Willis Hart (A Misogynist) Sez That If You're Female & In The Public Eye, You've Got To Be A "Babe" (Regardless Of Age)

In a 8/24/2016 commentary, the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart criticizes Hillary Clinton not for Benghazi or her email server (as he has in the past) but for not being a "babe". And he does this via an exceptionally stupid observation regarding HRC aide Huma Abedin.

Willis Hart: America's Next First Lady? [3X pics of Huma Abedin] Well, she is an improvement over the previous few (Mrs. Clinton herself, especially - SO not a babe). That's for certain (her ties to that radical Islamist publication, notwithstanding). (8/24/2016 AT 7:53pm).

If/when HRC is elected president, Huma Abedin will NOT be the First Lady, you moron! First Lady isn't a position that has to be filled. If we elect a woman president, obviously there won't be a First Lady. Or someone else will perform the duties of White House hostess. But won't be called "First Lady", as that could feed the HRC lesbian rumors. Which is foolishness an HRC administration wouldn't need to be distracted with (Pam Geller is Convinced That Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin Are Definitely Lesbians).

As for Huma's "ties to that radical Islamist publication", an 8/21/2016 NYP article notes that Huma worked (for 10 years) as the "assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother [Saleha Mahmood Abedin], who remains editor-in-chief". And then the article goes on to talk about objectionable articles authored by her mother (anti-woman's rights, US brought 9/11 on itself). And the assistant editor position is one Huma held while "she was also working in the White House as an intern for then-first lady Clinton".

Is this cause for concern? Perhaps. Wikipedia notes that "experts on Islam and the members of the journal's advisory board called [the NYP article] ridiculous [because the article] cherry-picked quotes and mischaracterized articles". Additionally, "CNN reported that those familiar with the journal described it as "scholarly, academic and nonpartisan [and that its content] does not raise red flags". NOT a "radical Islamist publication", in other words.

In any case, just because Huma Abedin worked for her mother doesn't mean she shares her mother's views*. Or that she STILL shares them*. And HRC obviously disagrees with Saleha Mahmood Abedin's views* (*if Saleha Mahmood Abedin views are what Rupert Murdoch's NYP says they are). Also remember that Huma Abedin does not set policy. And, while the HRC campaign may not be addressing this presently, I'd be surprised if it doesn't come up before the election. Possibly in a HRC/DJT debate (if he doesn't chicken out).

This, btw, is a subject on which I'd have thought that Willis might go after HRC for. Given how much he hates HRC and Islam (being an Islamophobe). Instead he authors a post that has Huma as First Lady (a title I seriously doubt she'd want) and in which he ogles Huma while dissing Hillary. For their looks. As if that has ANYTHING to do with Huma as HRC's advisor or what HRC did as First Lady.

I'm surprised he didn't bring up the a-hole cartoonist Ben Garrison (a fellow misogynist) and his cartoon that says Melina Trump will make the First Lady position "great again" (this would be the drawing in which he depicts Michelle Obama as a frowning muscled tranny with a bulge). Given how much Willis seems to like this Garrison douche (OST #148).

BTW, I don't know if WTNPH is referring to HRC not being a "babe" now (at 69), or when she was First Lady (ages 46 to 52). Huma Abedin, in the pics Willis used, does look good at 40, while HRC (as FLOTUS) entered the White House at age 46 (1993-2001). But I think she looked pretty good then. Not many women get to the "elderly" age range and are still considered "babes" (Jane Fonda, Sophia Loren, Dolly Parton, Raquel Welch). But not women who age normally (don't get procedures).

But LOOKS are how the misogynist Hartster judges all women. Or most women (perhaps he gives women who share his political views some leniency). I mean, he's written many posts about how he watches Fox Nooz for the hottie anchor babes. Babes he has ranked based on hotness.

In any case, as for HRC not being a "babe", that certainly is not a requirement for First Lady that I have. Although I'd say Michelle Obama is a babe (despite what WTNPH's mancrush Ben Garrison thinks). Although I think HRC definitely (at least) started out as a babe (see image of 18YO HRC below, a picture I found attached to an article titled "Did you know Hillary used to be this hot?").

Images: [1] An 18 year-old Hillary Rodham is shown in her 1965 senior class portrait from East High School in Park Ridge IL. [2] HRC was 1st Lady from 1994 to 2001; this image is from 1995 when she was 48. Perhaps (at this point in her life) she isn't a babe any longer, but I think she looks pretty hot in this particular picture.

