WTNPH Lies About Left Claiming Voter Fraud. Still Just Trump, Moron

The strategy of Trump with his talk about "rigging" (voter fraud) was deliberate. The intent being to protect him from accusations of rigging from the Left should he win (election fraud). Which is EXACTLY what happened. As I predicted (SWTD #355).

Before the election (10/23/2016) I said "I bet Repubs are smiling about Dems coming out strongly against the idea that rigging is occurring. Now they can continue with their election fraud and Dems won't be able to say or do a damn thing".

And now that is EXACTLY what is happening (re Trump's win and Democrats call for recounts, saying Trump "won" due to voter suppression, etc). I called it. And (although I wasn't sure at the time due to the fact that EVERYONE was saying Trump was going to lose), I am now completely convinced that this was Trump's strategy all along.

As per that strategy, Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily, in a recent article about Jill Stein's request for a recount of the potus votes in WI, MI and PA wrote the following.

...liberals searching for answers to Trump's surprise victory have a new explanation: Hillary did not really lose. They contend an "audit the vote" movement could prove voting machine totals in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were inaccurate. In the third presidential debate, however, Clinton chastised Trump for his unwillingness to pledge that he would accept the outcome of the election, reserving the right to challenge voter fraud. She called Trump's statement "horrifying". (Green Party's Stein Files For Wisconsin Vote Recount by Jermoe Corsi).

btw, the title of the article (as per the URL) is "Operation Steal Seeks Recount To Declare Hillary Winner". Something I've noticed about WND articles in the past (the URL gives a different title than what is displayed on the page). What's the reason? To appear more reasonable on the page, but give the REAL message via the URL (my hypothesis).

Anyway, the jist of the article is that Democrats are hypocrites for doing now what HRC would be "horrifying" before her supposed loss. Also that this is a Democrat attempt to "steal" the election. A message the Libertarian idiot Willis Hart agress with in a 11/25/2016 post. Sans the "they're trying to steal it" BS, but with the addition of the "consistent moral yardstick" argument he's used in the past. That he has one, while those he criticizes don't (BS the arrogant jackass has spouted on his blog many times previously).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Left Made a Monstrous Deal Over Trump Saying that He Might Not Accept the Results of the Election but Now that They've Lost They're Protesting, Rioting, and Even Making Claims of Voter Fraud... Would somebody please wrap up a consistent moral yardstick and put it under their Christmas tree, for Christ? A couple of irony stocking stuffers, too. (11/25/2016 AT 10:16pm).

Correction, moron... it was establishment Dems who made the "monstrous deal" out of Trump's "rigging" charges. And it was these Democrats who, in doing so, walked right into the trap laid by Trump. I'll admit that many Democratic voters likely agreed. Because there are people on both side who will agree with whatever they're told. People who don't think for themselves. Or the politically un or ill informed who are either not familiar with how much election fraud the Republicans are engaged in (Kris Kobach's Interstate Crosscheck system) or simply refuse to believe it.

But the Democratic Party as a whole (informed voters and other Leftist organizations) never agreed that the election was going to be "free and fair" and that there wouldn't be any rigging. There are MANY on the Left who know the Republicans are masters at election rigging (voter suppression & voter disenfranchisement).

My point being that Willis can stick his "consistent moral yardstick" right up his arrogant behind. All the way (the full yard). Asshole.

In any case, nobody on the Left is making claims of voter fraud. Apparently Willis doesn't know the difference between voter fraud and election fraud. Election fraud (which is the actual charge some on the Left are making) concerns those running the elections cheating (Kris Kobach's Interstate Crosscheck).

Voter fraud is virtually non-existent and NO Democrats is claiming it happened. If Willis can point to any Democrat who is... they're out of step with the Democratic Party as a whole (both establishment and non-establishment Democrats). Either Willis is uninformed on the subject or he's a liar.

Image: Sorry, Willis, it's still Trump who is crying about "voter fraud" and NOT Democrats. Regarding Trump's "voter fraud" assertions "several Democrats, including Governor Terry McAuliffe, laughed off the accusations, saying they were baseless". In another tweet Trump wrote "in addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally". Bullshit! Also, voter fraud if it happened (which it DID NOT). There was no voter fraud, you idiot, Willis! There was voter suppression, and it absolutely did cost HRC the election (SWTD #358).

OST #186

WTNPH Gary Johnson LOL

Looks like the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has finally figured out that Gary Johnson (the Libertarian nominee for president) isn't actually a Libertarian (DSD #26).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even Gary Johnson Is an Off-the Rails, Piece-of-Shit Candidate Now (Still Voting for Him, Though, 'Cause, Well, You Know)... And, no, it has nothing to do with the fact that he didn't know about Alepo or that he couldn't name any world leaders (a lot of the more decent ones; Park Geon-hye of South Korea, Tony Tan Keng Yam of Singapore, and Leung Chun-Ying of Hong Kong, just to name three, having names that are too damned difficult to pronounce anyway). It has to do with the fact that he's almost running like a frigging Democrat and doing things like praising "Black Lives Matter", arguing that Christian bakers should be forced at gunpoint to bake cakes for gay weddings (here he puts on full display his absolute lack of understanding of the nonaggression principle), and advocating for a carbon tax, A CARBON TAX!!! Yeah, I'll probably still vote for the guy in that the options are exponentially worse but I was SO hoping to not have to use a clothespin this year. Oh well, maybe in 2020. (10/26/2016 AT 5:24pm).

Regarding Willis saying he's STILL voting for Gary because "well, you know". Actually, no, I don't know. Although I can guess. My guess is that it's because he hates HRC SO MUCH. He also dislike DJT; but his many defenses of the deplorable, while attacking HRC much more, shows (I think) he'll be more disappointed if HRC becomes prez than if it is Trump.

Also because he's a huge fan of oligarchy... and Gary is still VERY much onboard for increasing it. Even if he is adopted some SANE positions (all the positions Willis criticizes him for taking in his commentary).

With the exception of the "gunpoint" idiocy. Pressure can be brought to bear against business owners who discriminate far short of pointing guns at them to force them to SERVE THE PUBLIC. All of the public. NOBODY (Gary Johnson included) is for pointing guns at Christian bakers so they'll set their homophobia aside and not discriminate.

But the pro-discrimination Hartster is so stupid he might actually think this has occurred (police holding guns on "Christian" bakers while they mix up and stick a wedding cake in the oven for a gay couple). As opposed to how this is ALWAYS settled (via the court system).

Anyway, back to the hilarity... Gary Johnson, the guy Willis previously adored, is now a "off-the rails, piece-of-shit candidate". Ha ha ha. I doubt Willis is EVER going to be able to vote sans clothespin.

Also, regarding "it has nothing to do with the fact that he didn't know about Alepo" AKA Aleppo, check this out.

Willis Hart: On Questioning Gary Johnson's Intelligence... I'll bet that he knew the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. (3/12/2016 AT 4:23pm).

That's a reference to gwb, who didn't know the difference. But did Gary? The Aleppo gafe calls the assertion that he would know into question, I think. (FYI, it isn't Park Geon-hye, it's Park Geun-hye).

OST #183

Willis Hart (A Misogynist) Incredibly Eager To Believe Any & All BS He Reads About Hillary Clinton & "Flunkies"

A total FAIL from the misogynist Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On Clinton Flunky, Bill Ivey, Articulating to Fellow Clinton Flunky, John Podesta, that the Best Way for the Democrats to Garner and Maintain Power Is for Them to Take Advantage of an "Unaware and Compliant Citizenry"... But he didn't use the word, pussy, and so the media ignores it. (10/14/2016 AT 6:06pm).

