizing that this is what could have happened.
Although it might have been a random murder. One thing that is certain is that the murder was not directed by HRC. Wheeler's text screenshots prove that theory is fake news. Rod Wheeler "was used as a pawn by Ed Butowsky, Fox News and the Trump administration to try and steer away the attention that was being given about the Russian hacking of the DNC e-mails" (which damaged his reputation). This according to Wheeler's lawyer.
So, can we finally read this stupid theory its last rites? I doubt Willis will be convinced. His spin will be (if he reads this story) that Wheeler IS another black man who tows the party-line. In that, previously Willis thought Wheeler was saying things he liked (confirming the Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory) - but now he's saying Fox "fabricated two quotations and attributed them to [me]" (to support their bogus Seth Rich murder narrative in which Trump was involved).
Video: Rod Wheeler appears on The Beat with Ari Melber to explain his lawsuit (8/1/2017). Wheeler claims that Fox News lured him into a plot to help Trump's White House (12:18).
"My opinion has always been that while George Bush (or at least people in his administration) may indeed have lied about WMD" was the absurd and laughable lie from the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart I addressed in my last commentary (OST #206).
Well, the absurdity continues; now the Hartster says gwb's Secret Service detail "already knew that he wasn't a target" (and that's why they let him sit in that classroom reading the goat book for so long. As opposed to immediately hustling him out of there).
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even After a) Both of the Twin Towers Had Been Struck, b) it Had Been Determined that More than a Few Other Planes Were Still Unaccounted for, and c) Mr. Bush's Visit to that Grammar School In Florida Had Been Fully Publicized, the Secret Service Allowed President Bush to Remain In that Classroom for Another Fifteen Minutes or so (an Act that if the Official Story Was True, Would Have Put Not Just Bush In Danger but Those Kids as Well).
So yet again, we're either looking at incompetence to a criminal degree or complicity (they didn't get Bush out because they already knew that he wasn't a target). Scary shit, huh? (5/24/2017 at 8:53pm).
So the Secret Service knew that terrorists were going to crash planes into the Twin Towers? That would indicate that the conspiracy was BIG. And yet, nobody has ever squealed. BTW, I have suggested incompetence or complicity, but all I ever got was laughs on Hart's blog (back when I was not banned).
Now he's suggesting the Secret Service let bush sit there reading the goat book because they knew he wasn't a target?! That's a bridge too far for me. I think he was simply stunned. I mean, I think he knew an attack was coming (and wanted it to occur, as per PNAC's desire for "a new Pearl Harbor"), but that he didn't know exactly what it would be. That, or he was stunned just because he didn't know when it would happen, and he was thinking "this is it".
"U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes". Additionally, the Phoenix FBI "recommended an urgent nationwide review of flight schools". The worry was that students at such schools might be found to have terrorist connections. According to Dick Durbin, who read an FBI memo on the matter, "that should have been fair warning" (Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11).
Yet, even though these warnings were received (some months before the attacks) NOTHING was done. So, yeah, I'm with Willis on this one. Even though I've held this opinion all along, while Willis has only recently blogged about bush complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Over a decade later!
Although Hart lies and says he has ALWAYS held this opinion. What a bunch of bullshit! As I previously pointed out, NOW he says bush possibly lied about WMD, but when I wrote a comment on his blog saying this, he responded by writing "you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public".
Now he goes even further than I ever have, suggesting the conspiracy was much bigger! So big that the Secret Service knew bush was not a target! Why wouldn't he be a target? Because there was coordination between the terrorists and bush? I mean, what else could explain this assertion?
And that (coordination between OBL and gwb) is REALLY out there, IMO. This is 9/11 Truther stuff. Is Willis going to next be suggesting that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that it was a missile and not an airplane that hit the Pentagon? (two conspiracy theories I think are complete bullplop, for the record).
Image: Despite being notified by his Secret Service detail that America was under attack, bush decided to finish reading "The Pet Goat". He remained in the classroom for almost another half hour! As opposed to quickly leaving to see if he was needed to make any Commander-in-Chief decisions. Possibly because he guessed that the attacks might be ongoing and he wanted to give the terrorists more time to complete their mission? "It's almost as if they (and, yeah, I'm talking Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) wanted the planes to hit", Willis says.
Can you believe the balls on this f#cking liar? Although he may believe this BULLSHIT, given the fact that nobody reads his blog (but me). So who the hell is he lying to?
I refer to this 100 percent false commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart (the portion where he claims that he has "always" held an opinion that he previously did NOT hold).
Willis Hart: On the Fact that In the Months Just Prior to the 9/11 Attacks, Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice Are Both On the Record as Saying that Saddam Hussein Did Not, DID NOT, Have WMD [Youtube Video].
