tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18061397408856041782024-03-13T05:27:04.503-07:00Oligarchic Stooge TalkDervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.comBlogger226125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-16321217095533238412023-09-03T16:35:00.006-07:002023-09-03T17:40:27.251-07:00Willis Hart, Rothbardian Libertarian tRump Supporter<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
<img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdeBTJEoMkLT4TVF3ALfaQJWX356xjF2MkDyXtOZ7tlRBnKC4qzikP1NeRRgXb0WJ_vLRQ52k0bPbimlyfL4KAOqLxGO7cC4Vsppi7M3cfMlDrvrK8Opj2YQyxb38BJOEwNXdD6Tps8x3V5JR26-AhzBRsEnefLPsw0ilqObxed90MLKLgBo4-zyNpUfE/s1600/libertarianracist.jpg" width="630" height="278"></p>
<p>
So, Libertarians AREN'T racist? They just support enabling racism? Because... freedom?</p>
<p>
<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2023/08/on-fact-that-i-got-over-11300-page.html"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRN6QI3UTCMdLpRVByEot_tVCH1ls4Agrsi6wfx21gYhI0OofqLL-0Us6RGIJuuYapBkLkKt0EpjkpRPraX3YJawberDT3ym4pPY_j4Ruj6GWU6lxKUwyqyaSPECgOWgYXkdvarIMnkQpXJK7crWDA0Vp81W9Ka221ZUzVWywyOGshqUf9-JJlK07WeQc/s1600/RothbardLibertarian.JPG" width="630" height="239"></a></p>
<p>
Hmmm, <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a> identifies as a Rothbardian Libertarian? Why does Willis specifically identify as "Rothbardian" as opposed to just a "regular" Libertarian?</p>
<p>
So I looked up Murray Rothbard and <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/exposing-the-racist-history-of-libertarianism-and-murray-rothbard-2011-10">found</a> that he "was a racist, and believed in the <i>voluntary</i> separation of the races".</p>
<p>
<table class="boxed"><tr><td>Wikipedia/<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard">Murray Rothbard</a>.
<br><br>
Murray Newton Rothbard (3/2/1926 to 1//7/1995) was an American economist of the Austrian School, economic historian, political theorist, and activist. Rothbard was a central figure in the 20th-century American libertarian movement and a founder and leading theoretician of anarcho-capitalism.
<br><br>
Rothbard opposed egalitarianism and the civil rights movement, and blamed women's voting and activism for the growth of the welfare state. Later in his career, Rothbard advocated a libertarian alliance with paleoconservatism (which he called paleolibertarianism), favoring right-wing populism and defending David Duke. In the 2010s, he received renewed attention as an influence on the alt-right.</td></tr>
</table></p>
<p>
Yeah, Rothbard sounds like a great guy. If you ignore the fact that he was a racist. Why the Hartster identifies with his brand of libertarianism? It just makes so much sense to him. I mean, everyone knows that the races shouldn't be mixing, right? That makes sense, economically, yes?</p>
<p>
Wikipedia also notes that Rothbard thought Ayn Rand's Novel "Atlas Shrugged" was "not merely the greatest novel ever written, [but] one of the very greatest books ever written, fiction or nonfiction". Though he later had a falling out with her. Though not over his belief that allowing women to vote was a bad idea, apparently.</p>
<p>
<a href="https://digitalcommons.longwood.edu/etd/310/">Given that Rand was also a misogynist</a>. A woman that wished she had been born a man? I mean, the hero in another of her books, "The Fountainhead" was a powerful man who took what he wanted. Including a woman he wanted, who he raped. And the woman (as written by Rand) liked being raped. It wasn't really rape, since she <a href="https://washingtoncitypaper.com/article/392660/internal-affairs-how-ayn-rand-followers-rationalize-welcomed-rape/">welcomed it</a>.</p>
<p>
Willis Hart is a <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2015/11/on-fact-that-ive-known-shitload-of-guys.html">rape skeptic</a>. Meaning, he thinks women often lie about getting raped. They decide to have sex with a guy, then later (after the sex) change their minds and cry "rape". They WANTED it at the time but later regretted it. And (for some reason) decided to try and ruin the innocent guy's life.</p>
<p>
Does that sound plausible? Maybe it happens. But as frequently as Willis seems to think? No. Absolutely not. I think that (far more often) a guy thinks a drunk woman "consented" when she didn't. But it's the woman's fault, of course. In fact, maybe SHE raped him (if he was also drunk)?</p>
<p>
But back to Rothband... he defended David Duke? And, "in the 2010s, he received renewed attention as an influence on the alt-right"? You don't say. Makes sense. One racist defends another racist. Alt-Right racists take cues from another racist. Could be why Willis Hart specifically identifies as a Rothbardian <s>racist</s>, I mean Libertarian. You think?</p>
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #226</a> <a href="http://lyinglester.blogspot.com/2016/06/willis-hart-got-away-with-it.html">@</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-50520177700601407942023-06-29T11:16:00.000-07:002023-06-29T11:16:07.754-07:00Paranoid Willis Believes His Blog Is Being Monitored By The Parasitic Sociopaths<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2023/06/on-fact-that-im-getting-crap-load-of.html"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwSEZi1uSMnIETnQqGiQHrq4m7qraIIP-JRW3gUtWL9CdMD8eOJOpCwU4LeTKd4cxLn64hkC7FMCJQl12sWErXdDt8nWI70SbDX1XUA9LI7WFUYxAJBCI311vHYw2hpScJRl8JgdJcDrKmMoxewhBfWoZVybM8UipWz2sbr3b-shVDD3sV-LXDDA5ptVA/s1600/paranoid.JPG" width="619" height="253" style="border:1px solid black"/></a></p>
<p>
Does Willis Hart live in fear of being grabbed one day off the street? A bag thrown over his head and thrown into the back of a window-less van?</p>
<p>
Maybe. He does know he's being monitored AGAIN! So, obviously Biden's thought police are at least keeping tabs on him. Probably looking for chatter about overthrowing the government.</p>
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #225</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-88904810652569945282022-07-25T10:02:00.006-07:002022-07-25T10:21:50.159-07:00Willis Hart Refers To Story From Fake News Website (National File) About Biden Daughter Showering With Her Father<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
"<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_File">National File</a>, a right-wing website, released an alleged copy of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_biden">Ashley Biden</a>'s diary. It alleges that Biden took showers with her, molested her, and other highly inappropriate acts. The National File claims to have received it from an "anonymous whistleblower".<p>
<p>
Biden hater <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a> references this fake news story in a commentary from 7/3/2022.</p>
<p>
<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2022/07/on-ashley-biden-writing-in-her-diary.html"><img src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkF_sqzfSPWHldB40vt5QhcmU6BMQjEZp7wG1_VXmOglz__jvxjXOUDYkoJZAxfXkWbm_rGDrBBIILn5AW7ks4JGrJranjb2wJ4QGlBShKjyoQB2pqC0F3CrxOC3-iX1gnCvLgk5RSfKjwTtkMbz7STYNJFms8RGEYhSqtdUbXgohxfHp30wDgUs2B/s1600/AshleybidenShowers.JPG" width="650" height="350" style="border:1px solid black"/></a></p>
<p>
Not a ton of coverage, huh? Maybe because it's fake news. That's what <a href="https://misbar.com/en/about-us">Misbar</a> (an independent fact-checking platform) says. Or "suspicious", at least. Yeah, I think so. Yet the Hartster takes it as a confirmed fact.</p>
<p>
As per Misbar's investigation, "this source is highly questionable. For an anonymous whistleblower to be credible, the publication must also be credible. In this regard, the National File fails".</p>
<p>
<img src="https://images-prod.misbar.com/articlebody/investigation_pgfngf322.jpg" width="650" height="611" /></p>
<p>
Obviously Willis believes the Qanon-esque bullshit about Joe Biden being a pedophile. Previously <a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2021/10/willis-hart-weirdo-implies-president.html">Willis wrote</a> about Joe Biden being like a weirdo who drives around in a van offering children candy.</p>
<p>
Willis is clearly ALL IN regarding the false narrative about Joe Biden being a pedophile. Yet doesn't care that much that donald tRump is sexually attracted to his own daughter. And has been credibly accused by over 20 women of sexual harassment and assault. And ON TAPE saying he grabs women by their privates.</p>
<p>
According to Willis, donald tRump asks permision first. Before grabbing women by their pussies. Because tRump said (in the Access Hollywood video) "they let you do it".</p>
<p>
"May I grab you by you pussy?". "Yes, I'd like that very much". ONLY THEN did Donald go ahead and grab women down there. And every time the woman being assaulted liked it.</p>