So, it's only the WORD "pussy" and NOT the fact that Trump was bragging about sexually assaulting women that explains why the media is covering this Trump hot mic conversation? Of course not. That Willis suggests this is totally absurd. Everyone who isn't of a certain persuasion knows what Trump said was wrong. And it had little to do with a specific word, crude and offensive as it is.

That persuasion is a man who thinks it's OK to joke about sexual assault (or a woman, unbelievably). Willis Hart has proven himself to be such a man. Someone who would brush off what Trump said as "locker room talk". Which is why I wonder how many women he has sexually assaulted (OST #136).

As for Clinton "flunkies" writing that they (The HRC campaign/Democratic "ruling elites") will benefit from an "unaware and compliant citizenry", I plugged the phrase into Google and the following debunking by Snopes came up. Snopes says FALSE.

Snopes: A more objective reading suggests that Ivey was actually stating the opposite... that a lack of awareness and a tendency toward compliance on the part of the citizenry in recent years was the result of the conflation of entertainment and the electoral process (as exemplified by the rise of Donald Trump), and these phenomena present a problem for democracy which must be countered. (Wacky Leaks).

This more objective reading makes a hell of a lot more sense, BTW. The rubes supporting Trump are the ones who are "unaware and compliant". Proof of this is that they think a inexperienced and politically stupid reality TV star is a good choice for president of the most powerful nation in the world.

In my strong opinion - when people are aware (politically informed) they tend to vote Democrat. An opinion that studies tend to bear out. For example, Pew reports that "Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education" (A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation, 4/7/2015).

Also, according to political analyst Larry Sabato, "the higher the education level, the more likely they are to vote Democratic". PoltiFact ruled that this statement is "mostly true" (Is education level tied to voting tendencies? 11/5/2012).

So why the HELL would Bill Ivey (a Democrat) write that we need more stupidity (unawareness) when that is EXACTLY what is benefiting Trump? Which is why I knew this story was BS before I found the Snopes article. Willis, on the other hand, believes it because he thinks everyone who isn't for Gary Johnson is "unaware" (stupid or misinformed). Something that points to this country being in VERY bad shape, if it were true, given the fact that less than 1% of voters selected Johnson the last time he ran.

Me, I think it's a sign that we aren't in that bad shape. People not being dumb enough to vote for Johnson, that is. There is still the issue of so many people being dumb enough to support Trump. And dumb enough to believe idiocy like HRC and "flunkies" thinking an uninformed and compliant citizenry will benefit - instead of hurt - Democrats.

But the Hartster is clearly THAT dumb. I mean "dumb" politically, not intelligence-wise. Willis Hart is not uninformed. I'd say he is misinformed. VERY misinformed.

OST #182

Re A Misogynist Moron's Post On Hypothetical Hypocrisy

Another commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart that gets filed in the WTF category. To be clear, the "hypocrisy" Hart refers to in his post never actually occurred. He's just guessing and getting offended by what he guesses would happen (which is something he LOVES to do. Get offended by hypocrisy, that is. But the dope usually posts about actual/perceived hypocrisy. As opposed to hypothetical. AKA it didn't happen).

Willis Hart: On Billy Bush Getting Suspended by NBC Because He Once Had a Conversation with Donald Trump About Chicks 11 Years Ago... And I suppose that if Trump and Bush had been two gay guys talking suggestively about a handsome man the punishment would have been exactly the same. Yeah, right. (10/11/2016 AT 4:16pm).

A conversation about chicks? During which they (Trump and Bush) spoke "suggestively". You see my issue here? This is worse than getting offended by something that didn't happen. Donald Trump referred to what was said as "locker room banter", but Hart downplays it even more! Anderson Cooper was correct when he pointed out (during the 2nd potus debate) that what Trump and Bush were talking about was sexual assault.

SEXUAL ASSAULT! As opposed to "talking suggestively", you piece of shit! Oh, and YES, I think anyone talking about sexually assaulting someone should be treated the same. Although that person was Donald Trump, not Billy Bush. So it's (I'd say) at least debatable if Billy Bush should be punished. Perhaps. Wikipedia says he laughed (and more... see video below). Maybe a suspension is in order for laughing? Although Wikipedia says that he's now fired.

But, in regards to Billy Bush being fired... (1) I don't know why he was hired to begin with. I suspect his last name might have something to do with him getting a well paid but easy job. (2) Actual hypocrisy that Willis does not point out would be that nothing was done AT THE TIME. I mean, the exchange exists on video, so obviously other people were aware of what happened. I presume.

Yet nothing came of it until now. Now that it's out and causing bad publicity for NBC. They caved re "criticism online and calls for his resignation". Not that I care. But if there is any hypocrisy (REAL hypocrisy, not hypothetical) this would be it, you idiot Hart.

An idiot as well as a misogynist. I mean, "talking suggestively" about a woman and sexually assaulting her (grabbing a woman by the genitals) are two very, VERY different things. Also (in another context) referring to a woman as a "chick" is OK (I guess). But remember, we're discussing sexual assault. So, to refer to the victims of such an assault as "chicks"... I find that offensive as well.

And, yes, I think Trump has groped. In fact, there is a victim who alleges he did exactly what he says in the video.

Jill Harth, a pageant owner who dealt with Trump in the mid-1990s, sued the businessman in federal court in Manhattan in 1997, alleging "relentless" sexual harassment and assault by Trump, Newsweek reported. In her lawsuit, Harth described a 1992 business meeting she and Trump had at a New York restaurant in which he allegedly reached under the table, touched her thighs and grabbed my intimate private parts. (These Women Say They Know First-Hand Trump Lied When He Denied Really Groping Women Against Their Will by Tierney McAffe. People Politics 10/10/2016).

So he was telling Billy Bush the truth. Looks like it to me, anyway. But, according to the Harster, when Donald Trump recounted his exploits to Billy Bush, it was just "two gay straight guys talking suggestively about a handsome man beautiful woman". NOT sexually assaulting women.

But this is not at all surprising coming from a blogger who has written multiple posts in which he suggests that drunkenness equals consent (if the man and the woman are drunk and have sex and the woman later aserts she was raped... she's lying and the truth is that she changed her mind. Also rape culture is a "thoroughly discredited concept").

Yeah, right. (Note that this a-hole Hart has a history of defending Donald Trump. Although he says he's voting for the liar Gary "what's Aleppo" Johnson).

Video: Donald Trump brags to Billy Bush on how he cheats on Melania and sexually assaults women. Access Hollywood video recorded sometime in 2005 (3:19). Billy Bush was fired after the release of the video on 10/7/2016 while Trump went on to be predisent.

OST #181

On WTNPH's Concern For HRC Health Truther Drew Pinsky Getting Canned

Makes sense that the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart would defend him, given that Pinsky is a fellow Libertarian (Pinsky "has increasingly spoken of the tyranny of governmental overreach").

On the other hand, when Willis wrote about an incident that took place on Dr. Drew's program back on 8/4/2016, he seemed to think Pinsky was a Leftist (Willis authored an outraged post in which he complained about "some transgender" grabbing Conservative Pundit, Ben Shapiro, on Pinsky's show. Part of the outraged seemed to have something to do with Pinsky allowing "some transgender" get away with it. See OST #140).

