Tuesday, August 1, 2017

That HRC Had Staffer Murdered For Being The Source Of WikiLeaks DNC Material (As Opposed To Being Hacked At Direction Of Putin) Is Fake News Concocted by Trumpers & Approved By Trump

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 to Willis 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 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).

OST #208

Friday, May 26, 2017

Willis Hart 180 Degree Flip Flop: Now He's A 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Nutjob!

"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.

OST #207

Tuesday, May 9, 2017

On A Liar's Recent Claim That "My Opinion Has Always Been That... George Bush May Indeed Have Lied About WMD"

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).

So, 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-plus hour video. Maybe later. Not that it matters, as nothing has changed. NOTHING. By which I mean that I am 100 percent 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.

OST #206

Monday, April 17, 2017

On Willis Hart's Belief That Blacks (Circa The Lincoln Presidency) Were Thankful For The Free Boat Ride To America (How Their Ancestors Got Here)

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.

OST #205

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

On WTNPH's Allegation That It Isn't Trump, But Hillary Clinton Who Has Russia Connections

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.

What I am saying is that there is no evidence of Clinton corruption via "pay-for-play" or "quid pro quo". As Snopes and Politifact point out. And as the scumbag Peter Schweizer himself admits (Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes).

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).

OST #204

Monday, March 27, 2017

On Willis Hart Being So Moronic That He Actually Believes Some of Donald Trump's Critics Think Trump's Sons Killed A Woolly Mammoth, A Saber Toothed Tiger And A Triceratops

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.

From the Science Brainwaves article "Hearing what you expect to hear"...

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.

OST #203

Saturday, March 25, 2017

On WTNPH's Belief That Trump Should Get Cred With The Left For Lying

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.

[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).

OST #202

Monday, March 20, 2017

On The Notion That Law Enforcement, The News Media & The Center For Missing/Exploited Children Are Looking The Other Way/Actively Covering Up Existence Of Pedophile Rings Operating Out of Wash DC So Pervert Politicos Have Steady Stream Of Kids To Molest

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.

OST #201

Thursday, March 16, 2017

Because Pedophilia Exists, WTNPH Thinks More People Should Suspect The Podesta Brothers Of It. Not Due To Credible Evidence Existing, But Because Of Right-Wing Pro-Trump Conspiracy Theory Bullshit

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 Costello on 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".


OST #200

Thursday, March 9, 2017

WTNPH (A Trump Defender) Worries About The Orange One Being Removed From Office

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".

"Move along, nothing to see here", in other words. According to the Donald Trump defending Alt-Right fake news fool Willis V. Hart, that is.

Image: The elfin Jeff Sessions, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak.


OST #199

Sunday, March 5, 2017

A Misogynist Body Shames Actresses Kathleen Turner And Debra Messing

The Libertarian blogger I've taken to calling Hartbart (due to his consumption of Alt-Right "news" and continued defense of White Nationalist Steve Bannon), but otherwise known as Willis V. Hart, has a habit of insulting women he doesn't like for not being pleasing to his eye (whereas he has no such habit when it comes to men he dislikes).

For example, in regards to Kathleen Turner (a liberal actress who backed Hillary Clinton, is a Planned Parenthood board member, and is not a fan of Donald Trump), Willis wrote the following...

Willis Hart: I haven't seen anything stretched this far since Kathleen Turner tried on one of her "Body Heat" outfits from 1981 in 2007. (2/4/2017 at 3:18pm).

The title of the post was "On the Concept of Referring to Feral Jackals, Criminal Thugs, and Losers as Protesters"... so he was referring to property damage done by so-called "protesters" (Berkeley college students is the allegation, although Rush Limbaugh says they are "professional rent-a-mob focused bought and paid for by leftist organizations and... not students" while Robert Reich says "those people were not Berkeley students [and that] there's rumors that they actually were right-wingers).

But I do AGREE with Willis, in that property damage is criminal and not something protesters should engage in as it only hurts their cause. If protesting Milo was their goal. As opposed to increasing his book sales, which is what actually happened. A fact that suggests to me (among other reasons) that Robert Reich may be right.

But (to my point) WTF does Kathleen Turner being heavier in her older age have to do with the Berkeley protests? Did she say something in support of the "protesters" AKA rioters? I don't know. If she did Willis doesn't cite her words. So why does he go there? "There" being insulting her current physical appearance.