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #224</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-32451653807632076622021-10-10T05:13:00.005-07:002021-10-10T05:14:55.436-07:00Willis Hart (A Weirdo) Implies President Joe Biden Is A Pedo Who's Driving Around Snatching Kids<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2021/10/on-being-warned-as-child-to-stay-away.html"><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-EuSgzXiuUqg/YWLWvPfSWtI/AAAAAAAADqo/m0dSuVgf56Yuho-kKmylov4lWk34GjpeQCLcBGAsYHQ/s0/WillisHartWeirdo.JPG" width="574" height="627" style="border:1px solid black"/></a></p>
<p>
He also includes a picture of Dr. Faucci. Maybe he's riding shotgun in the Hartster's delusion? I guess Willis doesn't know that <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/surprisingly-normal-things-no-us-president-is-allowed-to-do-while-in-office-2018-6#drive-4">US presidents aren't allowed to drive</a>. The sitting president isn't allowed to drive on public property, nor are (living) past presidents.</p>
<p>
So Joe Biden isn't going to go crusing looking for kids to kidnap and sexually assault ever again. Unless the Secret Service is in on it. Not that he ever did previously.</p>
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #223</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-33875552613108655042021-05-19T05:37:00.007-07:002021-05-19T05:48:46.016-07:00No, Actually It Is Both, Willis<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
As per a 5/12/2021 post by Libertarian Dotard-defending blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a>, Dotard Donald never defended torture or the Iraq war.</p>
<p>
<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2021/05/on-fact-that-one-of-these-two-people.html"><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FCT663ShJWg/YKUAY78aCaI/AAAAAAAADgA/QsMHdJ538SsEtfZmksQTxpYPbO1YfPoZACLcBGAsYHQ/s0/willishartlizcheney.JPG" width="541" height="796" style="border:1px solid black"/></a></p>
<p>
Clearly this BS is in response to Liz Cheney telling the truth about Dotard Donald losing the 2020 election. Either <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2020/11/on-fact-that-if-trump-had-won-election.html">Willis believes the Big Lie</a> that Joe Biden cheated, or he just doesn't like that the Left is applauding Liz Cheney for telling the truth (even though the Left otherwise disagrees with 100% of Liz Cheney's political positions).</p>
<p>
That's aside from the fact that Willis is full of shit. The FACT is that (and I can't believe Willis doesn't remember) Dotard Donald <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/26/politics/donald-trump-torture-waterboarding/index.html">voiced support</a> for waterboarding.</p>
<p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Kpj3pp10wD8" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
<p>
Additionally (in spite of lying about not supporting the Iraq war during the 2016 campaign), Dotard Donald actually did support it.</p>
<p>
<table class="boxed"><tr><td>Fact check: <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/29/politics/fact-check-trump-false-claim-opposed-iraq-invasion">Trump falsely claims, again, to have opposed the invasion of Iraq</a>. Excerpt from a 10/29/2019 CNN article by Daniel Dale and Andrew Kaczynski.
<br><br>
What Trump actually said before the war
<br><br>
In his 2000 book "The America We Deserve", Trump argued that a military strike on Iraq might be necessary.
<br><br>
Trump wrote that the US still did not know the true status of Iraq's nuclear program. He then wrote, "I'm no warmonger. But the fact is, if we decide a strike against Iraq is necessary, it is madness not to carry the mission to its conclusion. When we don't, we have the worst of all worlds: Iraq remains a threat, and now has more incentive than ever to attack us".
<br><br>
He continued: "Am I being contradictory here, by presenting myself as a deal-maker and then recommending preemptive strikes? I don't think so. There’s nothing really comparable to unleashing a squadron of bombers, but in the world of business sometimes you have to make quick, secret, decisive moves in order to gain a negotiating advantage".
<br><br>
When radio host Howard Stern asked Trump in September 2002 if he is "for invading Iraq", Trump responded, "Yeah, I guess so. I wish the first time it was done correctly".
<br><br>
Trump did not express a firm opinion about the looming war in a Fox interview in January 2003, saying that "either you attack or don't attack" and that President George W. Bush "has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps".
<br><br>
What Trump said during the war
<br><br>
The day after the invasion in March 2003, Trump told Fox: "It looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint".
<br><br>
Trump started publicly expressing negative or skeptical thoughts about the war shortly after it began. He called the war a "mess" in a brief comment at an Academy Awards after-party later in the week of the invasion. Six months into the war, Trump said, "It wasn't a mistake to fight terrorism and fight it hard, and I guess maybe if I had to do it, I would have fought terrorism but not necessarily Iraq".
<br><br>
Still, Trump did not express definitive opposition in 2003. In a MSNBC appearance in November 2003, he lamented US spending on the war and said that "the question is whether or not we should have been in Iraq in the first place” – but he continued: "I don't think that this president can do anything about that. He is really – he is on a course that has to stay".
<br><br>
In December 2003, Trump told Fox that the war had been "tougher than people thought", but he added, "It just seems to be something that, we are there now, we have to stay, we have to win, otherwise we just won't have the same respect".
<br><br>
It wasn't until more than a year after the invasion that Trump conveyed explicit opposition to the war.</td></tr>
</table></p>
<p>
Hmm. I can understand why Willis thinks Dotard actually opposed the war. He's an idiot that believes Dotard's lies. But Dotard never lied about not supporting torture. He was explicit in his support FOR torture.</p>
<p>
Also, Willis was (and remains) opposed to waterboarding? I'm not sure. I'd have guessed he'd be for it. Either way, Willis is incorrect in the assertions he makes in his post. Liz Cheney and Dotard Donald both supported torture and the Iraq war. I didn't have to guess, given that I remembered. Clearly the Hartster doesn't remember.</p>
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #222</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-50961657617048811912021-01-08T05:59:00.009-08:002021-01-08T06:27:14.878-08:00False Equivalencies In Defense Of Dotard's Sedition <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
According to the Libertarian Dotard-defending blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a>, republicans objecting to the Electoral College votes being counted in states that went for Biden is just fine. Because Democrats did it too.</p>
<p>
<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2021/01/on-fact-that-democrats-challenged.html"><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-toL5sde7NVo/X_hlupucYUI/AAAAAAAADE4/FWusXcONo0A_qLNfQrdCKF_Q7x7TSD8vgCLcBGAsYHQ/s0/williselectoralcollege.JPG" width="546" height="396" style="border:1px solid black"/></a></p>
<p>
Al Gore and Hillary Clinton insisted for months that the election had been stolen from them? They fomented violence that resulted in supporters storming congress in the middle of the electoral college vote? I don't remember that happening.</p>
<p>
Did Al Gore, in his position as outgoing VP, call ANY state rep and ask them to "find" enough votes to make him the winner, Willis? What state officials did Hillary Clinton pressure? Did Al Gore or Hillary Clinton (or any associate) urge their supporters to march on the capitol and engage in "<a href="https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rudy-giuliani-trial-by-combat_n_5ff74985c5b6644fa210657b">trial by combat</a>"?</p>
<p>
I do agree with Willis that we have two sets of political rules in this country; one for Republicans and one for Democrats. He's wrong about who needs to develop a backbone, however. It's the Democrats. republicans (who want fewer people to vote) are going to move agressively to make it harder for people to do mail-in voting. Instead of allowing them to do this, Democrats need to counter them agressively.</p>
<p>
As opposed to allowing republicans to get away with it. As they've allowed republicans to get away with supressing the vote for decades. Voter suppression is what allowed gwb to get the vote close enough in FL so his brother (with an assist from the Supreme Court) could steal the election from Al Gore.</p>
<p>
High on the Biden Administration's agenda (as well as the agenda of the incoming Democratic congress) should be to pass the John Lewis voting rights act. Also high on the Democratic agenda should be pursuing charges against Dotard for his seditious actions (call to GA threatening that republicans in charge there "find" him enough votes to flip the election, inciting violence in DC, etc).</p>
<p>
btw, if the VP can decide to throw out votes (as Dotard believes Pence could have), why didn't Al Gore throw out FL (or any other state) and make himself president?