But perhaps Willis, since authoring that post, has discovered that Pinsky is actually a Libertarian? Whatever the case may be, Hart's current outrage concerns Dr. Drew's HLN program being cancelled. Possibly because he's jumped on the lunatic "Health Truther" train (and Willis approves of this line of attack).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that HLN Cancelled Dr. Drew's Program Only Several Days After He Questioned Not Just Mrs. Clinton's Health but Her Healthcare (the Fact that She's on Coumadin, for Example, an Old Drug that Is Rarely Used These Days) [Link]... It could be a coincidence (I guess that they're also deep-sixing Nancy Grace - THANK GOD!). But how many more coincidences are the Clintons allowed before we start to get a wee-bit suspicious? I mean, they are beginning to stockpile (Bill Clinton's "chance" meeting with the AG, Seth Rich and four or five others ending up dead, Bernie Sanders getting butt-fucked, etc.). (9/6/2016 AT 4:15pm).

OK, so IMO it's far more likely that DJT is suffering from a serious health problem that could affect him being commander-in-chief. What with that bogus doctor's note he put out. It's cause to think, what's he hiding? Whereas HRC has released an actual doctor's report on her health.

As for why HLN cancelled Dr. Drew's program, I frankly do not give a shit. I've never watched any of his programs, nor watched HLN. Except when Joy Behar had a program on that channel (The Joy Behar Show, which ran on HLN from 2009 to 2011).

But maybe Pinsky was fired for spouting off on this Right-imagined conspiracy theory? If so I say "good for them" (whoever at HLN cancelled him). If he's going to go out of his way to say "hey, I'm a nut who buys into Right-wing conspiracy theories", I say he should be cancelled.

BTW, in regards to Coumadin (a brand name for the drug Warfarin), it "is still very commonly prescribed by doctors" (according to Snopes). So, while it may be an old drug ("it was approved for use as a medication in 1954"), that it is "rarely used these days" is a false assertion.

But this is part of the Health Truther spiel. Which Dr. Drew is apparently on board with, given the fact that (as the Daily Beast notes), the "page-and-a-half letter from Dr. Lisa Bardack, Clinton's physician at Mount Kisco Medical Group, [addresses] all of Pinsky's grave concerns [re HRC's health]" (Dr. Drew Leads the Hillary Clinton Health Truthers).

So he's ignoring the evidence right in front of him and just going with the narrative/conspiracy theory, in other words. The one that says HRC is at death's door (and thus not fit to lead the country). And Willis buys it, apparently. Whereas the Hartster has not once mentioned the BS letter from Manhattan gastroenterologist Harold Bornstein (Trump's doc) and the bizarre letter he wrote. The one that said Trump (if he "wins") would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency".

As for "coincidences", I fail to see how this qualifies. The only reason this could qualify as a "coincidence" is if you thought Dr. Drew getting fired was somehow of benefit to HRC, which I don't see. I mean, the conspiracy theory lives on. It isn't as if Dr. Drew continuing to add his voice to the chorus (and using his show as a platform to do so) would make a difference in the election.

The more logical explanation is that Pinsky's ratings slipped. Or that his bosses heard his rant and said "get rid of this quack" (which would be what my reaction would've been, were I an HLN bigwig).

FYI, Willis mentions Seth Rich, which is a reference to another conspiracy theory that says Rich (an HRC for potus campaign staffer) was the source of the DNC WikiLeaks dump, and that HRC had him murdered for his betrayal. To which I say (WTNPH mentioning the conspiracy theory, not the conspiracy theory itself)... figures. He's down with ALL the HRC conspiracy theories. All the while totally ignoring all the Trump ones.

Image: HRC "health truther" Drew Pinsky, a Libertarian nut who (like Willis Hart) thinks democracy is tyranny and who has said that "ObamaCare will fail" and that he is sick of the government.

OST #177

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Little People of America, the world's oldest and largest dwarfism support organization and an international, membership-based organization for people with dwarfism and their families, advocates to abolish the use of the word "midget". The word "midget" was never coined as the official term to identify people with dwarfism, but was created as a label used to refer to people of short stature who were on public display for curiosity and sport. Today, the word "midget" is considered a derogatory slur. The dwarfism community has voiced that they prefer to be referred to as dwarfs, little people, people of short stature or having dwarfism, or simply, and most preferably, by their given name. When we surveyed our community about the usage and overall impact of the word "midget", over 90% of our members surveyed stated that the word should never be used in reference to a person with dwarfism. (LPA issues statement to abolish the "m" word. September 2015).

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

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

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

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

OST #166

In What Bizarro Universe Should HRC Be Prosecuted For Having A Private email Server Even Though She Did't Break The Law?

In the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's Bizarro universe, apparently. And he also thinks that because Republican FBI Director James Comey decided not to prosecute HRC that "someone got to him".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that in FBI Director James Comey's Bizarro Universe, the Terms "Extremely Careless" and "Gross Negligence" Are World's Apart... Somebody got to him. And if you listen to the man's presentation, everything that he said pointed straight to a recommendation to indict (the fact that dozens of these messages were considered classified AT THE TIME, the fact that her server wasn't even as secure as Gmail, his admission that other people would have been penalized for these transgressions, etc.). And then, kaboom, nothing!!! Oh well, time to move on, I guess. (7/6/2016 AT 5:17pm).

So previously Willis indicated that he was positive that HRC would be forced to run her campaign from a prison cell, meaning she would be prosecuted and convicted before voting in November of 2016 (OST #133). Now that that has not happened (which I predicted it would not) Willis thinks "someone got to him"?!

No, the reason HRC isn't being prosecuted is because she did not break the law. As he indicated in testimony today (7/7/2016) before the House Oversight Committee, chaired by Jason Chaffetz. (Note: audio clips sourced from The Stephanie Miller Show 7/7/2016 and transcribed by me).

AUDIO CLIP #1 Jason Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton break the law? James Comey: In connection with her use of the email server? My judgement is that she did not. Jason Chaffetz: You're just not able to prosecute it, or did Hillary Clinton break the law? James Comey: I don't want to give an overly lawyerly answer, but the question I always look at is - is there evidence that would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that someone engaged in conduct that violated a criminal statute. And my judgement here is that there is not. AUDIO CLIP #2 James Comey: When I look at the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton, or those with those whom she was corresponding, both talked about classified information on email, and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law. So, given that assessment of the facts [and] my understanding of the law, my conclusion was (and remains) no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the 2nd case in a hundred years focused on gross negligence. So I know that's been a source of confusion for some folks. That's just the way it is. I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would and nobody did. (Audio clips via the Stephanie Miller Show 7/7/2016, Transcribed by me).

Stephanie Miller (on the 7/6 edition of her show) informed her listeners and viewers there would be no charges because "the case lacked the aggravating factors that have lead prosecutors to press charges in the past. Comey noted those previously charged in such instances intentionally or willfully mishandled classified information, or did so in such vast quantities that they must have known what they were doing...".

In addition SM noted (quoting an AP story) that such mishandling of information was routine and "consistent with the State Department culture over the past 2 administrations".

So, the standard (regarding decisions on whether or not to bring charges) is (apparently) not "gross negligence" but whether or not the person violated the rules intentionally. Although Willis is clearly convinced that the standard is Gross Negligence alone.

But it isn't. HRC did not break the law because there was no intent. End of story.

The only reason the Hartster finds this "bizarre" is because he strongly dislikes HRC and desperately wanted to see here prosecuted. BTW, that the bush administration also mishandled sensitive information? Yeah, that happened. And the bush White House also deleted a 22 million emails ("a possible violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act") in a successful attempt to coverup election fraud - AG Alberto Gonzales fired US attorneys who wouldn't investigate fake/non-existent voter fraud cases (SWTD #331).