My opinion has always been that while George Bush (or at least people in his administration) may indeed have lied about WMD, until there was a smoking-gun, I was much more comfortable saying that the Iraq conflict was more along the lines of a major fuck-up than it was some sinister plot. This changes everything, folks, EVERYTHING (the fact that they apparently did a 180 just to start another stupid war). (5/9/2017 at 4:31pm).
I know Willis lies because I distinctly recall the conversation I had with him on his blog (several years ago) in which he vigorously defended gwb from my accusation that the former preznit lied about WMD in order to invade Iraq.
Willis Hart: you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero. (7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm).
And the Hartster lied back then too. I did give him evidence. The IAEA told bush that Saddam was complying that that they inspections would be completed shortly. And they were finding no WMD (see SWTD #154 for further details).
Now he's claiming that it's ALWAYS been his opinion that gwb may have lied?!! Give me a f*cking break. Either Hart is delusional, is suffering from early onset Alzheimer's, or is lying through his teeth. The proof is on his blog that he did not ALWAYS say gwb may have lied. Fact is, there are numerous other comments and posts in which he disagrees that any lying occurred.
I could dig them up and present them, but I think this one comment is enough to prove that Willis Hart LIES. To his readers (of which there are none) or to himself. I don't know which one. I do know that what he wrote is complete bullplop, however.
As for "This changes everything, folks, EVERYTHING"... that is bullpucky as well. If that were the case I'd have heard about this on the news. As opposed to Youtube via Willis Hart's blog.
Video: Video WTNPH links to, titled "Awoken: 9/11 - Truth Or Treason". Note that (given the fact that I have a data cap) I have not watched this 2+ hour video. Maybe later. Not that it matters, as nothing has changed. NOTHING. By which I mean that I am 100% certain that there will be no charges forthcoming from the Hague in which this Youtube is cited as evidence against bush. Or a US trial in which bush et al are charged with treason. Nor will anything else that falls far short of that occur. Certainly nothing that would fall into the "this changes everything" category. Willis Hart = Dope!
Apparently this is something the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart agrees with Pat Buchannon on. That a "free boat ride" to America was something slaves should have been (Buchanan) - or actually were (Hart) - grateful for.
Willis Hart: On the Strong Possibility that a Large Chunk of the Blacks that Lincoln, Beecher-Stowe, Stevens, and the Rest of the Colonization Crowd Wanted to Deep-Six Back to Africa Would Have Been Re-Enslaved by the Far More Virulent African Slavers and Worked to Death... Yeah, Lincoln and company didn't seem all that concerned (as long as the black folks were gone, I guess). (4/16/2017 at 11:26am).
So, I guess Hart has never heard of Liberia? A country in Africa that "began as a settlement of the American Colonization Society (ACS), who believed blacks would face better chances for freedom in Africa than in the United States". This was a country that "declared its independence on 7/26/1847", which was before the beginning of the Civil War. Former slaves journeying to Liberia didn't go there to be re-enslaved, as far as I know.
And, for the record, Lincoln was a supporter of VOLUNTARY colonization (resettling freed Blacks outside the United States, including in Liberia). Although to hear Willis tell it the resettlement was involuntary ("deep-six back to Africa").
Obviously, given these two facts, the Hartster's post is pure bullshit. Free Blacks returning to Africa (which some did) were not re-enslaved by "the far more virulent African slavers". Nor was any free Black "deep sixed" (sent back to Africa involuntarily). Or, I'm not aware of any large scale effort to send any Black person back to Africa against their will.
Wikipedia/Abraham Lincoln and slavery: Lincoln pursued various plans to voluntarily colonize free blacks outside the United States, but none of these had a major effect. ...he firmly opposed compulsory colonization... Historians disagree over whether or not his plans to colonize blacks were sincere or political posturing. Regardless, by the end of his life, Lincoln had come to support black suffrage. ... In his second term as president, on April 11, 1865, Lincoln gave a speech in which he promoted voting rights for blacks.
It was because "Lincoln in 1865 firmly denied that racial harmony would be possible in the United States" that he supported colonization. As opposed to wanting to "deep six" Blacks back to Africa because he hated them. He just didn't see a future in which Whites and Blacks lived together in harmony.
Clearly Hart's intense hatred for Abe Lincoln is the driving force behind all his posts about how horrible our 16th president was. Not any anti-racist sentiments. Ironic, given the fact that (on 9/23/2011) Willis wrote that Abe occupied the number 1 slot on the list of "Greatest Presidents in U.S. History" (OST #130).
Also ironic given the fact that Hart is himself quite racist. In fact - what he writes about how horrible it would be for Blacks returning to Africa - sounds to me a LOT like what Pat Buchanan wrote about African Americans who are Americans as a result of their ancestors being kidnapped and brought here as slaves.