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #221</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-23526046538216273112021-01-05T05:05:00.009-08:002021-05-19T05:41:44.120-07:00Willis Hart's Covid Delusions<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
According to the Libertarian trump-voting blogger Willis Hart, if not for the media reporting the news, nobody would have ever noticed we're in the middle of a pandemic.</p>
<p>
<a href="https://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2021/01/on-my-strong-inkling-that-if-we-didnt.html"><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-rQ5MG1pijHc/YKUHXcjkxZI/AAAAAAAADgI/RbXOD9IaY5wMPaAESPotqGWsnQkbNC2YgCLcBGAsYHQ/s0/coviddelusions.JPG" width="588" height="519" style="border:1px solid black"/></a></p>
<p>
Sure. Most people wouldn't have even noticed 350k deaths and our hosptitals being pushed to the brink. With the rationing of care being a very real possiblity (aka allowing people to die). If only the media had kept quite. But they had to blow this way out of proportion... what a f*cking idiot.</p>
<p>
btw, not warning people with pre-existing conditions that they're more vunerable to a deadly virus certainly would have lead to even more deaths. Apparently Willis would have been just fine with that.</p>
<p>
<img src="https://creakyjoints.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1120_Covidiot_Logo.jpg" width="600" height="400" style="border:1px solid black"/</p>
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #220</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-81438006742148917602020-11-25T09:28:00.005-08:002020-11-25T09:45:17.258-08:00Russiagate Deniers "Best Journalists In The Country Right Now"?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
According to the Libertarian trump-voting blogger Willis Hart, being a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections">Russiagate</a> denier is what's required to be one of the best.</p>
<p>
<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2020/11/on-fact-that-matt-taibbi-aaron-mate-and.html"><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Jkn54sP4_2A/X76RwYhBpvI/AAAAAAAAC3c/dsd-9u49lnoDlVZe-ax8d__h2fQPtmxuQCLcBGAsYHQ/s0/russiagatetruthers.JPG" width="534" height="547" style="border:1px solid black"/></a></p>
<p>
I don't know. Believing that Dotard was "framed" for colluding with Russia and that it really was a "witch hunt" (despite it being <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/08/russiagate-wasnt-a-hoax/615373/">so f*cking obvious</a>) kind of causes me to question your journalistic abilities. IMO it's also incredibly dishonest.</p>
<p>
Wills must be a Jimmy Dore fan as well. Not because he's a Progressive, but solely due to his defense of Dotard. Like these three journalists. All of who were desperate to see Dotard "re-elected" over Joe Biden. Not because they are fans of Dotard, but to punish the DNC for not nominating a Progressive (and America as well).</p>
<p>
Although now (according to Dore) Bernie Sanders is a "cuck" for getting behind Biden. And Greenwald (originally an AOC fan) now says <a href="http://politicaltealeaves.blogspot.com/2020/11/the-progressive-con.html">she's a sell out as well</a>. A female "cuck", if there is a word for that. Because Bernie and AOC both realized the Orange Turd HAD to go because American <a href="https://www.salon.com/2020/10/14/america-wouldnt-survive-a-second-trump-term-former-bush-official-_partner/">might not survive</a> another Dotard term.</p>
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #219</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-82772877048808241762020-11-13T07:18:00.003-08:002020-11-13T07:25:57.849-08:00Artwork I recently Acquired<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
<img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d8RRXtAO2MU/X66ipHhwZLI/AAAAAAAAC0k/QsSaqFo8GU8Uz32X-Pr4Ab8Rh300gxeZACLcBGAsYHQ/s0/WillisArt.jpg" width="650" height="473" style="border:1px solid black"/></p>
<p>
...by left-clicking and downloading it from Willis Hart's blog. Apparently Willis <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2020/11/bethesda-terrace-central-park-by-lois.html">purchased the original</a>. At a higher price than what I paid for my copy, I'm guessing. Which was $0.</p>
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #218</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-48839169196805992692018-09-04T12:36:00.001-07:002021-05-19T05:38:59.001-07:00White Nationalism And Libertarianism<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
"Liberation Day" is a website run by a dude named Eric Martin. Martin <a href="http://liberationday.com/">describes himself</a> as "Christian, Libertarian, Constitutionalist". As per an article by "<a href="https://medium.com/@theBosstiat?source=post_header_lockup">Fred</a>" on Liberation Day, multiculturalism equates to "the de facto destruction of the West by demographic suicide". This is a line from Fred's article "<a href="https://medium.com/liberation-day/understanding-the-alt-right-faeae12adbe1">Understanding the Alt-Right</a>".</p>
<p>
My takeaway from the article is that Fred believes that the Alt-Right is fighting for "White survival" and that has nothing to do with racism or believing in "White Supremacy". Alt-Right leader, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_B._Spencer">Richard Spencer</a> is neither says Fred. This conclusion he (in part) supports with an inane argument that a group of people, some of who believe that rape is a good thing, would be a "diverse" group. Diversity can be a bad thing, in other words.</p>
<p>
So, White Nationalists are Libertarians? Apparently so. Or, all White Nationalists are Libertarians, although not all Libertarians are White Nationalists, I think. At least this is true in the case of the Libertarin blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a>. He has quite a few posts on his blog that make it clear he identifies with White Nationalism, even if he wouldn't use this label to describe himself.</p>
<p>
Here are some excerpts from Willis Hart blog posts in which he partakes in White Nationalist fear mongering - i.e. diversity is bad and we need to keep America White or we're doomed.</p>
<p>
<table class="boxed"><tr><td>Willis Hart: On the Fact that Iceland Has One of the Highest Rates of Gun Ownership in the Western Hemisphere and Yet They Haven't Had a Gun-Related Homicide In Over a Decade And let me guess, the fact that they're a homogenous country that hasn't force-fed its population multiculturalism via massive waves of third-world immigration is purely coincidental. (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2018/09/on-fact-that-iceland-has-one-of-highest.html">9/2/2018 at 4:01pm</a>). <br />
<br />
Willis Hart: On the Fact that I Can't Help but Think that the Modern-Day Huns and Vandals of the Planet Are Eyeing the U.S. with All of its Gender-Bending Insanity, Hostility to Men, Self-Loathing, Pathological Altruism, <font color="red">Multicultural Experimentation, Eagerness to Commit Demographic Suicide</font>, etc, etc. and Saying to Themselves, "One of These Days, One of These Days". (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/10/on-fact-that-i-cant-help-but-think-that.html">10/28/2017 at 3:46pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p>
<p>
Sounds like Willis Hart would really prefer that the United States be more "homogenous" (aka White). Because those darn Black people are just so f*cking stupid and violent.</p>
<p>
<table class="boxed"><tr><td>Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Only Allowable Opinion Pertaining to Race These Days Seems to Be, "Black People Are the Relentless Victims of Relentless White Racism and this Explains Every Fucking Thing (Lower IQ Scores, Poorer Academic Performances, a Lack of Economic Advancement, Wildly Out of Proportion Criminal Activity, the Burgeoning Out of Wedlock Birth Rates, etc)". (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/10/on-fact-that-only-allowable-opinion.html">10/27/2017 at 9:44pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p>
<p>
Willis hasn't advocated for a "White Homeland"... yet. Oddly enough, the Hartster rails against Abe Lincoln as racist for his idea that former Slaves should have been shipped back to Africa because Whites and Blacks could never live together harmoniously. I'd have guessed that he would endorse <a href="http://www.abraham-lincoln-history.org/colonization/">colonization</a> wholeheartedly and proclaim that this was one idea of Lincoln's that he agrees with.</p>
<p>
Perhaps it is only a matter of time until the Hartster "<a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/search/label/Evolving%20Willis">evolves</a>" to the point where he starts openingly advocating for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_separatism">white separatism</a>. He surely has been on the edge of doing so for awhile now. I mean, if the West is committing "demographic suicide", wouldn't a White Homeland be the BEST way to ensure the survival of the "White Race"?</p>
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #217</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-82066858621876194822018-06-28T20:07:00.002-07:002018-06-30T09:14:43.022-07:00David Souter & Ruth Bader Ginsburg Say Child Porn Is Protected Speech According To Willis Hart (A Brain Diseased Liar)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>The Libertarin blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a> writes about child trafficking and pornography frequently on his blog. In his diseased mind Leftists are BIG into sex with kids. The Podesta brothers spoke in code in their Wikileaked emails about child sex rings involving the owner of that pizza shop, for example. And don't believe for one second that this ridiculous story has been debunked. Nutters writing on Reddit know that the Leftist media is in on the cover up (as is the DC police).</p><p>In a recent commentary Willis Hart claims that 2 of the more Liberal Justices argued that child porn is protected speech. And of course he refers to this repugnant lie as a "fact". I kid you not!</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>Willis Hart: On the Fact that Associate Supreme Court Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader <font color="red">Ginsberg</font> Argued and Voted In 2008 to Establish Child Pornography as Protected Speech - [<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/05/19/scotus.porn/index.html">Link</a>]. This while others on the hard left think that folks should be prosecuted for "misgendering" trannies. A brave new world indeed. (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2018/06/on-fact-that-associate-supreme-court.html">6/27/2018 at 4:04pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>Bullshit!! Souter and Ginsburg did NOT vote in 2008 to establish child pornography as protected free speech, you lying piece of crap! The excerpt below is from the article that Willis links to.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>..."non-commercial, non-inciteful promotion of illegal child pornography, even if repugnant, is protected free speech". In other words, the judges said merely talking about child porn is not necessarily criminal.</td></tr>