What's truly bizarre IMO is that Gonzales was pressured to step down. And then, kaboom, nothing! This when the evidence CLEARLY pointed to INTENTIONAL violations of the law (bushie attempts to manipulate the vote to get gwb re-elected).

And the main reason this HRC email server controversy went as far as it did - a fricking FBI investigation (when there was no investigation re actual bushie crimes) is because Republicans use EVERY opportunity to attack Democrats. And refuse to stop even when THEIR OWN investigations conclude that Democrats did nothing wrong.

They just "investigate" again (and again, and again)! This explains the 13 published reports on Benghazi. All of which found that there was no "stand down" order, no intelligence failure leading to the Benghazi tradegy, and no administrative wrongdoing (Benghazi By The Numbers).

Now I hear that Congressional Republicans plan to appoint a special prosecutor to further investigate HRC re her private email server. And the FACT that the purpose of this "investigation", JUST LIKE the Benghazi "investigation" was to politically harm HRC's presidential campaign (Republican Whistleblower Confirms Benghazi Investigation Is Illegally Targeting Clinton).

And yet, the outrage of Willis concerns ONLY these fake HRC scandals (he's also quite outraged re HRC/Benghazi) and not the fact that these "investigations" are purely political? And illegal, given that it's a violation of federal law (31 U.S.C. § 1301) to use official government resources for political purposes.

OST #156. See also SWTD #338.

Is Willis Hart Suffering From Cognitive Problems Due To A Permanent Anoxic Brain Injury?

The following from BrainAndSpinalCord.com. Information which is pertinent to a point I'm going to make regarding the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Adequate oxygen is vital for the brain. ... When oxygen levels are significantly low for four minutes or longer, brain cells begin to die and after five minutes permanent anoxic brain injury can occur. Anoxic brain injury which is also called cerebral hypoxia or hypoxic-anoxic injury (HAI) is a serious, life-threatening injury; it can cause cognitive problems and disabilities. (Anoxic Brain Injury).

There are many reasons I suspect Willis may be suffering from cognitive problems, but I am not the only one who thinks Mr. Hart has "apparently shed his ability to reason". This observation regarding the Hartster by a former commenter on his blog, as well as a "fellow" Libertarian Rational Nation.

"Shed his ability to reason" due to damage caused by an anoxic brain injury? The following commentary by Mr. Hart COULD explain how that might have occurred.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that I'd Still Waiting for John Oliver's 22 Minute Epic Diatribe Directed at Hillary Clinton (You Know, to Balance Out the Over-the-Top One that He Bludgeoned Trump with); One of the Biggest Piece of Shit Lawyers and Politicians Since Nixon... I can only hold my breath for so long, people. (5/4/2016 AT 5:25pm).

Hillary Clinton is "one of the biggest piece of shit lawyers and politicians since Nixon", huh? And yet Willis sez that, if you held a gun to his head, he'd vote for her over Donald Trump. Even though Hillary Clinton (Willis also sez) is going to be indicted, convicted and go to prison (for "crimes" she committed re her email server) BEFORE voting in November (OST #133).

(This commentary, btw, marks the 2nd time he's referred to Hillary Clinton using the phrase "piece of shit", whereas in the past the hypocrite took GREAT offense when a Lefty blogger referred to Sarah Palin as "classless piece of excrement". See OST #119).

But it is HIGHLY unlikely that HRC is going to be indicted. Also, I'd say the probability of a conviction and locking up behind bars of Clinton has about a zero percent chance of occurring. Zero, as in none. BTW, NONE of these assertions by Willis are a joke. Unlike the John Oliver "22 minute epic diatribe directed at Hillary Clinton" that Willis is holding his breath waiting for.

At least I THINK he's joking in regards to Oliver. I'm pretty sure that he knows there will never be such an episode of "Last Week Tonight". Although if not... if he is actually holding his breath? Although not continuously, as he'd be dead if that were the case. As opposed to authoring (on the average) 3 posts daily.

If he actually is holding his breath, then that could result in an anoxic brain injury. And it absolutely could explain why he's shed his ability to reason (cognitive problems).

There has to be some explanation as to why Willis would vote for Hillary over Donald if HRC is comparable (re piece of shitness) to Nixon. With all the Trump defending (this commentary not withstanding) the Hartster does on his blog, it's pretty clear he views the Trumpster as AT LEAST marginally better.

Trump is, after all (according to WTNPH) the "only Republican candidate who's making sense on Syria", "doesn't seem hellbent on a second cold war", "had the good sense to see that Bush's Iraq War was a turkey right from the get", was disgusted by the "bum's rush" the media is guilty of (in attacking the Donald), and has thought on multiple occasions "that maybe, just maybe, he isn't that bad".

Not that bad because all his racist, bigoted and misogynistic comments (SWTD #324) are actually only (in WTNPH's opinion) "impolitic statements".

Yeah, I think the majority of the country would not describe racism, bigotry and misogyny as "impolitic". But these kind of comments would not be considered unusual coming from an socially intolerant Conservative Trump-supporting blogger. Or perhaps someone suffering from cognitive problems due to a permanent anoxic brain injury caused by holding his breath for to long.

Video: As for Trump having "the good sense to see that Bush's Iraq War was a turkey right from the get", the Donald did say "I guess" when asked (in a 2002 Howard Stern Interview) if he supported the Iraq invasion. Which was at "the get" (RIGHT when the war was beginning). But Willis is apparently unaware of what Trump actually said at the time, instead believing Trump's lies about being against the war from the beginning (there is more than one WTNPH commentary praising DJT in this regard on his blog). But, given that Willis thinks that bush LYING us into the Iraq war was just "ham-handed and ultimately tragic", it's impossible to take what he says on this topic seriously. Especially given the fact that he believes the lying Trump and downplays the lies of gwb (OST #113)(2:41).

OST #141

On Donald Trump Defender Willis Hart Lying About "What The Video Clearly Shows" Re Trump Lackey Roughing Up A Reporter

The Libertarian blogger, and frequent Trump defender/apologist, Willis Hart spins a bald-faced lie in defense of Donald Trump.

Willis Hart: On Breitbart's Michelle Fields Claiming that She Was Roughed Up by a Trump Lackey When the Video Clearly Shows that She Wasn't... How many more of these ludicrous incidents do we have to endure before we can finally conclude that women are just as capable of lying as men are and that we should probably be a tad more skeptical when these accusations (and worse; the Duke lacrosse case, for example) are thrown around? Me, I'm already there. (3/27/2016 AT 5:03pm).

When Willis says he's "already there", I assume by "there" he means a place where facts don't matter and he believes what he wants to believe. Because Fields is a liar and the video "clearly shows" she wasn't roughed up MUST be why the "Trump lackey" Corey Lewandowski was charged and arrested for misdemeanor battery by the Jupiter FL police.

This must also be why The Daily Beast has reported that "Video shows Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbing reporter Michelle Fields".

Despite the Trump camp's outright denial that any such altercation occurred, viewers can see at the 10-second mark that Lewandowski reached with his left arm for Fields's left arm, briefly grabbing her. Lewandowski's grasp then broke before he reached again, this time on her left arm, which is where Fields showed she was bruised the day after. (3/11/2016 Daily Beast article by Andrew Kirell & Justin Miller).

And, because the video shows Fields lies must explain why Washington Post reporter Ben Terris said "I had been a witness to the incident between Fields and Lewandowski".