Maybe she's heavier because she is 62 and suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, asshole? Willis has authored posts praising older women for still being "hot". So... HOW DARE Kathleen Turner not be blessed with good genes and (due to her rheumatoid arthritis) not be able to maintain her figure? She's got a lot of nerve showing her fat face in public, right? Sarcasm, of course. But likely the misogynist's view.


As for Debra Messing; what's her crime, you might be wondering. It's that she is a "human ironing board" according to the Hartster (and she apparently tweeted "RESISTANCE WORKS! #Resist #NeverStop" in regards to that asshole Milo speaking at Berkeley being protested. Although the tweet says nothing about approving of property destruction, I'd like to note. Only getting his speech canceled).

In any case, HOW DARE Debra Messing have small boobies that aren't pleasing to Willis' eyes! She should have been born with genes that gave her bigger jugs. Or gotten a boob job. Surely she can afford to have her tits enlarged. But she thinks she can say (or tweet) things that Willis disagrees with WHILE having small breasts? Think again, bitch (sarcasm again). Willis is going to CALL YOU OUT for your insignificant hooters.

BTW, Kathleen Turner's breasts aren't that large (and remember that she got naked in Body Heat). But getting old and fat SURELY is the bigger sin than having small boobs (at least FOR A WOMAN). Although if she still was "hot", Willis might have criticized her for the audacity of daring to get naked in a movie while having tiny titties.

OST #198

Sunday, February 26, 2017

So, Willis Hart Is A Nazi Now?

Is the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart a Nazi? I ask the question because of the fact that he advocates for a White homeland for a "dispossessed white race". Also because he calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" of the United States.

OK, so it's actually the American Nazi Richard Spencer who wants a "peaceful" ethnic cleansing in order to make the USA a White Homeland, and not Willis Hart. But Willis absolutely does articulate very similar thoughts on his blog.

Like in this post, for example.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even Though the Modern Nation-State Was Largely Brought About by a Common Ethnicity, Language, and Culture and the Overwhelming Evidence Is that Ethnocentric Societies Tend to Perform Much Better In Terms of Social Cohesion, the Mainstream Narrative Continues to Be One of Pushing for Diversity and Multiculturalism with Diversity Invariably Being Seen as a Strength. (2/24/2017 at 9:53pm).

Surely sounds to me like he thinks separating the races is the way to go [1]. Just like the Nazi Richard Spencer. Someone Willis INSISTS, btw, is not a Nazi (OST #195). Fact is, the Hartster sez it's "unreal" to suggest Spencer is a Nazi.

That's despite statements such as the following (re DJT being installed as BLOTUS).


In the same speech Spencer went on to praise Trump for reminding us of what makes "the White race truly unique and truly wonderful". Something (the wonderfulness of Whitey AKA "Western Civilization") WTNPH pontificates on in the following commentary.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even Though Western Civilization Has Given the World Science, Liberal Democracy, the Rule of Law, Equality Before the Law, Freedom of Thought and Expression, the Universal Concept of Human Rights, the Separation of Church and State, Economic Liberalization, etc., etc., the Leftists Continue to Denigrate it While Simultaneously Giving Non-Western Cultures a Total Free-Pass.

And we're the only culture that engages in this form of pathological altruism and self-criticism. Why is that, I wonder? P.S. And, no, I'm not saying that we haven't done some bad things, just that every other society has as well and that these folks never get criticized (African slavery, for example, having been infinitely worse than Southern Victorian slavery and yet zero criticism) it seems. (2/23/2017 at 9:57pm).

More Richard-Spencer-White-Nationalist-type rhetoric, I think. i.e. Whites are superior [2]. No wonder a (correct) reference to Spencer as a Nazi offends Willis so. They are of a like mind (i.e. they are both Nazis). Or one is a Nazi (Spencer) and the other (Hart) is sounding more and more like a Nazi every day. Even if he isn't a Nazi, he surely is a racist. Of that I have no doubt whatsoever.

For the record, I am NOT referring to Hart's "new" definition for a Nazi, which is (he sez) "anyone to the right of Jane Fonda bat-shit crazy".

Nazis (as per Wikipedia) believe in "racial hierarchy and Social Darwinism" and that White people belong to a "master race". Under this definition Richard Spencer is a Nazi. And Willis Hart, who apparently agrees with him (as per the posts I cite above) is also a Nazi. Or Nazi-ish, at the very least.

