Inconceivable... Due To magamoronity

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Our Federal Government Has Spent More Money (with a Significant Share of it Being, Waste, Fraud, and Abuse) than Any Other Entity In Human History and Has Also Racked Up Far More Debt than Any Other and the Left, Instead of Addressing These Matters, Starts Attacking the People Who Have Been.

They have something to hide. It's the only conceivable explanation in that while they may be morons at times they aren't stupid enough to die on a hill as preposterous as this one. Or one would think.

Posted on Monday, February 17, 2025 at 3:45 PM by Will "take no prisoners" Hart.

Commentary: "One would think"? Yeah, the one being Willis Hart. Also other Turds that support d0n0ld and el0n. A lot of other people do not think that. I asked the AI Copilot if the "only conceivable explanation" is that Democrats are hiding something...

Copilot: The claim that Democrats are opposing DOGE cuts because "they have something to hide" is an opinion expressed by the author of the blog post. It's important to recognize that there can be multiple reasons for political opposition, and attributing it solely to corruption may be an oversimplification. Democrats have expressed concerns that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts could undermine essential government functions, such as global development, humanitarian aid, and U.S. foreign policy. They argue that these cuts could have negative consequences for both domestic and international programs. While some may believe that opposition to DOGE cuts is due to corruption, others see it as a defense of important government services and programs. It's essential to consider various perspectives and understand that political motivations can be complex and multifaceted.

There is another explanation, yet the Hartster finds another explanation (other than Democrats being corrupt) inconceivable? I call BS. Unless he has his head up his ass. He should be able to conceive of another explanation. Probably he'd find the explanation false (incorrectly), but he should still be able to conceive of it. Unless he's a total moron.

You tell me why Willis can't conceive of any other explanation. He could just be lying. Lying, deluding himself, a moron. Take your pick.

 ost-234 

Willis Hart Endorses The Ethnic Cleansing Of Gaza

In a post from 2/10/2025 titled "On Hamas's Bigwigs Issuing a Statement Which Asserts that Trump's Gaza Plan Is Irresponsible", Willis Hart writes, "Yes, because as we're all aware bum-rushing into the region and slaughtering over a thousand peaceniks would have been infinitely more logical. What in the hell was Trump thinking?"

I don't know what Willis is thinking. I know what tRump is thinking. He wants to help Israel take Gaza from Gazans and forcebly relocate them. Whether they want to be relocated or not.

d0n0ld has a history of imposing this "help" on people that don't want it. Remember when he said, "whether the women like it or not, I'm going to protect them"?

This is more of the same kind of help. d0n0ld "helps" women give birth (against their will) to their rapist's babies. And he "helps" woman transition to the afterlife by making it impossible for them to receive the health care necessary to save their lives when they encounter a problem with their pregnancies. How "kind" of him to offer this "help".

Now d0n0ld wants to "help" the citizens of Gaza by forcefully removing them from the area. Even if they don't want to leave. This could be described as ethnically cleansing. Correction -- it IS being called ethnic cleansing.

Apparently the Hartster believes "irresponsible" is as critical as people are getting. And the "irresponsible" can be dismissed, given that it's Hamas saying that. Everyone else loves this plan. Is that what Willis thinks?


Above video description: Feb 5, 2025. President Donald Trump met at the White House Tuesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, where Trump again suggested ethnically cleansing Gaza of its Palestinian population. Trump has already mused about moving Gaza's population to Jordan and Egypt, which those countries have flatly rejected, but on Tuesday he went even further and said the United States should "own" Gaza and develop it into a seaside tourist destination.

btw, I'm not aware of who is "bum-rushing" Gaza and slaughtering over a thousand peaceniks. wtf is Willis talking about? Many more peaceful citizens of Gaza have been slaughtered than 1000. Retuters says, "46,600 people, with just over half of identified victims being women, children or older people". Additionally, it is estimated that an additional 10,000 bodies are unrecovered under the rubble.

 ost-233 

Willis Hart Having Thoughts About Things That Aren't Happening Again

What a surprise, nobody is being encouraged to "rat-out" anyone. As confirmed by the Copilot AI. This seems to be a case where Willis takes some facts and twists them to serve the narrative he likes. In this case, the narrative being that the idiotic "wokesters" are forcing stupidity upon people against their will.