Pat Buchanan: First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American. (A Brief for Whitey by Pat Buchanan. Patrick J. Buchanan Official Website, 3/21/2008).
This was a post Buchanan wrote in response to President Obama's 3/18/2008 A More Perfect Union speech ("Wright" is a reference to Barack Obama's preacher, Jeremiah Wright). A commentary that many have interpreted as Buchanan telling descendents of slaves in America that they should be saying "thanks for the free boat ride" their ancestors got (despite the fact that "about 12.5 percent of slaves transported died in the Middle Passage, 4.5 percent died on shore before the date of sale, and one-third died in the process of acclimating to the Americas - a total mortality of about 50 percent").
[Pat Buchanan's commentary said] In essence: Be grateful to God (with his beautiful, piercing blue eyes) that we offered you a free boat ride to paradise, you Black savages. (Re: A Brief for Whitey by Michael Arceneaux, 3/25/2008).
America is a paradise that Blacks would not want to leave - AKA be "deep-sixed" to an African hell where they would be worked to death? That sounds a LOT to me like "thanks for the free boat ride". "Thanks for the free boat ride to paradise. I don't want to go back". Even though some did.
But (in the Hartster's mind) Lincoln wanted them gone (and didn't care what happened to them after they were forcibly resettled), because he (Lincoln) was so racist. As opposed to Hart being the racist. Which isn't to say that I agree with re-colonization or resettlement of Blacks. Regardless of how they got here, they had been here for multiple generations (at this point) and this was (and is) their country as well.
I just don't believe that Lincoln's belief/worry that there could never be racial harmony is proof of intense racism. And that Lincoln just wanted Blacks gone and was therefore quite willing to "deep-six" them to an African hell. Hart's guesses are all completely wrong. Or largely wrong. I mean, given the fact that Libera existed at the time and some free Blacks had already left America to return to Africa.
And there is the fact that this idea of Blacks leaving America en masse never really went anywhere. So why the obsession? Just something to bash Lincoln over, I guess.
The Trump-defending Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart thinks it isn't Trump, but Hillary Clinton who has "Russian Connections". Connections that indicate corruption.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that at or Around the Same Time that Mrs. Clinton's State Department Was Signing Off on the Transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate, Tens of Millions of Dollars Were Flowing in to the Clinton Foundation from Numerous Associates in this Project AND Bill Clinton Received $500,000 for Belting Out Some Bullshit and Platitudinous Speech In Moscow [Link].
No, it isn't a smoking-gun but the fact that Mrs. Clinton didn't report at least $2.35 million of this largess (this money coming from the head-honcho of the project, no less) indicates to me that she was at least concerned about the appearance of it. Speaking of "Russian connections". (3/6/2017 at 5:24pm).
That it isn't Trump, but Hillary Clinton who has Russia connections is the exact same allegation that Donald Trump has been making. Most recently via twitter.
I wonder if the Trump-defending Hart LIKED either or both of these tweets? Anyway, the House Intelligence Committee isn't looking into the "Bill and Hillary deal" because it wasn't a Bill and Hillary Deal". According to Newsweek "we really don't need to investigate [the] Uranium deal" because the charges are bogus.
...allegations, first aired in 2015, that the Clinton family benefited from a "pay for play" scheme, whereby U.S. uranium reserves were supposedly transferred to the Russian owners of a mining corporation in return for donations to the Clinton foundation [are] false.
[in] 2010... Russia's nuclear agency, Rosatom, completed purchase of a 51% stake in mining company Uranium One. Clinton, as [Secretary of State] had a role to play in the deal because it included the transfer of ownership of Uranium, which is deemed a sensitive national security matter. It required approval from the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), on which Clinton sat.
Over the time that the deal was going through, a 2015 book, "Clinton Cash" by Peter Schweizer, claimed that the Clinton Foundation accepted handouts from nine individuals connected to Uranium One totaling more than $100 million.
But, according to Snopes, there are big problems with citing this as evidence of Clinton corruption... First, Clinton had no power of veto or approval over the deal. She was one of nine members of the committee, and in any case only the president has veto power.
Second, the vast bulk of the donations the Clinton Foundation allegedly received came from a man called Frank Giustra, the company's founder. But Giustra sold off his stake in the company in 2007, before the deal went through and before Clinton became secretary of state. (Why We Really Don't Need To Investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's "Uranium Deal" by Josh Lowe. 3/28/2017).
Hillary Clinton might have been "at least concerned about the appearance of it", given the fact that Hillary hating Trump defenders like Willis (who is also a fan of the lying scumbag Peter Schweizer) are so eager to defend Trump and indict her.