[1] Nazism "aimed to overcome social divisions and create a homogeneous society, unified on the basis of racial purity".
[2] "In its racial categorisation, Nazism viewed what it called the Aryan race as the master race of the world - a race that was superior to all other races".

OST #197

Friday, February 24, 2017

On The Fact That Willis Hart Mocks Transgendered People On His Blog

I refer to a 2/19/2017 commentary from the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that I Now "Identify" as an Attack-Helicopter
So, am I catching on? P.S. And, yes, you can rest assure that we will be discussing restrooms (along with a few other accommodations) in the not-to distant future. Big time. (2/19/2017 at 4:30pm).

No, asshole, you are NOT "catching on". You're mocking transgendered people. And not for the first time! Which is why I call BULLSHIT on the statement Willis Hart makes underneath the title of his blog (specifically the 2nd claim).

Socially tolerant? Bullshit! A socially tolerant person doesn't mock transgendered people. A socially tolerant person also doesn't defend a business owner's "right" to discriminate against gay people. Something Willis Hart does. Via some Libertarian BULLSHIT known as the "non-aggression principle".

The valid criticism of this "principle" (as per Wikipedia).

Critics argue that the non-aggression principle is not ethical because it opposes the initiation of force even when they would consider the results of such initiation to be morally superior to the alternatives that they have identified.

Under this application, gay people are denied their public accommodation rights in favor of protecting the "right" of a bigoted business ower to discriminate. Proof (IMO) that Willis is an anti-gay bigot in addition to being a transphobic bigot.

BTW, yes, we are going to be talking about this big time in the not too distant future. The "not too distant future" being this past Wednesday. 2/22/2017 being the day Trump "rescinded protections for transgender students that had allowed them to use bathrooms corresponding with their gender identity, overruling his own education secretary and placing his administration firmly in the middle of the culture wars that many Republicans have tried to leave behind" (source).

But I guess the Hartster has nothing to say on that matter. Except to mock transgendered people. No, wait. He actually did write something on this subject before.

Willis Hart: On the 52 Year-Old Man Who's Transgendered Into a 6 Year-Old Female (Those Are His New Parents in the Picture). Can we all at least agree that this guy's bonkers? P.S. And do you really want YOUR female kindergartner peeing and pooping in the stall next to him? (2/19/2017 at 4:30pm).

WHY should anyone care who is in another stall in a bathroom? Is Willis saying his worry is rape? That is the lie that conservatives like to repeat. You're different from the norm (transgendered or gay) and you're more likely to rape. Even though it's completely false. BTW, I don't think you can transition to a younger age. So yes, the individual in question probably has some mental problems.

Anyway, by highlighting this individual, is what Willis saying is that all transgender people are "bonkers"? Yeah, I think that could be inferred. I mean, he writes "can we all at least agree"... implying that he thinks ALL transgendered people are "bonkers" - but that everyone who doesn't agree with him on that can AT LEAST agree with him in regards to an adult transgendered person who thinks they are a child.

More proof he's bigoted against transgendered people.

(Note: links in WTNPH's post inserted by me. His original post contained no links).

OST #196

Saturday, February 18, 2017

Change The Name Of The Game To "Punch An Asshole". Boom, Problem Solved.

That would be my solution to what Hartbart (AKA Willis V. Hart) finds "disturbing" in a 2/13/2017 commentary.

Willis Hart: On the Disturbing New Video Game, Punch a Nazi, in Which the Three Main Nazi Antagonists Are Richard Spencer, Milo Yiannopoulos, and Adolf Hitler. [see video below]. So the worst Nazi ever and two guys who've never once identified as such (and in the case of Mr. Yiannopoulos a person who the actual Nazis would have gone after on day one) - this is where the left is planting its flag these days. Unreal. And since when has been OK to bash a gay fellow (even in a virtual sense)? What, 'cause he's a conservative? Yeah, huh? (2/13/2017 at 9:15pm).

Some YouTuber playing the "disturbing" video game.

First of all, Richard Spencer absolutely IS a Nazi, AKA a "White Nationalist". Below is a video in which Spencer talks about the "burden" of being a White man (2:28). Note that at the end the audience applauds and many can be seen giving the Nazi salute.

Also, the following from Wikipedia...

Spencer... advocates for a white homeland for a "dispossessed white race" and calls for "peaceful ethnic cleansing" to halt the "deconstruction" of European culture.