</table></p><p>TALKING about it is free speech. Manufacturing it and/or possessing it is NOT free speech, and Souter and Ginsburg never argued or voted that it should be.</p><p>Also according to the article that Willis links to.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>The 7-2 ruling rejected suggestions the law is overly broad, and will stifle a range of expressive or artistic material that is not obscene.</td></tr>
</table></p><p>So Souter and Ginsburg's concern was that the law IS overly broad and WILL stifle a range of expressive or artistic material that is NOT obscene.</p><p>Note that the lying Hartster gives no quotes. Because neither Souter nor Ginsburg ever argued or voted to establish child pornography as protected speech. It didn't happen, asshole!</p><p>Reading the blog of Willis it becomes crystal clear quickly how much this asshole HATES the Left. So, when he <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2018/06/youza-i-guess-that-im-centrist-now.html">says</a> he once considered himself Liberal (but now considers himself a centrist) I call BULLSHIT on this as well. He may have CONSIDERED himself Liberal, but he never was.</p><p>Willis Hart is a HARD Right Libertarian. Although, as far as being a Libertarian goes, I'm not so sure about that anymore. I mean, where are the outraged posts concerning Trump's tariffs? I mean, he has written about it a little, but his commentaries come off as mild disagreement. "Centrist", my ass!</p><p>Hating the Left is obviously more important to him. And it ALWAYS has been.</p><p>Anyway, when Wills writes "<a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2018/03/on-majority-of-willis-hart-post-titles.html">on the fact</a>", what follows is almost always total bullshit. And that's a REAL fact! Also, the notorious RBG spells her last name "Ginsb<font color="red">u</font>rg" not "Ginsb<font color="red">e</font>rg".</p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #216</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-68730630475945801322018-03-08T17:21:00.002-08:002021-01-05T05:24:49.217-08:00On The Majority Of Willis Hart Post Titles Beginning With "On The Fact", Then Concluding With A Lie (One That Is Obviously Total Bullshit)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<p>
"On The Fact" is how the Libertarin blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a> starts a MAJORITY of his commentaries. What follows is almost always a total lie. Such as the following (for example).</p>
<p>
<table class="boxed"><tr><td>Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Left In Great Britain Is Calling Everyone a Fascist Except for the Dudes Who Blow Themselves Up While Bellowing Out, "Allahu Akbar!!" Yeah, they are the victims, apparently. Go figure, huh? (<a href="https://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2018/03/on-fact-that-left-in-great-britain-is.html">3/7/2018 at 10:06pm</a>).</td></tr></table></p>
<p>
Bullshit. Nobody is calling terrorists "victims". But apparently it's a self evident fact. Self evident in that no evidence is necessary. That the Left says everyone is a fascist except the terrorists is well known. Even though the very thought is despicable, ridiculous and certainly demanding of proof. The "proof" apparently is the "On the Fact" portion of the title of the Hartster's post. Go figure, huh?</p>
<p>
<span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #215</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-65608118442441898322018-02-08T03:55:00.003-08:002018-02-28T19:09:05.234-08:00Willis Hart, A Brain Diseased Fake News Fool Extraordinaire, On Devin Nunes Fake Memo<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>According to the website "Your News Wire" (<a href="http://yournewswire.com/denzel-washington-orwellian-police-state/">yournewswire.com</a>, YNW) Denzel Washington said that "Trump's Election Saved Us From Orwellian Police State". He said this in regards to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nunes_memo">Devin Nunes memo</a>. This would be the memo in Nunes staff members cherry picked info to <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/sources-devin-nunes-memo-is-100-wrong-about-andrew-mccabe-and-steele-dossier-for-carter-page-fisa-warrant">falsely state</a> that the FISA warrant to keep an eye on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carter_Page">Carter Page</a> relied solely on the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier">Christopher Steele dossier</a> and that <a href="https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/05/fbi-footnote-carter-page-warrant-390795">falsely claims</a> the FBI lied to a FISA judge by excluding this information.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>"If the Democrats had won the election, we never would have found out they were using false documents to get warrants to spy on American citizens and political opponents. We never would have known this. Think about it!" said Denzel Washington at a press conference in New York. (2/3/2018 <a href="http://yournewswire.com/denzel-washington-orwellian-police-state/">yournewswire article</a> by <a href="http://yournewswire.com/author/baxter/">Baxter Dmitry</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>Libertarin blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a>, a <a href="http://dervishsanders3.blogspot.com/2016/04/the-small-l-libertarian-who-suffers.html">Hillary Clinton hater</a> and YouTube watcher, referenced this Denzil Washington "quote" in a recent blog post.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>Willis Hart: On Denzel Washington Recognizing the Potential Nastiness of a Hillary Presidency and Having the Balls to Say Something About it. [<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDrBaZmrAPs">YouTube video</a> from <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVZPIqdgbjSnA_L-sDye2cQ">Screen Hoopla</a> in which a picture of Denzil is displayed while Mr. Hoopla reads the yournewswire article]. It's nice to know that not everyone in Hollywood is brain-diseased. Well done, Denzel. (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2018/02/on-denzel-washington-recognizing.html">2/7/2018 at 3:49pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>My response? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. This reminds me of <a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/08/on-russian-narrative-denying-blogger.html">when</a> the fake news fool (AKA Willis Hart) cited a "news" story from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)">Sputnik News</a>, another pro-Russian, propaganda fake news website.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td><a href="https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/YourNewsWire">Rational Wiki</a>: YourNewsWire... is a Los Angeles-based clickbait fake news website known for disseminating conspiracy theories and misleading information ... <a href="https://twitter.com/Joel_Harding">Joel Harding</a> (a Kremlin propaganda expert) believed that Russians were using YourNewsWire as a mule or proxy to spread disinformation.</td></tr>
</table></p><p>Regarding Denzel Washington, Snopes says he "has been a supporter of Barack Obama in the past, but as of August 2016 he had not formally endorsed any presidential candidate". So, did Denzel go from being an Obama to a Trump supporter? Given the fact that YNW is a fake news site, I'm guessing no.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>Snopes: There is no evidence that Washington made this comment, though it isn’t the first time he has been accused of being a Trump supporter without factual support. At a red carpet event for his film "Fences" he responded to a question about how he voted in 2016 with "none of your business". YourNewsWire is a fake news site that is notorious for making up sensational quotes and attributing them to celebrities or politicians. For example the site started a false rumor that actor Sylvester Stallone said former President Barack Obama was a "closeted homosexual" and claimed, again falsely, that actress Julia Roberts had said former First Lady Michelle Obama “isn’t fit to clean Melania Trump's toilet". (<a href="https://www.snopes.com/denzel-washington-say-trumps-election-saved-us-orwellian-police-state/">Did Denzel Washington Say Trump's Election Saved Us From an "Orwellian Police State"?</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>Willis must be suffering from a very serious "brain disease" to be buying into all these fake news stories. The YouTube "video" he includes with his post isn't even a video, but someone reading the YNW article while a still picture of Denzel is displayed. Something that SHOULD automatically cause someone interested in the truth to independently verify the claim that Denzel actually said anything of the sort.</p><p>Anway, I assume that Willis, given that he says "well done" in regards to the fake quote, agrees with it. Despite it being utter stupidity. Stupidity because Congress JUST <a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/congress-reauthorization-of-section-702-of-the-fisa-is-an-expansion-not-a-reform.html">reauthorized</a> the FISA law with ZERO changes. So, IF the FISA law means the US is an "Orwellian Police State", the police states persists. Trump's election did NOT "save us" from it. Nunes ONLY objects to this supposed "FISA abuse" in regards to the FISA warrant granted to spy on Carter Page.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>Slate: Last week, Congress passed a bill to reauthorize Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for six years. Section 702 is the surveillance law that authorizes the government to target foreigners located abroad to collect foreign intelligence information. However, we know that the government also sweeps up substantial quantities of Americans' communications under Section 702. <font color="red">Despite the public's calls for additional privacy protections, Congress passed the bill and called it a reform while hoping that no one would notice that it actually increases privacy risks</font>.<br />