Poltifact disputes the suggestion that Bill Clinton being paid 500k by Renaissance Capital (a Russian investment bank) in 2010 was a payoff to get HRC to approve the Uranium One deal. Given the fact that "then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent State on CFIUS, said Clinton herself never intervened in committee matters" [quote via Snopes].
Regarding Willis' claim that the deal would "transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate"... Uranium One is a Canadian company (although the "Russian Conglomerate" Rosatom does now own a 51% controlling share in it). But "Russia cannot export the material from the United States". They're getting the profit, and NOT the uranium. It isn't being "transferred" anywhere (it's staying in the United States).
The real reason for the purchase (as per Politifact) was likely that Russia was "interested in Uranium One's assets in Kazakhstan, the world's largest uranium producer". BTW, I'm not saying approving the deal was the right way to go. I'm thinking that it should NOT have been approved. But is as usually is the case when it comes to those who have money and power... they get what they want.
Which isn't to say HRC isn't guilty of "glaring conflicts of interest". But there is a difference between ignoring conflicts of interest and outright naked corruption, for which there exists the opposite of a "smoking gun" (facts that show HRC wasn't involved/couldn't approve the deal).
Video: Peter Schweizer appears on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos to discuss Clinton Cash, 4/26/2015. GS: "...an independent government ethics expert, Bill Allison, of the Sunlight Foundation, wrote ... 'there's no smoking gun, no evidence that she changed the policy based on donations to the foundation'. ... Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?" to which PS replied "no, we don't have direct evidence". (8:04).
The Trump-defending Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart LOVES to bash Liberals. And he LOVES it even more if he can bash Liberals for criticizing Donald Trump.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Some of Donald Trump's Critics Are so Moronic that They Actually Believe that the Dude's Sons Killed a Woolly Mammoth, a Saber Toothed Tiger, and a Triceratops [see video below]. Yes sir, that's a special kind of stupid. (3/26/2017 at 4:30pm).
The video in question, titled "Trump's Sons Kill a Triceratops on Hunting Safari - Liberals Believe, And They're Very Upset" (5:48).
I don't think that this is a case of people being stupid, it's a case of people not paying attention. Thinking of what they're going to say instead of listening. Or not expecting that the object of the interviewer is to make them look stupid. I mean, I've seen similar pranks on the Tonight Show. Word replacements that people, if they were paying attention, would catch.
My guess at to what is going on? Predictive perceptual signaling, which is a phenomenon in which the brain attempts to predict future perceptual input.
Most of us have had the experience of finding a glaring error in some written work that we had previously checked several times. For example when blogging I often find at least one simple error on a post once it has actually been published, despite proofreading it thoroughly before submission. In such circumstances it seems impossible that one can have overlooked such an obvious error.
The reason that such mistakes get missed is that we tend to perceive what we expect to perceive. When proof reading something we ourselves have written we know what we were planning to write. We therefore tend to perceive the words we think we put on the page, rather than those that are actually there. (11/9/2014 article by Rob Hoskin PhD, the Neuroscience Department of Sheffield University).
The portion of the article I quoted has to do with seeing words what we expect to see, and not the words that are actually there. But the same applies to spoken words. Clearly the people being interviewed did not expect to hear the words "Woolly Mammoth", "Saber Toothed Tiger" or "Triceratops" because they are expecting "Lion", "Tiger" or "Elephant". And therefore they did not hear the names of extinct animals.
A more likely an explanation than people actually being so stupid as to they think the Trump sons killed extinct animals, no? And that, IMO, is ALL this video proves. That people hear what they expect to hear and not what is actually said. And that people aren't expecting that when an interviewer asks a question, the REAL intent is to prank them.
If the interviewer had said, "wait a minute, did you hear what I said - pay attention", I predict that zero of the people being interviewed would agree that the Trump sons could have killed a Woolly Mammoth, a Saber Toothed Tiger or a Triceratops.
BTW, the brain uses predictive perceptual signaling because "in the vast majority of cases expectation improves perception". According to the article "there is ample evidence from behavioural science that being able to predict the content of an upcoming stimulus improves our ability to successfully perceive it".
For more information read the article. Bottom line is, the human brain often deceives us. Also note that nobody in the video repeats what the interviewer said. Nobody says "yes, I agree that Eric and Donald Jr. killing that Woolly Mammoth was bad".
But the Hartster wants SO MUCH to believe that Liberals are this stupid. So he sees this prank and thinks, yeah, these people heard EXACTLY what the interviewer said and agreed that the Trump sons hunted and killed extinct animals. It is a "fact". Which points to Willis being the one that is "so moronic", IMO.
The Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart seems to think that Donald Trump should get "cred" with the Left for lying. As per this commentary.
Willis Hart: On Trump Versus the Left. I find this whole thing a bit perplexing in that if you take the time to look at his positions, he's actually kind of a leftist himself. For example, the dude's a) a protectionist, b) a believer in the graduated income tax (the first $50,000 tax free, as I recall), c) a person who wants an enormous infrastructure project (bigger than Obama's, for Christ!), d) a person who while he denigrated Obamacare has seeming signed on to something virtually identical, and e) someone who wants to establish a brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave.
No, it's not a down-the-line leftist agenda but it's certainly close enough to where you would think that the left could at least work with the guy, no? Oh and, yeah, he eviscerated George W. Bush. That alone should give him some cred. (3/25/2017 at 4:19pm).
Apparently Willis does not realize that Trump LIES. And he lies constantly. As Thom Hartmann says, Trump won by running as a Progressive Progressive (in many respects). As Willis points out. But Democrats (and many others) know that Trump lies. He says what he thinks will get him what he wants at the time. He makes promises with no intention of following through, unless doing so is easy.
Like with canceling the TPP. That took no work. All he had to do was not move forward with it. Devising a national health care bill, on the other hand, requires work. Trump promised "repeal and replace" because it got him votes. Then he pushed a garbage bill that he did not understand, then gave up after 18 days (when, as Lawrence O'Donnell points out, Obama's bill took 18 months).
BTW, Trump did NOT "sign on to something virtually identical". The AHCA (American Health Care Act) was a not a health care bill. It was a tax cut bill. As the NY Times pointed out "the beneficiaries would be the richest Americans who for years have complained that the Affordable Care Act unfairly burdened them with the responsibility of subsidizing insurance for the poor".
The objective of the ACA was providing health care for most Americans (nixed by the Supreme Court which tossed the Medicaid expansion). The objective of the AHCA was CUTTING TAXES [1]. People would have lost coverage under it. 24 million, if I recall correctly. "Virtually identical" my ass.
A believer in the graduated income tax? So what? What we know is that Congress will move on tax cuts targeted at the wealthy. Now that "repealing" Obamacare has failed. I'm sure that's at the top of their agenda (What Trump and the GOP Can Agree On: Tax Cuts for the Rich).
The enormous infrastructure project is another giveaway to the wealthy, as Trump proposes funding it by giving "$137 billion in federal tax credits to private investors who want to back transportation projects". Also, we're talking about projects on which "tolls or user fees" could be charged. So, we pay (via tax breaks) for investors to build the infrastructure, but they own it and make money off it. Sounds like a great idea. If you're a wealthy investor looking to buy infrastructure (that the government pays you back for via tax credits). Then sit back and collect the profits. Clearly a bad deal for taxpayers and end users (people who will be paying the tolls and user fees), though.
As for the "brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave", CNN Money describes the proposal as a "gift to the rich [because] 70% of the benefits will go to families that make $100,000 or more. And 25% will go to people earning $200,000 or more". Big surprise.
BTW, even though Willis obviously does not realize it, Trump only "eviscerated" gwb because he thought it would harm Jeb's candidacy. I mean, Trump SUPPORTED the Iraq war (despite his lies). He's on tape saying so (on Howard Stern). Once Jeb dropped out Trump's "lie" accusation (re gwb and WMD) changed to "I don't know" (SWTD #326).
Work with him to give taxpayer money to the already wealthy? WHY the f*uck would Democrats work with Trump to accomplish that? And "cred" comes from ACTION, not words. Words that are mostly lies. If Trump wanted TARGETED tax cuts (nothing for the wealthy), was to do the infrastructure right (raise taxes to pay for it) or offer tax breaks/credits to anyone (not just the well off) for child care/leave? Then yeah, Democrats would work with him. Heck, I think Dems would work with Trump on lowering the corporate income tax (if all loopholes were eliminated and it was estimated that revenues would go up as a result). And he agreed to go after offshore tax havens and inversions (although Trump doesn't know what a corporate inversion is).
But I don't see that happening. Especially given the FACT that if he was to put forward proposals that appealed to Democrats... Ryan and the GOP controlled Congress would turn on him. In any case, that Dems won't work with him is NOT "perplexing", unless you're dumb enough to not realize that Trump lies constantly. But apparently the Willis is dumb enough. Even though he implies he knows Trump is a liar.
On "Trump Is a Liar" Versus "the Media Is Biased and Corrupt"... In a saner time we could have entertained both notions. Not today, though. Not with the Fox Newses, MSNBCs, Salons, Breitbarts, and Huffington Posts of the world delivering what can only be called pure partisan pablum 24/7 and a public that is all-too willing to lap it up. No Sir. (2/23/2017 at 11:15pm).