As for Milo Yiannopoulos, he works for a Nazi (AKA "White Nationalist" website). I refer to Breitbart. So he's (at the very least) Nazi affiliated.

An excerpt from Milo's Wikipedia page...

[Milo calls himself] a "cultural libertarian" and "free speech fundamentalist"... he is a vocal critic of third-wave feminism, Islam, social justice, political correctness, and other movements and ideologies he deems authoritarian or belonging to the "regressive left". Yiannopoulos has been called a spokesperson for the alt-right, although he denies this even if he recognises that he may share some of their political views. He considers himself a reporter of and "occasional fellow traveller" with the movement.

Regarding Milo being gay and people (the Left; I take it Hartbart is implying) bashing him for it? I say BULLSHIT. Oddly enough, it's Milo who bashes gay people.

While Yiannopoulos is openly gay, he has stated that gay rights are detrimental to humanity, and that gay men should "get back in the closet". He has described being gay as "aberrant" and "a lifestyle choice guaranteed to bring [gay people] pain and unhappiness".

Jeez, what a piece of shit! This is why people are bashing him. One reason of several. Another being the fact that he is a misogynist troll with a history of harassing women online (OST #162). Something he is quite proud of (calling himself the "most fabulous supervillain on the Internet"). FYI, being gay should NOT bring people pain and unhappiness. It's because of intolerant assholes on the Right that gay people experience pain and unhappiness (also, if gay people should be in the closet, why isn't he?).

Anyway, that the Hartster finds this game "disturbing" and DEFENDS these assholes? THAT is what I find disturbing. Unreal (seriously WTF is wrong with morons like Hartbart?). BTW, Willis doesn't "identify" as a racist, but he is one none-the-less. Similiarly, that Spencer doesn't "identify" as a White Nationalist (he calls himself an "Identitatrian"), doesn't mean he isn't a Nazi.

OST #195

Sunday, February 12, 2017

Another Hartbart PizzaGate Alternative Fact (AKA Bullshit). What A Sick Freak!

Hartbart (AKA Willis V. Hart) is a blogger obsessed with the debunked PizzaGate conspiracy theory. The following "alternative fact" comes (I presume) from one of the internet messageboards (4Chan?) where fellow alternative-fact-loving conspiracy theory nuts spin their bullshit.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that this Was One of the Images on Display at Comet Ping Pong [see pic below]. Oh yeah, that's "family friendly" for sure (with the red public hair being an extra special touch). Sick freaks. (2/1/2017 at 8:57pm).

Wrong. The piece of artwork above is from the "Lovers and Dragons" book of paintings by Olympia WA artist Arrington de Dionyso (also an album). It is not now, nor was it ever on display at Comet Ping Pong. It is true that Arrington de Dionyso painted a mural that was on one of the walls of Comet Ping Pong, but it was PG (no bare breasts or pubic hair).

Here is a photo of the artist standing in front of the ACTUAL mural he painted and was displayed at Planet Ping Pong (2010).

I don't know how long this mural existed at the Washington DC pizzeria, but a 12/23/2016 article titled "Artist Targeted by #Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory Speaks", says it was "painted over nearly six years ago". So... wrong artwork. Also, it isn't there anymore.

Anyway, talking about images of nude women, Hartbart has some on his blog. For example, this photo from a 4/2/2016 post titled "On the Brilliance and Versatility of Berkshire Photographer, Denise B. Chandler" (the last nude the pervert posted to his blog, although I remember seeing others).

So nudes are "brilliant" when they don't show red pubic hair, apparently (the decapitated heads are more of a WTF for me, but Hartbart doesn't mention them). Also note that his image of boobies is a photograph, while the one NOT displayed at Comet Ping Pong (but from an art book) is a painting (and not that realistic looking).

Clearly the Hartster's blog is NOT "family friendly". What a sick freak! Not for posting nudes, but for his sick hypocrisy and sick gullibility. Oh, and for his sick objectivization of women and sick misogyny (although that's another matter).

OST #194

Monday, February 6, 2017

On Hartbart's Continued Defense Of Steve Bannon

The Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart - who I've taken to calling "Hartbart" due to his consumption of Alt-Right media (he's a fan of the seriously racist Colin Flaherty) and defense of White Nationalist Steve Bannon (even though Willis voted for Gary Johnson and has mildly criticized Trump. When he isn't defending him) - authors yet another post defending Bannon (again claiming Bannon isn't an anti-semite).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that one of the Key Pieces of Evidence that the Critics of Steve Bannon Are Using as Proof that He's an Anti-Semite Is that One of the Articles at Breitbart Has the Term, "Renegade Jew" in its Title.