Ben Terris: As security parted the masses to give him passage out of the chandelier-lit ballroom, Michelle Fields, a young reporter for Trump-friendly Breitbart News, pressed forward to ask the Republican front-runner a question. I watched as a man with short-cropped hair and a suit grabbed her arm and yanked her out of the way. He was Corey Lewandowski, Trump's 41-year-old campaign manager. Fields stumbled. Finger-shaped bruises formed on her arm. "I'm just a little spooked", she said, a tear streaming down her face. "No one has grabbed me like that before". She took my arm and squeezed it hard. "I don't even want to do it as hard as he did", she said, "because it would hurt". (Inside Trump's inner circle, his staffers are willing to fight for him. Literally by Ben Terris. 3/10/2016 The Washington Post).

Ben Terris is obviously lying as well. And how stupid to do so when the video "clearly shows" they are! Although it doesn't. And the video showing that Lewandowski does grab Fields, and that there was a witness likely explains why Lewandowski was arrested. In my opinion. Fields being female having NOTHING to do with why she should be believed or not. Although the misogynist Hart apparently thinks Fields is getting the benefit of the doubt simply for being female (despite the fact that there is a male witness).

And, YES, I'm correctly labeling this as misogyny... because Willis is bringing up the Duke LaCrosse case due to his strongly held belief that women FREQUENTLY lie about being raped. When what he thinks actually happened (90 percent of the time) is that two drunk people had sex and the lying slut regretted it (OST #81).

Anyway, that Willis ludicrously says the video shows Fields is being dishonest (when it shows she is being honest) is proof (IMO) that the Hartster is a man that is VERY capable of lying.

Video: Jupiter police release video showing Corey Lewandowski grab Michelle Fields (0:11).

Supporting Document
[DSD #19] The Libertarian Trump Defender. (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he defends Trump, acts as an apologist for Trump, downplays Trump comments, or goes after Trump protestors).

OST #126

On The Fact That Bernie Sanders, In His Capacity As A Recruiter For Vermont U, Hasn't Signed Many African American Players (A Fact That Suggests Racism By Mr. Sanders)

Except that this is not a fact. Bernie Sanders actually has absolutely nothing to do with who gets recruited to play basketball at Vermont U because he does NOT work or consult for the university. Although the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart seems confused on this matter.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the University of Vermont's Basketball Teams (Men and Women) Are Comprised Mostly of White Players... What's the matter, Bernie? You don't like black people up there? (3/28/2016 AT 8:32pm).

As you can see from the images below (which show the teams Willis is referring to) there are Black players. If they didn't like Black people "up there" maybe they'd all be white? In any case WTF does Bernie Sanders have to do with which players the University of Vermont choses? Yeah, absolutely nothing.

Anyway, that Willis Hart, an individual who has demonstrated strong racial prejudices with numerous commentaries on his blog, is completely full of shit to suggest that Bernie Sanders is racist. Especially given the fact that Bernie Sanders' record of standing up for equality.

...Sanders has a 50-year history of standing up for civil and minority rights... As a student at the University of Chicago, Sanders was active in both the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1962, he was arrested for protesting segregation in public schools in Chicago; the police came to call him an outside agitator, as he went around putting up flyers around the city detailing police brutality. While President Bill Clinton and most Democrats in Congress supported so-called welfare reform politics, Sanders not only voted against this policy change, but wrote eloquently against the dog whistle politics used to sell it, saying, "The crown jewel of the Republican agenda is their so-called welfare reform proposal. The bill, which combines an assault on the poor, women and children, minorities, and immigrants is the grand slam of scapegoating legislation, and appeals to the frustrations and ignorance of the American people along a wide spectrum of prejudices". A frequent critique of Sanders is that he is from a very white state. While this is true, he certainly has not ignored issues that matter to people of color. In 2002, he achieved a 93% rating from the ACLU and a 97% rating by the NAACP in 2006. (19 Examples of Bernie Sanders' Powerful Record on Civil and Human Rights Since the 1950s by Zaid Jilani. AlterNet 7/20/2015).

The facts show that Bernie Sanders has been fighting for equality for his whole life, so when Willis Hart says Bernie Sanders doesn't like Black people - the facts say he's full of shit.

And, as the AlterNet article points out, Sanders is from a state that is 77.4% White and 13.2% Black, so, that Vermont's basketball teams only have a few Black players is obviously due to demographics and not racism. Yet more proof that Willis Hart is a total moron!

Images 1+2: The 2015-2016 Vermont Catamounts Men's and Women's basketball rosters.

OST #124

They're All Neocons Now

So now even the Republicans who some say are "seemingly sensible fellows" (John Kasich and Chris Christie) are spouting all sorts of crazy buffoonery about arming this group and shooting down planes from that group. I mean, it's almost as if the Republican party as a whole is under this spell and with the biggest case of amnesia ever (the fact that Iraq was one of the top two or three foreign policy blunders in U.S. history with these bozos seemingly not learning a thing).

Even Donald Trump, who is correct that going into Iraq was a huge strategic blunder says he's going to "bomb the shit" out of ISIS. As if that isn't what Obama HAS been doing. In any case - what to do? The blogger Willis Hart suggests voting Libertarian. I say no.

First of all, the Libertarian running for president, Gary Johnson, has ZERO chance of getting elected president. If you want to prevent the most hawkish candidate from getting elected, then I say there is ONLY one choice, and that choice is Bernie Sanders (SWTD #323).

The following is an excerpt from Senator Sanders' campaign website...

Bernie Sanders: I opposed the first Gulf War... because I believed that there was a way to achieve our goals without bloodshed, through sanctions and concerted diplomatic action. ...in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us. I regret that President Bush did not use that authority properly, and that American combat troops remained there too long. I voted against the war in Iraq, and knew it was the right vote then, and most people recognize it was the right vote today. The only mission President Bush and his neo-conservative friends accomplished was to destabilize an entire region, and create the environment for al-Qaeda and ISIS to flourish. While we must be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm, we cannot and should not be policeman of the world, nor bear the burden of fighting terrorism alone. The United States should be part of an international coalition, led and sustained by nations in the region that have the means to protect themselves. That is the only way to defeat ISIS and to begin the process of creating the conditions for a lasting peace in the region. (Issues: War & Peace. Excerpted from the Bernie 2016 website).

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know what Gary Johnson would do differently, if by some miracle he was elected president (God forbid). And, while Sanders has a real chance of getting elected to the presidency, there is actually no chance at all of a president Johnson. I know I sure as hell would never consider voting for him, given the fact that Libertarians don't believe the government should be doing shit to provide for the General Welfare.

And they're solidly on the side of the wealthy and corporations. Because, if you shrink government, you diminish the power of The People, leaving an opening for the wealthy and corporations to step in and fill the power vacuum (Exposing Libertarianism: The Belief That We Should Give More Power to Those Who Are Corrupting Government).

Yes, we currently have a huge problem with the wealthy bribing our elected officials to do their bidding. But the solution is to reform the system, not jettison it! Our elected officials are supposed to do our bidding, not the will of the donors and special interests. Yet folks like Willis think the solution is to shrink government so it can't do anyone's bidding. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

That Libertarians profess not to believe this would be the result leads me to think they're either incredibly naive or lying. As for Willis Hart? It appears to me that he's a genuinely duped true believing ignoramus.

As for the Harster and Senator Sanders, Willis has said on more than one occasion that ALL politicians are "mixed bags" (quote: "basically every politician who's ever frigging lived... are quintessentially of a mixed nature"), so given the fact that "by far, the biggest category of [federal government] discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and related military programs" you'd think that Willis wouldn't be as hostile to the idea of Sanders winning the democratic nomination as he has been (quote: why can't "Hillary... put this guy... away?").