WTF? Maybe Willis thinks Trump only lies sometimes? I mean, clearly Willis thinks Trump is telling the truth re his A to E list. As opposed to lying. Because that's what he does. Lies about EVERYTHING. Although I think he might be "protectionist". Even though he has his Trump crap manufactured outside the US. And brings in labor on work visas (or illegally) to work in his businesses.
Doesn't mean he couldn't be a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches. I mean, following the rules as they are doesn't mean you can't be in favor of changing the rules. Even if the new rules will cost you. MAYBE. But I doubt it. Given the fact that everything else Willis THINKS the Left can work with Trump on - he's lying about.
Trump "actually kind of a leftist himself"? Via his LYING WORDS only. No "Leftist" action except cancelling the TPP (yet). And that didn't require any Leftists to work with him to accomplish. I'm sure some (Bernie Sanders, other members of the Progressive caucus) would have been willing to if it had been necessary.
BTW, the people with DO give Trump cred for lying? That would be his base, AKA the #trumpdupes. Everyone else knows he's a liar who lies about everything. Even most of those who voted for Stein or Johnson. Excepting idiots like the Hartster, who think Trump can be believed on ANYTHING. I guess.
Notes [1] According to estimates made by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, the AHCA would resulted in tax breaks totalling 600 billion, most of which would go to the wealthiest Americans. (Poltifact).
Video: Thom Hartmann: If Trump Actually Ran As A Republican, He Wouldn't Have Won The Election! Thom talks about how Donald Trump used populist ideas to gain support among voters. Published 11/17/2016 (5:54).
Sounds totally nuts, right? Yet this is (apparently) exactly what Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart thinks is occuring.
Like in following post, in which he suggests the Center For Missing And Exploited Children (!) is involved in covering up the "fact" that pedophile rings - like the (imaginary) one that operates/operated out of the (non-existent) basement of Comet Ping Pong - exist to serve Wash DC perverts.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that if You Go to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's Web-Site and Type in Texas, California, or Any Other Major State You Will See a Picture for Pretty Much Every Missing Child but if You Type in Virginia You Will Notice that Close to Half of the Missing Children from There Do NOT Have a Picture [Link].
To say that this is suspicious is putting it mildly, for not only does Virginia (the state that is closest to Washington D.C.) have the highest per capita number of missing kids, they don't appear to be in any sort of hurry to find them, either (most other states if they can't provide a photo will at least try and provide an etching). Hopefully the authorities can make more sense out of this than I can... and, yes, make a few busts as well. (3/17/2017 at 10:13pm).
"Hopefully the authorities can make more sense out of this than I can"? But the authorities (ALL the authorities) are involved in the conspiracy!
Willis Hart: On the Fact that While the N.S.A., F.B.I, etc. Seem to Have No Problem Whatsoever When it Comes to Unleashing Their Humongous Repertoire of Electronic Surveillance (Cell-Phone Triangulation Technology, Social-Media Perusing, Meta-Data Collection, etc.) on Medical Marijuana Facilities, Whistle-Blowers, and the Enemies/Critics of President Obama, They Don't Seem Anywhere Near as Enthusiastic to Use These Tools When it Comes [to] The D.C. Pedophile Rings. Do they? (11/29/2016 at 4:18pm).
So, I followed Hartbart's link and I see "no photo submitted by investigating agency" in place of a picture (of a missing kid) a number of times. So, it's not the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children doing the covering up, but the "investigating agency". AKA "the authorities"! They are handing over pictures because they don't want these kids found!
Because, you know, our pedophile lawmakers and politicos ("close to 30% of the political spectrum in Washington D.C. is connected to... pedophile rings" according to this source) need a steady supply of kids to sexually exploit. I mean, if that's what it takes for them to be able to do their job, then it's the OBLIGATION of the "Legacy Media" (what WTNPH calls the news/reporters) and law enforcement to help them get those kids without getting caught, right?
Or, that's the Hartster's take on it, I gather. I don't know about you, but that sounds insane to me. That this HUGE of a conspiracy to sexually exploit kids is going undetected/covered up by everyone except the citizen journalists. They're doing the "heavy lifting" when it comes to "investigating" PizzaGate (investigating in this case meaning spinning conspiracy theory bullshit).
Although, apparently (Willis might be pleased to know) PizzaGate arrests are imminent. "Imminent" the same way the authorities are "imminently" closing in on the Clinton Foundation and will be arresting people "imminently". I'm guessing. Clinton Foundation arrests being a subject I've been receiving emails in regards to for about 5 months now (I subscribe to a number of RW newsletters).