Unless you conform to what the wokesters want, you'll be ratted out. I can't say I agree with them encouraging cadets to not use the terms "mom and dad", though. Why not allow people to use whatever terms they want? Also tell cadets they should be accepting of any cadet they encouter who might want to use the terms "parent or caregiver" instead?

In fact, this appears to be exactly what happened. An "Outside the Beltway" story says "The Air Force Academy does not prohibit the use of Mom and Dad or other gender-specific terms". So what Willis claims is happening? It's not happening.

But the Hartster, being a DEI hater, of course believes this is being strictly enforced. If you don't comply, you get ratted out. What gave him that idea, I wonder? Some rightturd source? Or maybe he drempt it up in his delusions? Who can say?

The dude rarely gives any links. He just titles his posts "on the fact" (a lot of times). As if whatever he writes is a self evident fact that needs no confirmation at all.

Copilot Notes: [1] [2] [3]

 ost-232 

Willis Loves Zuck's Total Turd Pivot

The Biden Administration threated to investigate Zuck/Facebook? I don't believe it. It doesn't appear that Zuck even made that claim. Did Willis only imagine he did?

Maybe Biden people screamed at Facebook employees? I don't know. I surely do not believe anything the Turd Mark Zuckerberg says. While Willis (of course) immediately believes anything that fits his preferred narrative. ZuckerTurd is afraid of Turd-2 and potential harm to Facebook's bottom line if he doesn't suck up. He's a sniveling ass-kissing coward who is running to embrace everything terrible that d0n0ld stands for. Fvck him.

Video: Jan 14, 2025. Kara Swisher and Scott Galloway discuss Mark Zuckerberg's MAGA makeover, and his recent appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast. They unpack his call for "masculine energy" in corporate culture, and examine what masculine energy actually means.


Mark's new look is described by Scott Galloway as "Chechen Molly Dealer". The Hartster sez Zuck is "doing the correct thing" by embracing toxic masculinity, the Patriarchy, dumping on DEI, and kissing d0n0ld's ass? Obviously I strongly disagree with the right's definion of "free speech" as hate and disinformation.

But, that's where we are. This is apparently what the voters wanted. More voters said "we like lies and hate" and voted for the lying Orange Turd than people who said "we like truth and love" and voted for the Black lady VP to one of America's greatest presidents.

Copilot Notes: [1] [2].

 ost-231 

On Willis Hart Being Relieved That d0n0ld-Vance Were "Elected" Instead Of Harris-Walz

Tim Walz is "Sub-Mediocre" and d0n0ld tRump isn't? In Willis Hart's delusions, I guess. From what I've heard Tim Walz has done a great job as governor of Minnesota. MPR News says "The poll shows that 48 percent of respondents had a favorable view of Walz compared to 47.1 percent that had an unfavorable opinion of him. By contrast, 42 percent of those surveyed had a favorable opinion of Ohio Sen. JD Vance compared to 48.4 percent who had an unfavorable view of the Republican vice presidential candidate".

Has Willis said anything about the hypocrite JD Vance on his blog? Not that I've seen. I think there is much to criticize Vance for, yet Willis apparently can't think of anything. Apparently Wills completely forgot that Vance criticized single women who don't want children.

More likely I think he simply does not give a crap about "childless cat ladies". I bet he agrees with Vance's feces throwing at this demo.

fyi, the imbecile that won by a whisker was d0n0ld tRump. d0n0ld is a complete moron, as confirmed by people who worked in his disastrous first administration. Yet Willis seems relieved that d0n0ld has secured the reigns of power.

FYI, Tim Walz, as MN governor, never signed any legislation that mandated tampons be provided in boys bathrooms. That is completely false. "All 15 of the districts that responded Friday to a CNN survey of 25 districts, including the Minneapolis and St. Paul districts in the state's two most populous cities, said they comply with the law without providing tampons in traditional boys' bathrooms".