<br />
...the definition of foreign intelligence information that may be collected includes anything that is relevant to U.S. foreign affairs, which means that foreign journalists, activists, scientists, doctors, lawyers, and businesspeople could be targeted. (<a href="https://slate.com/technology/2018/01/congress-reauthorization-of-section-702-of-the-fisa-is-an-expansion-not-a-reform.html">Americans Wanted More Privacy Protections. Congress Gave Them Fewer</a> by Robyn Green).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>So, what Slate is saying is that, Trump's election DID save us from an Orwellian Police state. Looks like I was wrong. I mean that sarcastically, of course. My God, is Willis Hart a trumping moron or what?</p><p>BTW, even though I'd absolutely support revising Section 702 of FISA to provide more protections for American citizens (something that has NOT happened under Trump. Although I admit it likely wouldn't have happened under Hillary either) it definitely appears as though the Carter Page warrant was 100% on the up and up. There was no abuse, and that trumpers think the Devin Nunes memo discredits the Mueller investigation (as trumpy moron Sean Hannity <a href="http://insider.foxnews.com/2018/02/02/sean-hannity-monologue-fisa-surveillance-memo-release-ending-mueller-russia-probe">believes</a>) is further proof that these people are surely brain diseased. In the extreme.</p><p><span class="highlight">Video:</span> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDrBaZmrAPs">YouTube</a> Willis includes in his post in which "Screen Hoopla" reads YNW article containing FAKE Denzel Washington quote (3:20). Based on this video, which is 100% BULLSHIT, Willis concludes "that that not everyone in Hollywood is brain-diseased" and offers kudos to Mr. Washington, saying "well done, Denzel" (for having a fake quote attributed to him). Idiot!!!</p><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IDrBaZmrAPs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allow="autoplay; encrypted-media" allowfullscreen></iframe><br />
<p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #214</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-12774083873727719562017-10-24T09:04:00.000-07:002017-10-24T09:11:53.276-07:00Bigotry From Clueless White Guy Based On Said Cluelessness<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>The Libertarian blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a> is a bigoted and clueless White guy who loathes the Black Lives Matter movement. <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2016/07/on-fact-that-vile-vulgar-and-slimy.html">According to</a> Mr. Hart BLM is "vile, vulgar, and slimy" and African Americans who agree with the BLM movement are "<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2015/10/on-what-frederick-douglass-and-booker-t.html">belly-achers</a>".</p><p>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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UnidosUS">UnidosUS</a>).</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a>: 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!! (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/10/on-la-raza.html">10/23/2017 at 6:19pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>Wrong. La Raza does not directly translate to "the race". Well, it is "often translated into English as <font color="purple">race</font>", 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.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>The Spanish term <font color="purple">raza</font> 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 <b>the product of gradual racial mixing that was already underway in the Latin world</b>. 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/<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Raza">La Raza</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>Oh, and yes, there is racism in Mexico.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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. (<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/20/opinion/navarrette-mexico-racism/index.html">In Mexico, racism hides in plain view</a> by Ruben Navarrette Jr., CNN Contributor. 11/20/2012).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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.</p><p>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".</p><p>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 <a href="http://dervishsanders3.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-libertarian-trump-defender.html">Trump defender</a>, yes, but not a Trump voter.</p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #213</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-24637789068740972902017-09-19T15:07:00.001-07:002018-03-08T17:36:34.181-08:00#trumpdupe Willis Hart Concerned About The Wrong Lies<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>Why did UAE Crown Prince <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_bin_Zayed_Al_Nahyan">Mohammed Bin Zayed</a> 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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p><a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/837989835818287106?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw"><img src="http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.2989442.1488768666!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/article-wiretap-0305.jpg" width="590" height="319"></a></p><p>Their complaint now is that Susan Rice, when House Intelligence Committee Chairman <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devin_Nunes">Devin Nunes</a> (a Republican representing California) <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/28/devin-nunes-drops-a-bombshell-about-unmasking-under-obama/">told</a> 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?</p><p>None according to President Donald Trump's national security adviser, H.R. McMaster. <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/susan-rice-keep-security-clearance-2017-8">He said</a> 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.</p><p>(Note that my transcript below is of a YouTube created by a #trumpdupe going by the moniker <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYmqiv_DNFYFkn8fvvJujmA">Hard Bastard</a>. 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 <a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/09/cnn-faked-harvey-rescue-according-to.html">OST #210</a>).</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>Transcript of <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/full-context-susan-rice-answers-questions-trump-transition-spying-allegations/">discussion</a> between Judy Woodruff of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBS_NewsHour">PBS Newshour</a> and Susan Rice on 3/22/2017.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Woodruff">Judy Woodruff</a>: ...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?<br />
<br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Rice">Susan Rice</a>: 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...<br />
<br />
<font color="blue">Hard Bastard Commentary</font>: And he did biotch! he did it! *laughs*.<br />
<br />
<font color="blue">Susan Rice</font>: Nothing of the sort occurred.<br />
<br />
<font color="blue">Hard Bastard Commentary</font>: Lie.</td></tr>
</table></p><p>This idiot "Hard Bastard" laughs a lot during his YouTubes. Anyway, it is easy to see why the Libertarian blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a> loves Mr. Bastard's Youtube #trumpdupe bullshit. He's a <a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/search/label/Fake%20News%20Fool">fake news fool</a>.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td><a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a>: 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].<br />
<br />
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). (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/09/on-fact-that-we-now-know-with-absolute.html">9/18/2017 at 4:38pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>There is no need for the media "make it seem like her actions were justified", because they WERE justified! Which is why, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/11/politics/intelligence-contradicts-nunes-unmasking-claims/index.html">as per</a> a 4/12/2017 CNN News story, an unnamed "congressional intelligence source", "described the requests made by Rice as <i>normal and appropriate</i> for officials who serve in that role to the president". A determination that Trump's own national security advisor, McMaster, agreed with.</p><p>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" <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/article/451378/susan-rice-devin-nunes-unmasking-controversy-did-rice-lie">according to</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_A._French">David French</a> of the National Review (in a 9/14/2017 article).</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>Why did Bin Zayed travel to NY to meet with president-elect Trump (without informing the Obama administration)? <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/blackwater-founder-held-secret-seychelles-meeting-to-establish-trump-putin-back-channel/2017/04/03/95908a08-1648-11e7-ada0-1489b735b3a3_story.html?utm_term=.0a9fde4f5dd9">I've heard</a> 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?</p><p>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" <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/07/on-fact-that-small-group-of-veteran.html">because</a> 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! <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motherboard_(disambiguation)">Motherboard</a> (an online tech news publication by Vice Media) <a href="https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/4xa5g9/all-signs-point-to-russia-being-behind-the-dnc-hack">reports</a> that "the metadata in the leaked documents are perhaps most revealing: one dumped document was modified using Russian language settings".</p><p>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 <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nunes-met-source-trump-monitoring-claim-white-house-n738906">NBC News</a> "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".</p><p>It was "unclear" because <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-30/devin-nunes-and-the-tragedy-of-the-russia-inquiry">Nunes lied</a> 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".