"This guy" being Senator Sanders and "put away" meaning end his presidential campaign easily). This "wish" (or expectation) that Hillary Clinton should be beating Sanders even though she is clearly considerably more hawkish (Hillary Clinton's Hawkish Record).

Yet there have been ZERO commentaries from Willis lauding or acknowledging Senator Sanders for his anti-war (or at least considerably less hawkish) voting record/positions (President Bernie Sanders Will Save America From Endless Counterinsurgency Wars and Protect Our Nation's Veterans).

Whereas the Harster HAS praised Trump for saying going into Iraq was a strategic mistake and for not being a neocon (or listening to them).

So, while the Hartster does signal Trump out for praise as compared to the rest of the Republican field (in regards to his claims of being against the Iraq war and being less neocon), he has authored no commentaries even acknowledging that Bernie Sanders is considerably less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Proof that Hart's claims of being "moderate" and "centrist" are similar to Fox Nooz's assertion that it's "fair and balanced".

OST #123

Prediction: Willis Hart Wrong Re "Democrats Need To Look Elsewhere For A Candidate... Before The Bitch Gets Indicted"

The misgoynist blogger Willis Hart has a prediction regarding the likely Democratic potus nominee, Hillary Clinton.

Willis Hart: ...just maybe, the Democrats need to look elsewhere for a candidate (you know, before the bitch gets indicted). (3/19/2016 AT 4:16pm).

Previously Willis said HRC is a "lying piece of shit lawyer who may in fact be wearing a jump-suit by election time". MAY, he said. Now he's sounding a LOT more convinced that an indictment is coming. I mean, he didn't say "the Democrats need to look elsewhere for a candidate because the bitch might be indicted".

My prediction is that the Democrats won't "look elsewhere" as it is too late. HRC is well on her way to securing the nomination. Personally I'm for Bernie Sanders, but I'm sure that he's NOT the "elsewhere" Willis is referring to, given that he thinks Sanders is an "economically illiterate socialist buffoon", a "creep", and a "dim bastard" who needs to "climb out of some primordial morass learning how to stand upright while simultaneously keeping the spittle intact".

I'll guess that, even though Willis was enthusiastic about the candidacy of the Republican inexplicably running as a Democrat Jim Webb, he's talking about VP Joe Biden. You know, the guy who decided not to run and currently has zero delegates.

So, no that isn't going to happen. We hear that the Repub establishment might try to take the nomination from Trump via a brokered convention, but HRC is the establishment candidate. And she will likely have enough delegates. If she's the voter's choice AND the establishment's choice she is going to get the nomination.

Anyway, getting indicted for her emails? The likelihood of that happening is extremely low.

TPM's Josh Marshall: Experts Agree Clinton Indictment "Chatter Is Just Plain Ridiculous". ...chances of an indictment are a "far-fetched" idea ...a mix of ignorance and tendentiousness" [TPM, 2/1/15]. ABC News: "There Doesn't Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her". ABC News' legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media outlets hyping the claim that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage. ..."there is no evidence..." [ABC News, 2/1/16] (Experts Push Back Against Right-Wing Media Claim Clinton Emails Violated Federal Law by Cydney Hargis. Media Matters 2/1/2016).

Willis also claims that HRC "kept sensitive national security information on what now appears to have been a poorly encrypted system", suggesting (as the RW media has suggested) that she put this info at risk. But "security logs... show no evidence of any foreign hacks" (No evidence of hack in Hillary Clinton's email, former tech aide tells FBI).

Bottom line here... I seriously doubt there will be any kind of indictment. Very seriously.

Finally... in regards to the Hartster's previous outrage concerning a Lefty blogger (on a Progressive site he used to visit and comment on) referring to Sarah Palin as "classless piece of excrement", and him saying "I don't condone ad hominem attacks"... what a f*cking hypocrite (OST #119).

But that WTNPH would have one opinion re Sarah Palin and another when he lobs a practically identical fecal-based pejorative at Hillary Clinton is not a surprise at all. Same as it's no surprise that he wanted the Conservative Webb to be the Democrat's nominee (Why EVERY Conservative Should Support Democrat Jim Webb For President).

Video: "This guy's not a Democrat" says Progressive radio host Thom Hartmann (on 3/4/2016) re Jim Webb saying "no, I would not vote for Hillary Clinton" but he might vote for Trump (Jim Webb: I won't vote for Clinton, but I may for Trump)(1:29).

Supporting Document
[DSD #21] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Suffers From A Bad Case Of (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he criticizes HRC, specifically in regards to the email controversy).

OST #121

Wills Hart Astounding Hypocrisy Re OK For Him To Call Hillary Clinton A Piece Of Shit, Not OK For Lefties To Refer To Sarah Palin As Excrement

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart likes to present himself as a Moderate type of guy who dislikes both Republicans and Democrats equally, but he's a total phony and hypocrite.

Willis Hart: On the Prospect of a Trump Versus Clinton Race this Fall... I'm taking a mental shower just thinking about it (an erratic ego-maniacal snake-oil salesman versus yet another lying piece of shit lawyer who may in fact be wearing a jump-suit by election time). (3/3/2016 AT 3:44pm).

First of all, Hillary isn't going to be wearing a jumpsuit (due to being convicted of crimes relating to having a private email server). This assertion is delusional thinking you'd expect coming from some far Right nutter.

Secondly, Willis referring to HRC as a "lying piece of shit" is rich, given his sustained outrage when he read similar comments concerning Sarah Palin on a Lefty blog (back when he ventured outside of his echo chamber).

Willis Hart Post: Sarah Palin obviously exploited that motorcycle rally today. But, come on here, folks... some of the vitriol of late; "media whore", "trailer trash", "classless piece of excrement", "trashy wench"... it's really starting to scare me, people. (5/30/2011 AT 4:26pm). Willis Hart Post: On Sarah Palin Being a Classless Piece of Excrement... The debate (between me and this small contingent of progressives) isn't about whether Sarah Palin is qualified to be President (she isn't)... It's about how low people apparently have to go to feel superior. ... Look, folks, I'm sure that there are conservative blogs out there that are equally vile toward the President... But, as of now, I haven't seen a single one. (6/2/2011 AT 7:54pm). Willis Hart Post: The Indecency of Extremism... Only in the farthest fetters of far-left (i.e., progressive) la-la land would the "defending" of Sarah Palin against slurs such as "worthless piece of excrement"... be considered as "defending Sarah Palin". It's insane, folks. (6/29/2011 AT 3:30pm). Willis Hart Comment: I don't condone ad hominem attacks, Shaw. I don't condone that guy calling you "vermin". I don't condone Lesley Parsley calling Sarah Palin "a worthless piece of excrement". (3/16/2012 AT 1:10pm). Willis Hart Comment: Hopefully, I will never go quite that far. [calling SP excrement] (4/7/2012 AT 3:32pm).

That's a HELL of a lot of bellyaching over one comment (from Lesley Parsley on Sue's blog). It offended Willis so much he got scared. Presumably because he couldn't believe Progressives would sink so low (weird, given how much he hates Progressives, referring to them as Regressives). Yet he does the same thing in regards to Hillary Clinton?

Willis said "hopefully, I will never go quite that far", but now he has. Only in the farthest fetters of extreme Conservative (i.e. Libertarian) la-la land would engaging in the hurling of poop-based insults such as "lying piece of shit" (when said person previously objected vigorously to this kind of behavior) not be considered hypocritical in the extreme. The suggestion that Willis Hart was EVER a "moderate"? It's insane, folks.