The whole "Tampon Tim" thing is total BS. No legislation that said boys need tampons ever existed. And, therefore, Tim Walz never signed any such legislation into law as Governor. Yet obviously the Hartster thinks this happened. Due to being completely oblivious to facts. Also maybe because Willis Hart is an imbecile?

 ost-230 

donald tRump Is Now A Convicted Felon. Charged & Convicted For Doing Nothing Out Of The Ordinary

Willis V Hart Said: On the Corporate Media Sh!ts Constantly Referring to Trump's Nondisclosure Agreement with Stormy the Stooge as a, "Hush Money Payment" And being that a great many of them have signed a nondisclosure agreement of their own (more than one, in all likelihood), they're clearly aware that what the former President did isn't even remotely out of the ordinary. But because it's Trump who we're dealing with. It's one step down from the Kennedy assassination.

Posted by Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart on Tuesday, June 4, 2024 AT 8:15 PM.

Commentary: Not even even remotely out of the ordinary, huh? The Access Hollywood tape had just come out and another scandal could really have been devestating for the campaign. So it was decided that the voters could NOT find out. None of those other non-disclosure agreements that Willis mentions have anything to do with preventing the voters from being fully informed before voting. This definitely would have cost tRump SOME votes. tRump wouldn't have agreed to pay otherwise. This whole "protecting his family" business is pure BS.


Microsoft AI Copilot: Former President Donald Trump was convicted of felonies related to falsifying business records. Here's what happened:

Charges: Trump faced 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. These charges stemmed from a payment to adult film actress Stormy Daniels before the 2016 election and attempts to buy the silence of two other individuals.

Business Expense Cover-Up: The charges were based on evidence that Trump improperly funded the payoff to Stormy Daniels as a business expense, disguising it as legal fees. The payments were actually for nonbusiness reasons.

Intent to Commit a Crime: Falsifying business records is a felony in New York if done with the intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission of a crime. In this case, the evidence suggested that Trump made false statements to cover up crimes related to the 2016 election.

Other Potential Crimes: While the indictment did not specify the second crime that elevated the misdemeanor charge to a felony, New York election law prohibits conspiring to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. The Daniels payment occurred before the 2016 presidential election that Trump won.

In summary, Trump's conviction was based on the falsification of business records, which is a serious offense when done with criminal intent. It marked the first time a former U.S. president was convicted of a crime.

 ost-229 

Communications From Blogger Re OST Content

In total I received 6 communications in regards to this blog. This blog was taken down shortly after I lost access to WYM. WYM was locked for 18 days, while OST was locked a lot longer. In total OST was locked for 53 days.

01. Blogger. Apr 18, 2023 at 7:01 AM.
Your post titled "Pr0fane Language In Support Of Destroying American Jobs" was flagged to us for review. This post was put behind a warning for readers because it contains sensitive content...

02. Blogger. Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 8:40 AM.
Your blog titled "http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/" has been removed. Your blog titled "http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/" was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and have made the URL http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/ unavailable to blog readers. Why was your blog removed? Your content has violated our HATE policy.

03. Blogger. Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 10:58 AM.
Your blog titled "http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/" has been removed. ... Your blog titled "http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/" was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and have made the URL http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/ unavailable to blog readers. Why was your blog removed? Your content has violated our HATE policy.

04. Blogger. Mon, May 6, 2024 at 1:01 PM.
Your blog titled "http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/" has been removed. ... Your blog titled "http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/" was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and have made the URL http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/ unavailable to blog readers. Why was your blog removed? Your content has violated our HATE policy.

05. Blogger. Wed, May 15, 2024 at 1:12 PM.
Your blog titled "http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/" has been removed. ... Your blog titled "http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/" was flagged to us for review. We have determined that it violates our guidelines and have made the URL http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/ unavailable to blog readers. Why was your blog removed? Your content has violated our HATE policy.

06. Blogger. Mon, May 27, 2024 at 3:58 AM.
Your blog titled "http://oligarchicstoogetalk.blogspot.com/" has been reinstated. Hello, We have re-evaluated your blog ... Upon review, the blog has been reinstated. ... Thank you for understanding. Sincerely, The Blogger Team.

This is BS. Note that the final message (concerning reinstatment) says "Thank you for understanding". I do not understand. How could I? Why was my blog flagged for hate? How, if there was hate on my blog, could I pass a reevaluation and be reinstated? I didn't remove any "hate". Yet they gave my blog back. Though with no, "we're sorry, there was no hate on your blog after all. We made a mistake".