Yeah, that was a missive by David Horowitz, ONE OF THE MOST HARD-CORE ZIONISTS OF ALL TIME, and the object of the slur was William Kristol, not exactly a darling of the left. I mean, I get it that these leftist morons want to demonize everybody and anybody whose even tangentially related to Trump but maybe a quick Google search prior to the diarrhea flowing, I'm just saying. (2/1/2017 at 8:57pm).

Firstly, Bannon is the White House Chief Strategist and Willis considers him to only be "tangentially related to Trump"? WTF?

Secondly, I don't know about the "renegade Jew" article being a KEY piece of evidence, although it is noted by the author of the article Steve Bannon Racism Accusations: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know. But the author clearly credits David Horowitz as the author.

From the article...

...David Horowitz, who wrote that article, attempted to defend it on the Breitbart site, saying, "In fact, neither Breitbart nor Bannon is responsible for that statement. A Jew is. I wrote the article, which was neither requested nor commissioned by Breitbart".

Horowitz said he wrote the article after Kristol became a Never Trumper, saying, "Bill Kristol and his friends betrayed the Republican Party, betrayed the American people, and betrayed the Jews when he set out to undermine Trump and elect the criminal Hillary Clinton. Obama and Hillary are supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood". (11/21/2016 Heavy article by Jessica McBride).

But Bannon, as chairman of Breitbart, allowed the article to run. Because it called out Kristol for being a Never Trumper. And because he knew it would appeal to Breitbart's audience. Which is racist and antisemitic Alt-Righters.

The SPLC defined the Alt-Right as "a loose set of far-right ideologies at the core of which is a belief that white identity is under attack through policies prioritizing multiculturalism, political correctness and social justice and must be preserved, usually through white-identified online communities and physical ethno-states".

So, Steve Bannon just worked there? He didn't agree with the average Breitbart reader's belief that "white identity is under attack"? Even though "former Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro said that... the alt-right is shot through with racism and anti-Semitism". And no matter that Breitbart is an organization engaged in a "full embrace of the alt-right" (also per Ben Shapiro. How To Get Away With White Supremacy In Trump's White House).

And Bannon's ex-wife lied when she said (in court filings pursuant to her divorce) that Bannon "said that he doesn't like Jews and that he doesn't like the way they raise their kids to be whiny brats and that he didn't want the girls going to school with Jews" (this comment in regards to an LA school Bannon's ex-wife said he didn't want his kids attending).

Poor Steven Bannon is being demonized according to the Hartster (there is "nuance" to Bannon's White Nationalism, Willis sez). Sure, I believe that... not at all.

Adam Jentleson, the spokesman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, expressed disgust at the news of Bannon's appointment. "It's easy to see why the KKK views Trump as their champion when Trump appoints one of the foremost peddlers of White Supremacist themes and rhetoric as his top aide", Jentleson wrote in a statement. "Bannon was the main driver behind Breitbart becoming a white ethno-nationalist propaganda mill, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center". (Steve Bannon runs an anti-Semitic website, is a misogynist and will be one of Donald Trump's senior advisers by Matthew Rozsa. Salon 11/14/2016).

Bannon was the MAIN DRIVER in the transformation of Breitbart into a site that appeals to racists, bigots and antisemites... so you can NOT tell me that he does not share these views. And that Willis Hart continues to defend Bannon suggests to me that perhaps Willis (in part, at least) shares his Alt-Right views.

I mean, I have proven here that Willis is a misogynist, a racist, and a homophobe, so NO, it absolutely would not surprise me to find out he is an anti-semite as well. Especially given his love for this Bannon piece of shit.

BTW, WHY would Trump so closely associate himself with Bannon given Bannon's reputation as a White Nationalist? Because it's a shoutout to racists and anti-semites (whose vote Trump wanted). It was his way of signaling that he agrees with them (SWTD #347).

Finally, Willis mentions that David Horowitz is a Zionist... because (I presume) he thinks it's more proof that Bannon isn't an anti-semite (he wouldn't publish an article by a Zionist if he was). But the Alt-Right is down with Zionism. Because they believe (1) "the gathering of the Jews in Israel is a prerequisite for the 2nd Coming of Jesus [and] Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel", and (2) during end times "one third of Jews alive who have converted [to Christianity] will be spared" although the rest will perish (see also: The Jews in End Time Bible Prophecy).