Supporting Document
[DSD #21] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Suffers From A Bad Case Of (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he criticizes HRC, specifically in regards to the email controversy).

OST #119

On The Fact That Blogging Hacks Like Willis Hart Constantly State Politicians He Dislikes Hold Positions They Don't Actually Hold (Bernie Sanders Is Opposed To Civil Asset Forfeiture & Eminent Domain Abuses)

The Libertarian blogging hack Willis Hart frequently lies about politicians he doesn't like. (He lies or simply doesn't bother to check if what he's saying is accurate, but I say what's the difference).

BTW, when I say Willis is a blogging hack, I mean he attempts "to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle" (verb used with object #4) the truth. He often REALLY mangles it.

Willis, in a 10/17/2015 blog post, harshly damages the truth when he uses the word "hack" to mean "a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack" (noun #2).

On the Fact that Political Hacks Like Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, and Elizabeth Warren Never Seem to Get All that Exorcised Over Things Such as Civil Asset Forfeiture or Eminent Domain Abuses... Not surprising in that if you look at the fine-print of their progressive mission-statement it reads, "except when the oppressor is the state". (10/17/2015 AT 9:45pm).

Willis hacks away at the truth, mangles and mutilates it with his false claims about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (as for him throwing Barney Frank into the mix, I say WTF... given the fact that Barney Frank isn't in politics any longer).

First up, the truth about Bernie Sanders and civil asset forfeiture.

Bernie Sanders: So-called civil asset forfeiture laws allow police to take property from people even before they are charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. Even worse, the system works in a way that makes it very difficult and expensive for an innocent person to get his or her property back. We must end programs that actually reward officials for seizing assets without a criminal conviction or other lawful mandate. Departments and officers should not profit off of such seizures. (Bernie Sanders Official 2016 POTUS Campaign Website).

Secondly, in regards to "eminent domain abuses", when Libertarians whine about this issue what they frequently point to is the 2005 SCOTUS case Kelo v. City of New London in which the court decided that eminent domain could be used to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.

But many on the Right and Left agree that this was a bad decision.

National Review columnist and prominent political commentator Charles C.W. Cooke argues that a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's widely despised 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London might attract broad bipartisan support. Unlike most amendments proposed in recent years, its appeal would not be limited to just one side of the political spectrum. Conservatives and libertarians opposed the ruling because it endangers private property rights, while many on the left did so because economic development takings often victimize the poor and racial minorities. (A constitutional amendment to overrule Kelo v. City of New London and protect property rights against abusive takings by Ilya Somin. WP 10/16/2015).

Bernie Sanders, while in the House of Representatives, voted YEA on a bill "that would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or treasury funds to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London" (Congress uses its domain to fight court's home-seizure rules).

So Bernie Sanders *is* exorcised over civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain abuses, in that he's opposed to them. There is no fine-print in his "progressive mission-statement" that reads "except when the oppressor is the state". This claim from Willis is pure BS and proof of the Hartster's disgusting hackery.

OST #114

Willis Hart Lies Re Trump Comments On Iraq War, Downplays, Spouts BS About Left Not Acknowledging Trump Truthtelling, Pats Self On Back

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart may be a weak bush apologist, but he's still a bush apologist. This time he misrepresents what Trump said during the 6th gop debate on 2/13/2016, in am effort to downplay "one of the most scathing denunciations of Bush & GOP on Iraq of any major presidential candidate ever" (which is how Glenn Greenwald described what Trump said).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Donald Trump Is the Only Republican Candidate Who's Had the Cajones to Bitch-Slap George W. Bush for His Ham-Handed and Ultimately Tragic Iraq War Policy... I'm not a big Trump supporter but I, unlike your average partisan stooge blogger whose entire existence is one mindless and gratuitous anti-Trump post after another, am willing to give credit where credit is due. And, yes, on this particular issue, Trump deserves some credit (not just for being right but for standing up to his own party and withstanding the boos - and, yes, there were many). Boom, done. (2/15/2016 AT 8:33pm).

Ham-handed and ultimately tragic?! No, Willis, Trump's words were not that mild!

Donald Trump: Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right? George Bush made a mistake, we can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. *Crowd boos* Donald Trump: They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction – there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction". *Crowd boos louder* (New Trump Booed for Reminding GOP of Bush's 9/11 Failure and Iraq War Lies by Jon Queally. Common Dreams 2/14/2016).

The bush administration LIED! There were no WMD and the bushies KNEW it! Trump says nothing about the Iraq war being "ham handed" or "ultimately tragic", Willis! Geez, if you're going to give someone credit for a "bitchslapping", how about giving them credit for what they ACTUALLY said? Instead Willis uses his own (much more mild) words (in the "both sides do it" apologist mode). Obviously Willis can't bring himself to address the fact that bush LIED.

BTW, I ABSOLUTELY am willing to give credit where credit is due... despite the fact that Trump has now walked back his "bitch slapping".

Trump: I Didn't Say George Bush Lied To Invade Iraq, But It's A Fact He Did Not Keep Us Safe On 9/11 (2/15/2016 Real Clear Politics article, excerpt) Trump said Bush lied about the existence of WMD... but did not explicitly say the former president lied to the country into war. "You call it whatever you want. I will tell you. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction and there were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction", Trump said...

bush lied about WMD, but he didn't lie us into war? Here I thought the entire rationale for war (or most of it) was that "we cannot wait for the final proof - the smoking gun - that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud". If you say the bushies lied about WMD you're saying they lied us into war, I say.

But back to Willis Hart... while he gives Trump kudos, he obviously can NOT bring himself to say that bush lied about WMD himself!

Willis Hart: On the Fact that No High Profile Elected Democrat (Save for Possibly Dennis Kucinich) Has Ever Gone as Far as Trump Has in His Full-Throated Condemnation of George W. Bush (Calling Him a Liar, etc.)... Say what you want about Donald. He does have cajones and on this particular example, I say, amen. (2/23/2016 AT 8:36pm).

OK, so (this time) Willis mentions that Trump called gwb a liar, but does he AGREE with that statement? One might infer that Willis agrees, but he doesn't out-and-out say it. Why not? Perhaps because he doesn't think gwb lied?

Willis Hart: As for Mr. Bush "lying", I don't know if he lied or he didn't. (5/23/2012 AT 10:28am). Willis Hart: You say that he lied but maybe he actually believed that Saddam had wmd and was simply wrong. (5/26/2012 AT 3:36pm). Willis Hart: You gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero. (7/10/2012 AT 7:00pm). Willis Hart: you've given me absolutely ZERO hard data that President Bush lied. No documentation, no inconsistent statements... nothing (8/2/2012 AT 8:38am).

Sounds pretty definitive to me that WTNPH rejects the idea that gwb lied about WMD. And I'm never read a retraction on Willis' blog. And, not only does Willis not think bush lied (at least at the time he made the above comments), but he previously stated strong support for regime change.

Willis Hart: I recognize now that Sadam pretty much had to go. I just wish that President Bush hadn't de-Baathified the country and disbanded the military in that those 2 things really strengthened the Iranian bastards. (6/28/2013 AT 8:39pm).

(Note: Willis thinks we should have gotten rid of Saddam via assassination. The 2 things he says should not have been done are his criticisms of how the war was conducted after the invasion and do not indicate support for going to war in the first place).