Or, "our algorithms made a mistake. Your blog never should have been flagged. We are working to improve our algorithms". Naah. Nothing. Oh, and that post that was put behind a warning for "sensitive content"? That was in regards to me quoting the blogger Willis Hart. A commentary from his blog where he says "c0ck-suckers" in 1913 are responsible for there being a federal income tax. A fact he doesn't like.

It appears that, once you get a "sensitive content" warning applied to a post, you just have to live with it. What I read said I could revise the post to remove the sensitive content and then the post would be immediately reevaluated and (if you're good) the warning removed. But I tried that (in regards to several posts that were put behind sensitive content warnings) and no "reevaluation" occurred that I saw any evidence of.

The OST post that got flagged had no comments -- so I just deleted it. I made some changes then published it again. I had another post that got flagged on WYM (which was Mystere's fault) and that one had comments attached. Meaning, if I delete it I will lose the comments.

I made some changes and published it a second time. There are now two copies. One (with comments) that is behind a warning. Also a second copy that, so far, has not been flagged. I copied over the comments and appended them to the post. That way, if anyone has trouble getting past the warning (I had trouble with Blogger not wanting to give me access to my own content AT ALL) they can view the second copy.

Not that I think my blog has ANY readers. I just write for my own enjoyment. And I definitely don't think anyone is going back into the WYM archives to read posts from 2018. Which is when the censored post was published. Although Blogger didn't decide until 6+ years after it was published that they found the content objectionable.

btw, that word still exists in the post on the Hartster's blog. g00gle didn't sensor him. Though, most of the time I see that he writes "cork sucker".

 ost-228  @

On Willis Hart, A trumpnutter, Complaining About Being Called On His trump Nuttiness

Willis Hart Said: On Attempting to Meet a Trump Hater Halfway (Listing Some of His Accomplishments While Also Enumerating Some of His Weak Points) Yeah, they're just not interested in that anything short of despising the man 24/7 makes you at the very least, Trump adjacent (to use their moronic lingo). My advice would be to try and skirt the subject altogether and if that doesn't work just walk away.

Posted by Will "Take No Prisoners" Hart on Friday, June 16, 2023 at 8:18 PM.

Commentary: donald tRump has "accomplishments"? Is Willis saying he thinks donald tRump accomplished some good things as predisent? I mean, bad things can also be accomplished. Which, I'd say is the category that most of what donald accomplished as predisent falls into. Accomplishments that were harmful to the country. But I think that Willis is talking about accomplishments that were beneficial for the country.

So why doesn't he rattle off a few of these alleged accomplishments? Maybe he can't think of any? Is just guessing there must be some? Is that why he advises walking away? To avoid looking stupid when he can't come up with any?

Well, maybe Willis can't. I G00gled and found an interesting article (excerpts below). I'm not surprised that (by accident or because others in the dotard administration actually knew what they were doing) that some good things were accomplished. Though bad things (as per the article) were also accomplished (as the article notes).