</p><p>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 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/us/politics/devin-nunes-intelligence-reports.html?mcubz=0">individuals at the White House</a> being his source.</p><p>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).</p><p><a href="http://republicanssucks.org/tag/devin-nunes-sucks/"><img src="http://republicanssucks.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/nunes6.jpg" width="590" height="452" alt="600×460"></a></p><p><span class="highlight"><a href="https://youtu.be/eZQM5ZHfito">Video</a>:</span> <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYmqiv_DNFYFkn8fvvJujmA">Hard Bastard</a> 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.</p><p><iframe width="480" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eZQM5ZHfito" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #212</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-36568669763515287332017-09-10T10:15:00.001-07:002017-09-12T14:09:58.199-07:00Racist Scumbag Blogger Outraged At People Protesting KKK & Nazis!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>Sometimes you just have to shake your head in disbelief. Like when the racist-in-chief insisted that (in regards to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally">events in Charlottesville</a>) <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/politics/trump-charlottesville-delay/index.html">both sides</a> were to blame. And that, on the Nazi/KKK side, there were some "<a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-defends-white-nationalist-protesters-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/">very fine people</a>".</p><p>Sentiment the Libertarian blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a> 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.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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). (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/09/on-fact-that-hordes-of-young-lost.html">9/9/2017 at 8:28am</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p><img src="http://www.motherjones.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/blog_confederate_monuments4.gif" width="590" height="292"></p><p>They were built to "to physically symbolize white terror against blacks" (the phrase used by the author of the 8/15/2017 Mother Jones article "<a href="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story-of-all-those-confederate-statues="http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2017/08/the-real-story-of-all-those-confederate-statues/">The Real Story Behind All Those Confederate Statues</a>").</p><p>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 "<a href="https://qz.com/1052725/the-definition-of-the-nazi-slogan-chanted-by-white-nationalists-in-charlottesville/">Blood and Soil</a>") 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.</p><p>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 "<a href="http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.3414982.1502849635!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/article_750/nydn071617.jpg">very fine people</a>", after all.</p><p>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.</p><p>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 <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/08/on-fact-that-left-despises-trump-so.html">criticize people who don't like Donald Trump</a>.</p><p>And (can you believe it?) he also <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/08/on-applying-newtons-third-law-of-motion.html">blames the Left</a> for these racist scumbags crawling out from under their rocks to march and protest in public! "What do you expect" <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/08/on-emergence-of-alt-right-and-white.html">he says</a>. 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 <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/08/on-fact-that-original-kkk-was-anti.html">pro-KKK</a> post.</p><p><img src="http://www.denverpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/charlottesville-cartoon-heller.jpg?w=620" width="590" height="415"></p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #211</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-67507146691004237572017-09-05T13:05:00.000-07:002017-09-19T11:40:21.490-07:00CNN Faked A Harvey Rescue According To Trump Dupe Willis Hart<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>The Libertarian blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a> 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"</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>Willis Hart: On the Fact that it Looks as if CNN Has Staged Yet Another News Story [<a href="https://youtu.be/4rtgbs1cQeY">Video</a>]. ...and with them being the heroes of course... Fake news indeed. (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/09/on-modern-day-climate-science.html">9/4/2017 at 10:50pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>Here is the video Willis posted (32 minutes. Of which I watched the first few minutes).</p><p><iframe width="480" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4rtgbs1cQeY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p>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).</p><p>So how did this dumbass (AKA "<a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYmqiv_DNFYFkn8fvvJujmA">Hard Bastard</a>") 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.</p><p>However, as <a href="http://www.snopes.com/cnn-staged-hurricane-harvey-rescue-video/">Snopes points out</a>, 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.</p><p><a href="http://static.snopes.com/app/uploads/2017/09/cnn-didnt-stage-this-video-768x221.jpg"><img src="http://static.snopes.com/app/uploads/2017/09/cnn-didnt-stage-this-video-768x221.jpg" width="590" height="170"></a></p><p>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.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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. <br />
<br />
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. (<a href="http://www.snopes.com/cnn-staged-hurricane-harvey-rescue-video/">Did CNN Stage a Hurricane Harvey Rescue Video?</a> Claim: CNN was caught staging a dramatic rescue during Hurricane Harvey. Verdict: FALSE).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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 <a href="http://whosyourdaddy-lisa1.blogspot.com/">thinks</a> 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.</p><p>Among other news organizations he hates, <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2016/12/on-fact-that-if-donald-trump-had.html">including</a> 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).</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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. (<a href="">Real News About Fake News</a> by <a href="https://www.usnews.com/topics/author/robert-schlesinger">Robert Schlesinger</a>. US News and World Report 7/12/2017).</td></tr>
</table></p><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/14/fake-news-donald-trump-election-alt-right-social-media-tech-companies">Fake news helped Trump win</a>. 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.</p><p><span class="highlight"><a href="http://washingtonstarnews.com/trump-to-cnn-you-are-fake-news/">Image</a>:</span> 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).</p><p><img src="http://washingtonstarnews.com/hppt://www.washingtonstarnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/DONALD-TRUMP-CNN-fake-news.png" width="590" height="332"></p><p>Additionally, re the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYmqiv_DNFYFkn8fvvJujmA/about">Hard Bastard</a> video... <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-k2alO2RAK3gUXBTQifjqA">Donald J Trump</a> (not <a href="https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/3046484?hl=en">verified</a>) replies to the video, writing "CNN VERY FAKE NEWS". Note that the YouTube account <a href="https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAql2DyGU2un1Ei2nMYsqOA/about">Donald J. Trump for President</a> is verified (has a check next to the account name).</p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #210</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-59289168880702374242017-08-27T13:16:00.003-07:002017-08-27T13:16:51.574-07:00On "Russian Narrative" Denying Blogger Willis Hart Citing "Sputnik News" To Prove Anything<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>The Libertarian blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a> does it in an 8/26/2017 commentary.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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 <a href="https://sputniknews.com/europe/201510061028097655-finland-refugees-migrants-myth/#ixzz3nubYTkr9">Link</a>].<br />
<br />
Yeah, I guess that "women and children first" is only something that the oppressive white Christian West observes these days. Oh well. (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/08/on-fact-that-of-19632-muslim-migrants.html">8/26/2017 at 11:32am</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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 <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/02/keith-ellison/rep-keith-ellison-correct-demographic-overview-syr/">says</a> this statement is 100% accurate. Ellison said this on 1/29/2017 in a CBS Face The Nation interview.</p><p>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 <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jan/14/donald-trump/donald-trumps-false-claim-refugees-migrants-are-mo/">says</a> is 100% false).</p><p>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 (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sputnik_(news_agency)">as per Wikipedia</a>) "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".</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #209</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-42460621818321301092017-08-01T13:09:00.000-07:002017-08-27T15:05:54.867-07:00That 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<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Butowsky">Ed Butowsky</a> 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" <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-fact-that-even-though-rod-wheeler.html">according to</a> <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis Hart</a>).</p><p><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-jP812n0iwBE/WYDb33fkvNI/AAAAAAAABYc/ne8YWs0d-pIn77L-AfyjQx1eJkQgUuwXgCLcBGAs/s1600/ButowskyWheeler.JPG" width="590" height="340"></p><p><a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/08/01/lawsuit_by_rod_wheeler_alleges_white_house_helped_fox_news_push_the_seth.html">As per</a> 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.</p><p>Later, Rich was <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich">murdered</a> at the <a href="http://conservativepapers.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Clinton-Has-Seth-Rich-Killed.jpg">direction of Hillary Clinton</a>. Because the Clintons have a long history of murdering anyone who crosses them (i.e. the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Clinton_Body_Count">Clinton Body Count</a>, a conspiracy theory that says "Bill Clinton has assassinated fifty or more of his associates").</p><p>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).</p><p>But it's actually Willis who is buying into fake news. This according to a recent Daily Beast article.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-told-fox-news-to-publish-seth-rich-murder-hoax-lawsuit-claims">Trump Told Fox News to Frame Dems for Seth Rich Murder, Lawsuit Claims</a> [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.<br />