Yeah, those comments vociferously defending bush against lying accusations are all a few years old - and it's possible that Willis has since changed his mind. But, like I said, I've never seen a retraction. And, add to that this the FACT that Willis NEVER explains WHAT he's giving credit to Trump for. He only mentions a "bitch slapping" for an "ultimately tragic Iraq war policy" (without even mentioning the fact that Trump said bush lied) in his first post.

In his 2nd Trump-crediting post WTNPH does mention the fact that the Donald says bush lied. But does Willis agree? Who knows? Because Willis doesn't have the cajones to say BUSH LIED himself. Which is why I call bullshit on WTNPH for BOTH his praising of Trump AND his assertion that a "partisan stooge blogger" (a category I am positive he'd place me in) wouldn't/couldn't give Trump any credit.

I'm doing it right now myself. Boom, done. And I've heard others on the Left doing the same thing (see here for one example).

One last point regarding the Hartster patting himself on the back re his superiority to "your average partisan stooge blogger"... That just about makes me want to barf.

Video: Trump "bitch slaps" Jeb at the 6th gop debate on 2/13/2016 by pointing out that his brother did NOT "keep us safe" (1:30).

Supporting Document
[DSD #18] The Crappy bush Apologist. (A catalog of MANY comments by WTNPH defending bush re his invading of Afghanistan and Iraq).

2/28/2016 Update: I am retracting the credit I gave Trump for "bitch slapping" Jeb! with the truth about his brother. Which was the W lied about WMD in Iraq. Why? Because Trump has revised what he said at the debate. Now he doesn't know whether or not W lied (see SWTD #326).

OST #113

Surprise! Libertarian Blogger Buys Rightwing Spin Re Mitch McConnell Vow To Not Consider Obama Scalia Replacement

The blogger Willis Hart claims to be a Libertarian-leaning Moderate, but (as is so often the case) he allows the Rightwing media to inform his views.

Willis Hart: On Mitch McConnell's Threat to Block Any Potential Obama Supreme Court Appointment... It's unfortunate but being that Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing at the end of W's second term it's hard to be surprised by it. Welcome to D.C. in the 21st Century, folks. (2/17/2016 AT 7:50pm).

Not really, according to Media Matters... and yes, Media Matters is Leftwing. A source Willis would dismiss out-of-hand, most likely with a pejorative like labeling them part of the "Regressive media".

Media Matters: Media are making false comparisons between current Republican rhetoric and past Democratic actions and comments to undermine the president's pledge to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Unlike Democrats in the past, Republicans are indicating they will refuse to even engage in the nomination process at all, an abdication of their basic constitutional responsibilities that is unprecedented. [quoting CBS, 2/15/2016] Schumer's argument was not one of timing and the closeness of the presidential election. He just didn't think much of either of President Bush's picks. Schumer's recommendation stemmed from his feeling that the Senate had insufficient information when it confirmed his two picks, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to the court. "It appears we were not given the most accurate picture of the nominees we confirmed", Schumer said. "We were presented a misleading portrait". He accused both justices of making decisions that "flouted precedent" and, essentially, legislating from the bench. He argued that Senate had to "engage in conjecture" to understand the nominees' way of thinking and method of reasoning because their records were thin. (Media Use False Comparisons To Undermine Obama's Supreme Court Nomination).

Of course we don't know if Congressional Republicans will follow through with their threat yet, but Schumer objected to the nominees... he was NOT refusing to consider ANYONE... making the Willis' claim that "the Democrats did it too" bullshit.

In fact, the Democrats were never even given an opportunity to follow through with Schumer's "threat", because there were no further SCOTUS vacancies after Roberts and Alito were confirmed WITH DEMOCRATIC VOTES. Which, I would say, is the biggest difference between the McConnell and Schumer statements... Schumer was talking about hypothetical appointments, while McConnell is speaking of an ACTUAL appointment. A fact that makes this McConnell/Schumer statement equating such a f*cking brain-diseased narrative.

BTW, the reason behind the Schumer statement? He made it because the Democrats felt snookered by both "balls and strikes" Roberts and "elections should be for sale to the highest bidder" Alito.

Senate Democrats regret supporting Roberts, Alito (excerpt from a 7/23/10 The Hill article by J. Taylor Rushing) Twenty-two Democrats backed Roberts in 2005, while four supported Alito four months later. From the rank and file to senior members, Democrats widely said they were particularly frustrated that Roberts, during his confirmation hearings, portrayed himself as an umpire merely calling balls and strikes. Instead, they say, he has joined the far-right wing of the court and been a leading voice in recent controversial 5-4 rulings. Some of the regrets have been caused by two recent 5-4 decisions with which Democrats have disagreed. Most notably, the Roberts court voted 5-4 in June 2008 to strike down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, a decision that broadened gun rights and was a severe blow to gun-control efforts. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Anthony Kennedy signed the majority ruling.

Another ruling that had Dems regretting their support for Roberts and Alito? (this is the one that I alluded to above by pointing out that Alito believes that our elections should be available for purchase).

Feingold Slams Supreme Court over "Citizens United", Implies Roberts and Alito Lied Under Oath (excerpt from a 9/17/2010 Common Dreams article by Matthew Rothschild) Sen. Russ Feingold recently slammed the Supreme Court and strongly implied that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito lied, under oath, to the Senate during their confirmation hearings. In a speech on 9/10/2010, Feingold, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, denounced the "Citizens United" decision that the Court handed down earlier this year. Feingold called it "a lawless decision".

There was a lot of disatification with Roberts and Alito on the Democratic side, with MANY Dems saying they were mislead (Roberts and Alito Misled Us by Edward Kennedy, 7/30/2006). This is QUITE different than the reasoning the Congressional Repubs are currently putting forward regarding why they won't even consider an Obama nominee, which includes such nonsensical reasons as it being the last year of Obama's term. The Constitution doesn't say a potus can't nominate a SCOTUS judge in the last year of his presidency, Mitch! (Mitch McConnell's Arguments Against An Obama Supreme Court Nomination Debunked...)

"Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing at the end of W's second term"??! No, sorry Willis, he did not. But that Willis says this (in agreement with the BS Rightwing spin on their unprecedented obstruction) isn't surprising. Seems the Hartster LOVES these false narratives that paint both sides as equally horrible (because The "Both Sides Do It" Mentality Favors Republicans).

This "both sides do it" narrative is one the the Repubs play up, btw, because they realize NOBODY would buy it if they said they weren't terrible. So they TRY to make it seem like the Dems are equally horrible. This narrative also "gives advocacy to mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road third way types. But, more noticeably, it feeds into the idea of government is the problem" (WTNPH: "I have consistently praised bipartisan efforts... the Concord Coalition, Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, No Labels, The Third Way, the Wyden-Ryan compromise on Medicare, etc").

But the Democrats simply are NOT as bad as the Repubs. I mean, as a Democrat, I acknowledge there are a lot of problems on the Democratic side, but Democrats are still way better than Republicans. Just take a look at the respective potus hopefuls on both sides, for Christ! On the Republican side the candidates are arguing over cutting taxes, who will go to war faster with ISIS and Russia, which one will torture more, who's going to restrict a woman's right to choose harder, etc. And they're all going to take healthcare AWAY from people, of course.

Image: A political cartoon representing the reality of the "choice" between the GOP and the DLC. First there was Bill Clinton, then there was Barack Obama. Now we've got a REAL choice with the 2016 potus primaries. We can choose a genuine Progressive (Bernie Sanders), or go with the establishment's choice again, another DLC corporate Dem in Progressive clothing (Hillary Clinton).

OST #111