30 Things Donald Trump Did as President You Might Have Missed... Trump's presidency may be best remembered for its cataclysmic end. But his four years as president also changed real American policy in lasting ways... We asked Politico's best-in-class policy reporters to recap some of the ways Trump changed the country while in office, for better or worse. 1/18/2021 01. Trump didn't repeal Obamacare -- he accidentally bolstered it. [donald trump tried to kill Obamacare, but instead] "grew government subsidizing of the exchanges by upwards of $20 billion per year". [see article for an explaination of how that happened]. Bad, Good. Though accidently. The intent was bad. 02. Trump refocused national security on great power competition. The 2018 Trump Administration strategy rewired the Defense Department's vast bureaucracy away from a focus on fighting insurgents and terrorists in the Middle East toward a long-term strategic competition with China and Russia. As a result, the military is changing how it trains personnel, which technologies it buys, and the geographic areas of the world where it prioritizes its forces. Good. 03. Trump failed to provide workplace guidance, making safety harder for workers. Arguably the most consequential decision Trump made involving American workers was something it chose not to do: It declined to implement a so-called "emergency temporary standard" when the coronavirus pandemic hit. ... [as a result] Americans still face a dangerously unpredictable range of safety conditions when they show up to work. Though OSHA has cited some companies for coronavirus-related transgressions, many large corporations received meager fines even in cases where workers died from Covid-19. Bad. 04. Trump boosted religious organizations in education. Bad? I'm guessing. Given that this was a Betsy DeVos rule change. 05. Trump's Interior Department set a new standard for ignoring Congress. [They] got away with it: Democrats complained but never followed through on a subpoena threat. By the final six months of the Trump administration, Interior officials completely stopped attending House hearings meant to flag issues with the department. The behavior all but guarantees that future administrations will follow suit. Bad. 06. Legal marijuana spreads across most of the country. Despite its anti-weed rhetoric, the Trump administration stood to the side as 18 states liberalized their marijuana laws from 2016 to 2020, including staunchly conservative states like Mississippi and South Dakota. Despite former Attorney General William Barr’s anti-trust scrutiny of cannabis deals, the federal government remained relatively hands-off on marijuana policy. Good. Though this "accomplishment" was achieved via inaction. 07. Trump curbed relief for defrauded students. Trump dismantled Obama-era policies that were designed to curb abuses by for-profit colleges, including rules designed to make it easier for borrowers to obtain loan forgiveness if they were cheated or duped by their college [under the direction of] Education Secretary Betsy DeVos... Bad. Though "Biden has already committed to swiftly reversing Trump’s changes to the rules". 08. Trump made it easier to prosecute financial crimes like money laundering. The Trump administration played a major but little-noticed role in pushing Congress to enact the most sweeping overhaul of financial crimes safeguards in decades, measures intended to stop money flowing to terrorists, drug traffickers and other wrongdoers. The legislation made its way into the National Defense Authorization Act... Good. 09. Trump shrank the food safety net -- a lot. Under Trump, the Agriculture Department scaled back the $60 billion Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the food support program for low-income Americans formerly known as food stamps. ... 755,000 Americans have lost their access to food aid under SNAP, according to the USDA's own estimates. Bad. 10. Millions of workers lost access to extra pay for long hours. Under Trump, the federal government rolled out a series of employer-friendly rules and decisions ... One of the most significant: His Labor Department finalized an overtime rule notably weaker than that issued under Obama, leaving millions of workers ineligible. Bad. 11. On gas emissions, Trump went the opposite direction from the rest of the world. ... The Trump rollbacks [of Obama-era rules aimed at cracking down on methane emissions] ... were considered so out of the norm that even oil companies such as BP and Shell publicly spoke out against them. Bad. 12. Trump imposed a near-ban on government use of Chinese drones. Like many Chinese products and services, Chinese-made drones became a focal point for the Trump administration. Federal agencies seeking to end China's dominance of the drone market, amid concerns that equipment could be used to spy, have looked for ways to bolster domestic production. Good? 13. Trump made it possible to follow the Pentagon's money. The Pentagon makes up the largest slice of discretionary spending in the federal budget, so it might surprise you that until Trump, no one had conducted an audit of where America's defense dollars go ... The overall exercise is seen as a milestone in the odyssey to someday verify where all our defense tax dollars are going. Good. 14. Trump goosed the economy with tax cuts... Trump's biggest legislative achievement was arguably the $1.5 trillion tax cut package Republicans pushed through Congress, which he said would super-charge the economy. The 2017 tax bill slashed individual and corporate tax rates and made dozens of other major changes to the tax code that affected virtually every facet of the economy, from small businesses to university endowments. Good?, no Bad! The language in Politico article suggests this a good accomplishment. I disagree. "Democrats [did] a good job of convincing voters it mainly benefited the wealthy"... as per Politico. Yeah, because that's the truth. That's what republicans ALWAYS do. Cut taxes for the rich and corporations. 