That explains why Right-wing evangelicals are pro-Israel. Not because they love Israel or because they like Jews, but because they think they're going along with Biblical prophecy. And that 2/3 of Jews will die during Armageddon and the rest will convert to Christianity. So, sorry Willis, but Steve Bannon publishing an article by the Zionist David Horowitz is NOT proof that he isn't an anti-semite (How Steve Bannon and Breitbart News Can Be Pro-Israel — and Anti-Semitic at the Same Time).

Image: Racist anti-semite David Duke thinks Steve Bannon is on his side. I think he's right (despite WTNPH's claims to the contrary).

OST #193

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

On The Racist Blogger Willis Hart Referring To African American Public Figures As "Mildly Retarded"

The Libertarian biggot Willis Hart previously has used the racist term "minstrel" to refer to African American public figures he hates (SWTD #281). Now a new one. Instead of being "minstrels" they are "mildly retarded.

First it was Congresswoman Maxine Waters, then the academic, journalist, author, activist, and television personality, Marc Lamont Hill.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Mildly Retarded (and, Yes, I Realize that They're Using a Different Term Now - SUE ME!!) Congresswoman, Maxine Waters (Who for Some Strange Reason Continues to Get a Microphone Placed In Front of Her), Appeared on MSNBC the Other Night and Essentially Accused the Trump Campaign of Colluding with the Russian Government and Really Didn't Endure All that Much Push-Back as the Result of it... I'll take, "Yet Another Example of 'Fake News' that You Can't Blame on Alex Jones, Breitbart, etc.", for a thousand, Alex (the other one). (1/18/2017 at 5:22pm).

Willis Hart: Note to the Mildly Retarded and Racist Demagogue, Marc Lamont Hill... Hey dude, you don't need "institutional power" to violently attack somebody and the proof of that is that when you control for population, a black person is nearly 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. [blah, blah, blah] ...REALLY, want to help black folks, SHUT THE FUCK UP!! (1/24/2017 at 6:04pm).

"Yes, I realize that they're using a different term now", Willis sez, referring to him using the word "retarded" as opposed to "intellectually challenged". He knows it's offensive, but uses it anyway ("sue me" is his response). But what about the FACT that neither Maxine Waters nor Marc Lamont Hill are retarded AT ALL? Mildly or otherwise. In fact both of their bios prove that they are both accomplished and intelligent.

So the real reason why they are "mildly retarded" is that Willis disagrees with their political opinions. Maxine Waters said "if there was collusion with Russia, Trump committed impeachable offense"... OH, NO! How dare she question Trump's legitimacy? No wonder Willis is offended.

Marc Lamont Hill says "black people don't have the institutional power to be racist or to deploy racism" (a statement I agree with, btw. See SWTD #195) and Willis loses his shizzle because Barack Obama (a Black man) served as POTUS #44. Because one minority president out of 45 means racism is over. And this we know for a fact because the BLOTUS AKA #45 is the least racist White guy ever "elected" (and yes, I mean that sarcastically).

Oh, and Wills trots out the Black on White violence stats (as he has several times previously), why? WTF do these stats have to do with African Americans lacking institutional power? Absolutely nothing, that's what (he cites them because he is a racist).

Anyway, using the term "retarded" as an insult (regardless of whether or not the word "mildly" is placed before it) is offensive and bigoted. Offensive to (Willis') African American targets and to offensive to, and bigoted against, intellectually challenged persons. And there is the fact that both of the persons in question are NOT intellectually challenged! Although they are both Black. And I doubt Willis will ever refer to a White person as "mildly retarded". He might, but he has not so far.

I'm thinking "mildly retarded" is similar to "minstrel"... which is clearly a replacement for the n-word. Note that he had to throw in there HOW INCREDIBLY VIOLENT these Black animals are. We already knew he was a racist, now he proves he's also bigoted against intellectually challenged people.

Image: Intelligence by race in the Harster's view? And yes, he writes posts about how Asians are smarter... and he thinks that's proof he isn't racist. When Asians being smarter and Blacks dumber is the racist view... from a comment thread on StormFront (The Bell Curve & European IQ versus Asian IQ) "Asians as a group have a higher IQ than we do".

OST #192