<br />
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).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>This was in regards to a piece (by Fox News contributor and journalist <a href="https://heavy.com/news/2017/08/malia-zimmerman-fox-news-seth-rich-trump-rod-wheeler-lawsuit-photos-hawaii-reporter/">Malia Zimmerman</a>) 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.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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... (<a href="http://thehill.com/homenews/media/334825-hannity-on-seth-rich-coverage-i-retracted-nothing">Hannity on Seth Rich coverage: "I retracted nothing"</a> by Joe Concha. The Hill, 5/23/17).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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 "<a href="https://www.google.com/search?biw=1024&bih=580&q=%22trump+murdered+seth+rich%22&oq=%22trump+murdered+seth+rich%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3...8820.15853.0.16742.30.19.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..30.0.0.2rzgoxihtVQ">Trump murdered Seth Rich</a>" and you'll get results from others theorizing that this is what could have happened.</p><p>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.</p><p><img src="https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RbzyWL9BcpY/WYH21o7Ia0I/AAAAAAAABYo/urz8Xv_UrwI4gdA4W6rwb2daDo83eq-kwCLcBGAs/s1600/ZimmermanRich.JPG" width="590" height="266"></p><p>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).</p><p><span class="highlight"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFTdWAWrocQ">Video</a>:</span> Rod Wheeler appears on The Beat with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ari_Melber">Ari Melber</a> 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).</p><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VFTdWAWrocQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #208</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-48126851038606370892017-05-26T13:39:00.000-07:002018-09-10T17:17:57.031-07:00Willis Hart 180 Degree Flip Flop: Now He's A 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Nutjob!<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>"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 <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis V. Hart</a> I addressed in my last commentary (<a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-liars-recent-claim-that-my-opinion.html">OST #206</a>).</p><p>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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat">the goat book</a> for so long. As opposed to immediately hustling him out of there).</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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).<br />
<br />
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? (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-fact-that-even-after-both-of-twin.html">5/24/2017 at 8:53pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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).</p><p>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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century">PNAC</a>'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".</p><p>"U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-fact-that-george-w-bush-condoleeza.html">hijack American planes</a>". 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" (<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91651&page=1">Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11</a>).</p><p>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!</p><p>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 <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2012/07/miscellaneous-127.html?showComment=1341972021352#c6007546315490051248">responded by writing</a> "you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public".</p><p>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?</p><p>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).</p><p><span class="highlight"><a href="http://www.oilempire.us/petgoat.html">Image</a>:</span> 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", <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-fact-that-under-normal-faa-nmcc-and.html">Willis says</a>.</p><p><img src="http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/schoolroom.jpg" width="550" height="400"></p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #207</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-57202588511453459232017-05-09T19:11:00.000-07:002017-08-27T15:13:04.483-07:00On A Liar's Recent Claim That "My Opinion Has Always Been That... George Bush May Indeed Have Lied About WMD"<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>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?</p><p>I refer to this 100 percent false commentary from the Libertarian blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis V. Hart</a> (the portion where he claims that he has "always" held an opinion that he previously did NOT hold).</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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 [<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYBPkabMCvs&t=3965s">Youtube Video</a>].<br />
<br />
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). (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/05/on-fact-that-in-months-just-prior-to.html">5/9/2017 at 4:31pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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. (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2012/07/miscellaneous-127.html?showComment=1341972021352#c6007546315490051248">7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>And the Hartster lied back then too. I did give him evidence. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency">IAEA</a> told bush that Saddam was complying that that they inspections would be completed shortly. And they were finding no WMD (see <a href="http://w-dervish.blogspot.com/2013/05/intellectual-honesty-concerning-ex.html">SWTD #154</a> for further details).</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p><span class="highlight">Video:</span> Video WTNPH links to, titled "Awoken: 9/11 - Truth Or Treason". Note that (given the fact that I have a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bandwidth_cap">data cap</a>) 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!</p><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AYBPkabMCvs?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #206</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-72379651875243731002017-04-17T13:46:00.001-07:002017-05-11T00:13:37.591-07:00On Willis Hart's Belief That Blacks (Circa The Lincoln Presidency) Were Thankful For The Free Boat Ride To America (How Their Ancestors Got Here)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>Apparently this is something the Libertarian blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis V. Hart</a> 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.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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). (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/04/on-strong-possibility-that-large-chunk.html">4/16/2017 at 11:26am</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>So, I guess Hart has never heard of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberia">Liberia</a>? 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.</p><p>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").</p><p>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.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>Wikipedia/<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery#Emancipation">Abraham Lincoln and slavery</a>: 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.</td></tr>
</table></p><p>It was because "Lincoln in 1865 firmly denied that <b>racial harmony</b> 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.</p><p>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 <a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2011/09/five-greatest-presidents-in-us-history.html">wrote</a> that Abe occupied the number 1 slot on the list of "Greatest Presidents in U.S. History" (<a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2016/04/evolving-willis-2-abraham-lincoln-180.html">OST #130</a>).</p><p>Also ironic given the fact that Hart is himself <a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/search/label/Racist%20Willis">quite racist</a>. 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.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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 href="http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-a-brief-for-whitey-969?doing_wp_cron=1492457114.7691309452056884765625">A Brief for Whitey</a> by Pat Buchanan. Patrick J. Buchanan Official Website, 3/21/2008).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>This was a post Buchanan wrote in response to President Obama's 3/18/2008 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_More_Perfect_Union_(speech)">A More Perfect Union</a> 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 "<a href="https://www.google.com/#q=%22thanks+for+the+free+boat+ride%22">thanks for the free boat ride</a>" their ancestors got (despite <a href="https://web.stanford.edu/~hklein/Klein_etal_Mortality_ST_WMQ-2001.pdf">the fact that</a> "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").</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>[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. (<a href="http://www.thecynicalones.com/2008/03/25/re-a-brief-for-whitey/">Re: A Brief for Whitey</a> by Michael Arceneaux, 3/25/2008).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p><img src="http://images.slideplayer.com/28/9290366/slides/slide_5.jpg" width="590" height="443"></p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #205</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-64039983190291676622017-04-05T15:06:00.001-07:002017-08-01T13:31:23.205-07:00On WTNPH's Allegation That It Isn't Trump, But Hillary Clinton Who Has Russia Connections<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>The <a href="http://dervishsanders3.blogspot.com/2016/03/the-libertarian-trump-defender.html">Trump-defending</a> Libertarian blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis V. Hart</a> thinks it isn't Trump, but Hillary Clinton who has "Russian Connections". Connections that indicate corruption.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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 [<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=2">Link</a>].<br />