15. Trump cracked down -- mostly successfully -- on unwanted calls and texts. For years the federal government made little headway against the plague of unwanted automated phone calls that have annoyed Americans -- 19 billion such calls last year alone. Despite plenty of rancor, Trump and his agency heads succeeded in working with Congress to make significant headway in curbing -- but not yet eliminating -- the annoyance. Good? That hasn't been my experience. I'm getting more of these annoying calls now then in the past. As are other family members of mine. 16. Trump exiled climate scientists from Washington... Officials refused to publicize dozens of studies that carry warnings about the effects of climate change on the agriculture sector. The department even stopped the release of a plan on how to respond to the climate change crisis. Bad. 17. Trump took a big swing at finally fixing health-care technology. ... Early in 2020 ... the Trump administration released a big ball of rules meant to sweep aside barriers to sharing health information. The administration's rules have several targets but they focus on practices like "information blocking", whereby companies or providers might not release necessary data for competitive advantage... Good? As per the article "the Trump administration [due to the pandemic] has delayed the effective [implementation] date. 18. Trump rescinded rules protecting workers at federal contractors. ... In March 2017, Trump signed a Congressional Review Act resolution to revoke a regulation enacted under Obama the previous year that required businesses to publicly disclose any sexual harassment or labor law violations over the previous three years whenever they bid on large federal contracts. The goal of the rule was to prevent federal money from flowing to firms with a history of such infractions. Bad. 19. Trump went all-in on ending curbs on auto emissions, dividing the industry. ... he Obama administration’s plan would have required automakers to improve fuel efficiency by 5 percent per year, but the Trump administration rolled those targets back to just 1.5 percent improvement each year. Bad. 20. The anti-monopolists started winning -- despite Trump at first, then with his help. Bad!, later Good! And, no, not bad because I'm pro-monopoly. Bad because this isn't true. As per a 4/7/2024 Washington Monthly article, tRump's antitrust law was (under tRump) selectively applied to punish tRump enemies and reward his allies. My "good" is due to the fact that, "after he won the election, Biden committed to the cause like no other president had in modern times" [using the tRump era law]. 21. A big crackdown on legal immigrants. While it was no surprise to anyone who followed his 2016 presidential campaign that Trump wanted to crack down on illegal immigration at the southern border, his administration also imposed tighter restrictions on legal immigration, even of the high-skilled workers he claimed to want in the country. Bad. 22. Trump impeded regulation -- even though Republicans wanted it. Trump's EPA essentially blew up a bipartisan deal to more strictly regulate toxic chemicals that Americans are exposed to daily and instead tapped a group of chemicals industry experts to run and advise the program. Bad. 23. Trump rallied the world against China's 5G dominance. The Trump administration put national security concerns around 5G in the spotlight, arguing that Chinese equipment used to build next-generation Internet networks posed a surveillance threat to Western countries. Good? As per the article, "Many countries are still mulling whether they share the alarm coming from US officials". 24. Trump doled out billions in aid to farmers. Faced with years of declining prices and shrunken foreign markets, farmers have been struggling throughout the Trump administration. Trump officials have tried to mend food producers' finances by doling out billions in assistance in order to keep the industry afloat. Bad? As per the article "the vast majority of the aid went to traditional row crop farmers, many of whom were part of Trump's political base". 25. Trump rolled back rules on banks designed to prevent another financial crisis. Bad. The Biden administration has paid a price (and been blamed) for the consequences of these rollbacks. 26. Trump galvanized an anti-Silicon Valley movement in the GOP. Lawmakers furious at Silicon Valley have for years taken aim at Section 230, a crucial 1996 legal provision that shields online platforms from lawsuits over the user content they host or decide to restrict. But it was a niche issue until Trump escalated the attacks over allegations that social media companies are biased against conservatives. Bad. This is a personal grievance of tRump. And, even though he now has his own social media company, he's going to cash in a sell his shares as soon as he is able. So, he probably still doesn't care. Like if, Truth Social were to be sued. Or Twitter, now that Elon owns it. Or perhaps Rumble. I doubt Conservative would like that. 27. Trump reduced environmental approvals for infrastructure projects. The impact [is that] New projects can be more polluting or damaging to the environment over the long term and still be approved... Bad. 28. Trump's White House took quiet steps to promote US development of AI. Good? 29. Trump rolled back rules on racially segregated housing. Bad. 30. Trump made trade a top priority, but had only mixed results. ... Trump fell far short on his promise to negotiate bilateral trade deals to make up for his decision to pull out of the TPP... Bad. I dont' say bad because I'm a free trader. I say bad because the moves tRump took hurt US consumers and US farmers. Because the CORRECT way to address this problem would be through congress. But the republican party is pro-free trade. At least most of them are. And some Democrats. I agree with the Bernie Sanders position.