Image:According to writer and activist Michael Aydinian "The integral reason the media won't let up on Trump – it's all about protecting the Pedophiles". As far as I know, there is no investigation of DC "pedophile rings". But this conspiracy theory nutjob believes Jeff Sessions is looking into it? Note that I'm not saying there are NO Wash DC pedophile rings, only that I don't believe they exist (if they exist) on the scale WTNPH believes they do. And PizzaGate is almost certainly BS.
Another example of how the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart (AKA Will "take no prisoners" Hart AKA WTNPH) is a utter dipshit.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even After Jerry Sandusky, Even After Jeffrey Epstein, Even After Jimmy Savile, Even After Anthony Weiner, Even After Dennis Hastert, Even After Laura Silsby, Even After the Massive Busts in Norway and California, etc., etc., the Left Continues to Apparently Find it Impossible to Even Consider that Those Creepy Podesta Brothers Could Be Pedophiles (this While They Accept as Gospel Every Conspiracy Theory Under the Damned Sun When it Comes to Trump).
It's an almost psychotic level of partisanship and flatly how they roll these days. Frightening, huh? (3/15/2017 at 10:03pm).
I saw a news report on this (this would be after a crazy nutjob decided to "investigate" Comet Ping Pong by bringing a gun there and shooting up the place), and the reporter said the police looked into it and found that there was no reason to believe any such thing was true (NBC's Tom Costelloon the 12/5/2016 airing of MSNBC's Hardball: "we've talked to the DC police. We've talked to the FBI. They have absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is true").
And what the hell does the fact that pedophilia exists have to do with anything? What is needed here is evidence. As opposed to conspiracy theories generated on Pro-Trump Right-wing messageboards based on Wikileaked emails in which pizza and cheese (not pedophila) is discussed.
I mean, I don't give a shit about the Podesta brothers. The older one ran HRC's losing campaign. The other one, while probably a Democrat, isn't involved in politics as far as I know. The point is I have zero partisan loyalty to either of them.
If there were credible evidence that they are pedophles? The police should investigate, gather evidence, make a case, issue arrest warrants, take the Podesta brothers into custody, take them before a judge, conduct a trial, convict them, and finally send them to the slammer for a long time.
However, according to all I've heard, the police say there is nothing to these suspicions. But Willis believes they emailed in "pedophile code" and need to explain themselves. A "pedophile code" that, as far as I can see, does not exist. As far as I can see, some idiot picked out words from the Wikileaked emails and MADE UP this supposed "code".
The "psychotic level of partisanship", in my opinion, is the Hartster's. He's willing to believe this BULLSHIT (police looked into it and found nothing) because he doesn't like them ("Creepy" for talking about cheese and pizza in emails??!).
For the record, I note that this is "Right-Wing pro-Trump conspiracy theory bullshit" because that is where the conspiracy theory was developed (4chan and Reddit message boards that are pro-Trump), and not because I think/am accusing Willis of being pro-Trump.
Although he continues to defend Trump, in this post writing "they accept as gospel every conspiracy theory under the damned sun when it comes to Trump", which is bullshit. If "They" is the anti-Trump Left. I believe in evidence. I certainly do have suspicions, but that isn't "accepting as Gospel".
If it were to turn out that I was wrong and the Podesta brothers are guilty, I'd accept that. Lock them up and throw away the key. But the authorities have to look into it and say there is actual evidence first! So far they haven't. I doubt they will, as it appears to be total bullshit to me. A "pedophile code" that doesn't exist, a basement at Comet Ping Pong that doesn't exist, another painting (featuring nudes) by an artist who did a PG mural on a wall in Comet Ping Pong that was never displayed there, "Hastert and Tony Podesta have been friends for many years" (according to the #PizzaGate Wiki) and the fact that Willis thinks they (the Podesta brothers) are "creepy".
Impossible to even consider? Without any real evidence, YES! That isn't to say that none will ever come to light, but I think (given the fact that the police looked into it, hello!) I doubt any will.
BTW, you want to know what I find frightening? What about a text message from Edgar Maddison Welch of Salisbury NC (nut who "investigated" Comet Ping Pong) that reads "raiding a pedo ring, possible [sic] sacrificing the lives of a few for the lives of many"?
But apparently that doesn't frighten Willis at all; that this conspiracy theory bullshit he has immersed himself in can drive some less sane people to violence against innocent people (text message indicates Welch was contemplating murder/suicide). Also frightening? That (amongst all these nuts discussing this on the aforementioned 4chan and Reddit) Willis is likely (at least slightly?) more sane than a lot of them. Yikes!