<br />
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". (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-fact-that-at-or-around-same-time.html">3/6/2017 at 5:24pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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.</p><p><img src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-hmljQQ0czhA/WOUjf6fLNDI/AAAAAAAABUE/a4ufYevQpukXLAlHfk18op4WgG6DrM7UACLcB/s1600/TrumpClintonUraniumTweet.JPG" width="590" height="495"></p><p>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.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>...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.<br />
<br />
[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 (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States">CFIUS</a>), on which Clinton sat.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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. (<a href="http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-russia-hillary-uranium-575071?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news&yptr=yahoo">Why We Really Don't Need To Investigate Bill and Hillary Clinton's "Uranium Deal"</a> by Josh Lowe. 3/28/2017).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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 <a href="https://www.google.com/#q=site:http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/+Peter+Schweizer+liar+dervish&*">lying</a> scumbag Peter Schweizer) are so eager to defend Trump and indict her.</p><p>Poltifact <a href="http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/mar/28/fact-checking-donald-trumps-tweets-about-hillary-c/">disputes</a> 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 <i>never intervened</i> in committee matters" [quote via <a href="http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/">Snopes</a>].</p><p>Regarding Willis' claim that the deal would "transfer of 20% of America's Uranium to a Russian Conglomerate"... <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_One">Uranium One</a> is a Canadian company (although the "Russian Conglomerate" <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosatom">Rosatom</a> 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).</p><p>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.</p><p>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 <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schweizer">Peter Schweizer</a> himself admits (<a href="http://www.politicususa.com/2015/04/26/clinton-cash-crushed-facts-author-admits-evidence-clinton-crimes.html">Clinton Cash Crushed By Facts As Author Admits He Has No Evidence Of Clinton Crimes</a>).</p><p>Which isn't to say HRC isn't <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash#Critical_reaction_and_actions_taken">guilty of</a> "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).</p><p><span class="highlight"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hc6ESwRf8c">Video</a>:</span> Peter Schweizer appears on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos to discuss <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Cash">Clinton Cash</a>, 4/26/2015. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Stephanopoulos">GS</a>: "...an independent government ethics expert, <a href="https://sunlightfoundation.com/author/bill-allison/">Bill Allison</a>, of the Sunlight Foundation, wrote ... <i>'there's no smoking gun, no evidence that she changed the policy based on donations to the foundation'</i>. ... Do you have any evidence that she actually intervened in this issue?" to which <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schweizer">PS</a> replied "no, we don't have direct evidence". (8:04).</p><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8hc6ESwRf8c?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #204</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-58740364816575295062017-03-27T15:43:00.000-07:002017-03-29T10:56:26.126-07:00On 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<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>The Trump-defending Libertarian blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis V. Hart</a> LOVES to bash Liberals. And he LOVES it even more if he can bash Liberals for criticizing Donald Trump.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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. (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-fact-that-some-of-donald-trumps.html">3/26/2017 at 4:30pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>The video in question, titled "Trump's Sons Kill a Triceratops on Hunting Safari - Liberals Believe, And They're Very Upset" (5:48).</p><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gc4Mi4ocyDw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p>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.</p>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.</p><p>From the <a href="http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/about-us/">Science Brainwaves</a> article "<a href="http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/hearing-what-you-expect-to-hear/">Hearing what you expect to hear</a>"...</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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.<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://www.sciencebrainwaves.com/author/rob-hoskin/">Rob Hoskin</a> PhD, the Neuroscience Department of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Sheffield">Sheffield University</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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".</p><p>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".</p><p>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.</p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #203</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1806139740885604178.post-34852768409203406302017-03-25T21:29:00.000-07:002017-03-25T21:54:00.624-07:00On WTNPH's Belief That Trump Should Get Cred With The Left For Lying<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on"><p>The Libertarian blogger <a href="https://www.blogger.com/profile/02315659209094683602">Willis V. Hart</a> seems to think that Donald Trump should get "cred" with the Left for lying. As per this commentary.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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.<br />
<br />
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. (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/03/on-trump-versus-left.html">3/25/2017 at 4:19pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>Apparently Willis does not realize that Trump LIES. And he lies constantly. As <a href="https://twitter.com/Thom_Hartmann/status/799372868035317761">Thom Hartmann says</a>, 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.</p><p>Like with canceling the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership">TPP</a>. 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).</p><p>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 <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/15/us/politics/obamacare-repeal-tax-cuts.html">NY Times pointed out</a> "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".</p><p>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 <span class="highlight">[1]</span>. People would have lost coverage under it. 24 million, if I recall correctly. "Virtually identical" my ass.</p><p>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 (<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/business/what-trump-and-the-gop-can-agree-on-tax-cuts-for-the-rich.html">What Trump and the GOP Can Agree On: Tax Cuts for the Rich</a>).</p><p>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.</p><p>As for the "brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave", <a href="http://money.cnn.com/2017/02/28/news/economy/donald-trump-child-care/">CNN Money describes the proposal</a> 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.</p><p>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" (<a href="http://w-dervish.blogspot.com/2016/02/only-reason-donald-trump-said-gwb-lied.html">SWTD #326</a>).</p><p>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 <a href="http://w-dervish.blogspot.com/search?q=corporate+inversions">doesn't know what a corporate inversion is</a>).</p><p>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.</p><p><table class="boxed"><tr><td>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. (<a href="http://paranoiacstoogetalk.blogspot.com/2017/02/on-trump-is-liar-versus-media-is-biased.html">2/23/2017 at 11:15pm</a>).</td></tr>
</table></p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p><u>Notes</u><br />
<span class="highlight">[1]</span> 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. (<a href="http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2017/mar/21/mark-pocan/americas-wealthiest-get-600-billion-tax-breaks-rep/">Poltifact</a>).</p><p><span class="highlight"><a href="https://youtu.be/Aw82mBB9Xyw">Video</a>:</span> 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).</p><p><iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Aw82mBB9Xyw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p><p><span class="HL2"><a href="http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/p/ost-complete-post-list.html">OST #202</a></span></p></div>Dervish Sandershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13671865801885224353noreply@blogger.com0