Looks to me like most of the dotard administration's accomplishments were bad. The ones cited by this article, at least. But it's entirely possible that Willis likes some (or all) of those negative accomplishments. Or could (if he tried) come up with good accomplishments not cited in this article?

Note: The Politico article doesn't label any of these accomplishments good or bad. I did that. What follows the "good/bad" rating is my commentary.

In conclusion -- donald tRump was the worst president in US history, as a survey of historians has determined. (Released Feb 2024. The tally came from 154 presidential specialists who are current and recent members of the American Political Science Association. They were asked to give every president a score, from 0 to 100).

So, why is the Hartster defending dotard? And saying such idiotic defending only makes him "Trump adjacent"? I'm not aware of who (if anyone) is using this "lingo". I say people who defend tRump (the WORST president ever) aren't "tRump adjacent", they are trumpers... full stop.

I mean, if you can't take the "bold" stance to be 100 percent opposed to the horrible Orange Turd, that makes you part of the problem, not a part of the solution. IMO.

original image dimensions 1280, 720.

 ost-227 

Willis Hart, Rothbardian Libertarian tRump Supporter

So, Libertarians AREN'T racist? They just support enabling racism? Because... freedom?

Hmmm, Willis Hart identifies as a Rothbardian Libertarian? Why does Willis specifically identify as "Rothbardian" as opposed to just a "regular" Libertarian?

So I looked up Murray Rothbard and found that he "was a racist, and believed in the voluntary separation of the races".

Wikipedia/Murray Rothbard. 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. 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.

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?

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.

Given that Rand was also a misogynist. 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 welcomed it.

Willis Hart is a rape skeptic. 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.

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)?

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 racist, I mean Libertarian. You think?

 OST #226 @ 

Paranoid Willis Believes His Blog Is Being Monitored By The Parasitic Sociopaths

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?

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.

 OST #225 

Willis Hart Refers To Story From Fake News Website (National File) About Biden Daughter Showering With Her Father

National File, a right-wing website, released an alleged copy of Ashley Biden's diary. It alleges that Biden took showers with her, m0lested her, and other highly inappropriate acts. The National File claims to have received it from an "anonymous whistleblower".

Biden hater Willis Hart references this fake news story in a commentary from 7/3/2022.

Not a ton of coverage, huh? Maybe because it's fake news. That's what Misbar (an independent fact-checking platform) says. Or "suspicious", at least. Yeah, I think so. Yet the Hartster takes it as a confirmed fact.

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".

Obviously Willis believes the Qanon-esque bullplop about Joe Biden being a ped0phile. Previously Willis wrote about Joe Biden being like a weirdo who drives around in a van offering children candy.

Willis is clearly ALL IN regarding the false narrative about Joe Biden being a ped0phile. 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.

According to Willis, donald tRump asks permision first. Before grabbing women by their pu$sies. Because tRump said (in the Access Hollywood video) "they let you do it".

"May I grab you by you pu$sy?". "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 grabbed liked it.

The image above is from the rightturd blog "Cleveland Foxers". This meme from Midnight Mitch promotes the false allegation that Joe Biden showered with his daughter, Ashley.

Snopes says, "unfounded". Snopes explains, "According to the quote meme, the sentence appeared on pages 67 and 68 of the Ashley Biden diary. We have so far been unable to find any evidence whatsoever indicating that this is an actual quote from Biden's daughter".

 OST #224 

Willis Hart (A Weirdo) Implies President Joe Biden Is A Pedo Who's Driving Around Snatching Kids

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 US presidents aren't allowed to drive. The sitting president isn't allowed to drive on public property, nor are (living) past presidents.

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.

OST #223

No, Actually It Is Both, Willis

As per a 5/12/2021 post by Libertarian Dotard-defending blogger Willis Hart, Dotard Donald never defended torture or the Iraq war.

Clearly this BS is in response to Liz Cheney telling the truth about Dotard Donald losing the 2020 election. Either Willis believes the Big Lie 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).

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 voiced support for waterboarding.