Image: Gunman Willis V. Hart Edgar M. Welch surrenders after telling the police that he had discovered that there were no child sex slaves being held at Comet Ping Pong. Image attached to a 12/6/2016 Intercept article "Disinformation, Not Fake News, Got Trump Elected, and It Is Not Stopping".
The Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart, while not a Trump voter nor Trump supporter, none-the-less (and inexpliciplity) defends the Orange sexual-assaulter-in-chief. And worries that he may be removed from office for absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Willis Hart: On the Fact that if the Political Establishment, Mainstream Media, and Intelligence Community Ultimately Succeed in Pushing Trump Out of Office Over What Has Thus Far Been Absolute Bullshit it Will Change the Fabric of the Country and In a Way that We May Not Appreciate... Yeah, I would say that we all need to stop and take a deep breath before we decide to cross that particular Rubicon. Don't you (the few sane people still around) agree? (3/7/2017 at 5:27pm).
First of all, I do NOT agree. Although I am certain that Willis would not categorize me as a sane person (while he absolutely would say he is). Also, I'd say that the fabric of our country already has been changed in a way many do not appreciate. Via the election of a man who was in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution as soon as he was sworn in. That would be the clause of the Consitution which "bans payments from foreign powers like the ones to Mr. Trump's companies".
Trump putting his sons in charge of running his companies is not a blind trust! As Forbes points out "transferring control of the assets solves one problem (management) but doesn't change the fact that Trump still knows what he owns. He knows how his actions, as President, can affect his business interests even if he's no longer in charge".
Then, there is the fact that Trump appointed his son-in-law Jared Kushner a "senior advisor", in violation of an anti-nepotism law that "states that a public official may not appoint, employ, promote, advance, or advocate for appointment a relative to an agency or office that is run by the official". (Jared Kushner cleared for Trump job, breaking with decades of legal advice).
The head of the Congressional watchdog organization, Public Citizen says (re the Trump administration) "we expect them to continue to overreach". I expect they will too, and that Trump could be removed from office for that reason. Or Trump could be removed under Section 4 of the 25th Amendment, "which would allow the vice president and a majority of cabinet officers, or the vice president and a majority of such other body as Congress may by law provide, to declare the president unable to serve, making the vice president the acting president" (25th Amendment chatter: Dems, pundits mull ways to remove Trump).
The reasoning for invoking the 25th would be Trump's insanity. Many people believing that he is disconnected from reality. A lot of his (dis) information coming from far Right media. Breitbart, InfoWars and other outlets for far Right conspiracy theory baloney.
Although Willis refers (I believe) to the possibility of the Trump campaign colluding with Russia prior to his installation. To which I say, if it has "thus far been absolute bullshit", that doesn't mean the situation will remain the same. If Trump were to be removed due to collusion with Russia, there would have to be solid evidence.
Trump is NOT going to be removed from office if the conspiracy theory remains a theory. So WHY does Willis suspect that he might? Possibly because he is a total moron? Or possibly because he is down with the effort to discredit any actual evidence (should it come to light)?
Why won't Trump share his tax returns? Is it only because they show he is not as wealthy as he claims, or is it because they would prove he has financial ties to Russia?
But instead of saying we need to investigate, Willis just declares the notion of any evidence existing that might be cause for impeachment "bullshit". Although he does qualify that with a "thus far". But then he goes on to suggest that removal from office could occur even if the evidence never goes beyond "bullshit".
Which is not going to happen. So why the hell does he pontificate on the possibility of that improbable event? When that possibility is zero or close to it? I mean, maybe Republicans would go along with "bullshit" in order to get Pence in, but I think that (unless Trump seriously melts down) they would be doing so much damage to their party (angering Trump supporters) that they wouldn't dare do it.
The only reason I can come with (as to why Willis thinks Trump could be removed from office based on "bullshit") is because there is NO evidence he'd accept as non-bullshit. I mean, there is some pretty strong indications that Trump and his campaign violated the Logan act. This would be the law that seeks "to prevent the undermining of the government's position [by forbidding] unauthorized citizens [from negotiating] with foreign governments".
Violating the act is a felony. Michael Flynn resigned because of "phone calls in late 2016 with the Russian ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak [during which] the two apparently discussed sanctions the Obama administration was developing to punish Russia over allegations of interference in the 2016 presidential election". A clear violation of the Logan act.
The NYT notes that "it remains unclear whether then-President-elect Trump... knew about Mr. Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador". But if evidence came to light that he did? I'm thinking that the Hartster would also view that as "bullshit". Even if Trump himself (in addition to Michael Flynn, Paul Manafort, Carter Page, Roger Stone, and Jeff Sessions in his capacity as a Trump campaign surrogate) is shown to have violated the Logan Act (by discussing foreign policy with Putin as president elect, for example), it will all be "bullshit".