Additionally (in spite of lying about not supporting the Iraq war during the 2016 campaign), Dotard Donald actually did support it.

Fact check: Trump falsely claims, again, to have opposed the invasion of Iraq. Excerpt from a 10/29/2019 CNN article by Daniel Dale and Andrew Kaczynski. What Trump actually said before the war In his 2000 book "The America We Deserve", Trump argued that a military strike on Iraq might be necessary. 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". 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". 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". 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". What Trump said during the war The day after the invasion in March 2003, Trump told Fox: "It looks like a tremendous success from a military standpoint". 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". 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". 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". It wasn't until more than a year after the invasion that Trump conveyed explicit opposition to the war.

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.

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.

OST #222

False Equivalencies In Defense Of Dotard's Sedition

According to the Libertarian Dotard-defending blogger Willis Hart, republicans objecting to the Electoral College votes being counted in states that went for Biden is just fine. Because Democrats did it too.

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.

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 "trial by combat"?

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.

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.

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).

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?

OST #221

Willis Hart's Covid Delusions

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.

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.

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.

OST #220

Russiagate Deniers "Best Journalists In The Country Right Now"?

According to the Libertarian trump-voting blogger Willis Hart, being a Russiagate denier is what's required to be one of the best.

I don't know. Believing that Dotard was "framed" for colluding with Russia and that it really was a "witch hunt" (despite it being so f*cking obvious) kind of causes me to question your journalistic abilities. IMO it's also incredibly dishonest.

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).

Although now (according to Dore) Bernie Sanders is a "cuck" for getting behind Biden. And Greenwald (originally an AOC fan) now says she's a sell out as well. A female "cuck", if there is a word for that. Because Bernie and AOC both realized the Orange Turd HAD to go because American might not survive another Dotard term.

OST #219

Artwork I recently Acquired

...by left-clicking and downloading it from Willis Hart's blog. Apparently Willis purchased the original. At a higher price than what I paid for my copy, I'm guessing. Which was $0.

OST #218

White Nationalism And Libertarianism

"Liberation Day" is a website run by a dude named Eric Martin. Martin describes himself as "Christian, Libertarian, Constitutionalist". As per an article by "Fred" on Liberation Day, multiculturalism equates to "the de facto destruction of the West by demographic suicide". This is a line from Fred's article "Understanding the Alt-Right".

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, Richard Spencer 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.

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 Willis Hart. 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.

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.

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. (9/2/2018 at 4:01pm). 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, Multicultural Experimentation, Eagerness to Commit Demographic Suicide, etc, etc. and Saying to Themselves, "One of These Days, One of These Days". (10/28/2017 at 3:46pm).

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.

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)". (10/27/2017 at 9:44pm).

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 colonization wholeheartedly and proclaim that this was one idea of Lincoln's that he agrees with.

Perhaps it is only a matter of time until the Hartster "evolves" to the point where he starts openingly advocating for white separatism. 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"?

OST #217

David Souter & Ruth Bader Ginsburg Say Child Porn Is Protected Speech According To Willis Hart (A Brain Diseased Liar)

The Libertarin blogger Willis Hart 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).

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!

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Associate Supreme Court Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsberg Argued and Voted In 2008 to Establish Child Pornography as Protected Speech - [Link]. This while others on the hard left think that folks should be prosecuted for "misgendering" trannies. A brave new world indeed. (6/27/2018 at 4:04pm).

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.

..."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.

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.

Also according to the article that Willis links to.

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.

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.

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!

Reading the blog of Willis it becomes crystal clear quickly how much this asshole HATES the Left. So, when he says 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.

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!

Hating the Left is obviously more important to him. And it ALWAYS has been.

Anyway, when Wills writes "on the fact", what follows is almost always total bullshit. And that's a REAL fact! Also, the notorious RBG spells her last name "Ginsburg" not "Ginsberg".

OST #216

On The Majority Of Willis Hart Post Titles Beginning With "On The Fact", Then Concluding With A Lie (One That Is Obviously Total Bullshit)

"On The Fact" is how the Libertarin blogger Willis Hart starts a MAJORITY of his commentaries. What follows is almost always a total lie. Such as the following (for example).

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? (3/7/2018 at 10:06pm).

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?

OST #215