OST #174

On Willis Hart Defending Milo Yiannopoulos, A Misogynist Jackass With A History Of Encouraging His Twitter Followers To Harass Women

Willis Hart defends the "journalist, entrepreneur and technology editor for Breitbart.com" in a recent commentary.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Twitter Had to Be Sued Before They Took Down the Tens of Thousands of ISIS Related Accounts but Didn't Hesitate One Second to Ban Milo Yiannopoulos Over Some Racist Tweets that His Followers Were Dishing Out. The hypocrisy and double-standards of the left are really starting to reach critical-mass, I think, with this being a perfect example. I mean, we're talking about fucking ISIS here, for Christ. (7/21/2016 AT 3:58pm).

The lawsuit says Twitter knowingly permitted terrorists to use their network. However, according to Fortune magazine, such lawsuits (there have been a few) are likely to fail.

In any case, Hart's criticism involved Twitter not being vigilant enough in policing their membership and taking down such accounts when they find them. That is likely a valid criticism. I wouldn't know, as I haven't been following that story.

But is Twitter part of "the Left"? Willis asserts that Twitter is. A 7/20/2016 Washington Times article describes Twitter as a "progressive-leaning social media company". So, OK, they're part of "the Left". "Proof" they're out to get this Milo Yiannopoulos jackass? Or maybe they just banned him after issuing multiple warnings and suspending him temporarily several times.

The first suspension came in December of 2015 Twitter decided on because of Yiannopoulos' history of encouraging his followers to attack women (via tweet).

[Previously Yiannopoulos] told a female journalist that she "deserved to be harassed" in response to her complaints about threatening messages she had been receiving due to an article Yiannopoulus had written about her. (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos/Social Media).

Clearly his followers got the message after this incident. And, telling someone they "deserved to be harassed" sounds like a violation of Twitter's "speech and harassment codes" to me.

Yiannopoulos was suspended again in (June 2016) after "criticism of Islam [following] the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting". Then came the 3rd strike less than a month later!

Yiannopoulos was permanently suspended from Twitter on 7/19/2016, after he and other users of the site participated in abuse towards Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones. Yiannopoulos had published a critical review of the film the day prior to being banned. Shortly before the ban, he directly attacked Jones, calling her "barely literate" and describing her as a man. It was also alleged that he was orchestrating abuse. ...Twitter stated that "no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. ... We know many people believe we have not done enough to curb this type of behavior on Twitter. We agree". (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos/Social Media).

Yiannopoulos' response to the lifetime ban was to cry about bias against Conservatives, claiming that "Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives".

Right. Even though this misogynist jackass had been warned twice previously. This, btw, is a common Conservative tactic. It's called working the refs. This tactic involves "complaining constantly about liberal media bias in an attempt to bully reporters and obtain more favorable coverage for their side".

But Yiannopoulos was banned because he deserved to be banned. According to a 7/20/2016 TIME story his "reputation as a troll on Twitter has long eclipsed his journalism" and [re his trolling] he calls himself the "most fabulous supervillain on the Internet".

Although that Willis Hart would take his side is not surprising, given how Yiannopoulos describes himself ideologically and politically.

He rose to notability that year when he began to provide media coverage and commentary surrounding the Gamergate controversy (a controversy that concerned issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate). As a self-identified homosexual, "cultural libertarian" and "free speech fundamentalist", he is a vocal critic of third wave feminism, Islam, social justice theory, political correctness and other movements and ideologies he perceives to be authoritarian and regressive. (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos).

So he's a hater of Black Lives Matter, Radical Marxist Feminists and SJWs just like the Hartster. There is no "double standard" at play here. All that happened was that a jerk and ACKNOWLEDGED troll who had been warned twice before, broke the rules again (making it clear that he had no intention of behaving himself), and was banned for life. As he should have been. End of story.

The only double standard here is that Willis wouldn't be complaining if it were a Leftist who was banned. Although, IMO, Conservatives are more likely to run into these kind of problems because they're so much more intolerant than Liberals. Most of their whines re "Liberal intolerance" concerning Liberal "intolerance" of Conservative bigotry and hate.

Proof that this is the truth are these "religious liberty" laws that Conservative legislatures have been trying to pass. Anti-gay, anti-transgender laws/sentiments that Willis Hart has defended by the way (with commentaries such as "On Making the Planet Safe from Christian Bakers"). This from a guy who claims that he's "socially tolerant". Bullshit!

Supporting Document
[DSD #30] Fanboy Outrage Re Milo Yiannopoulos (A Hard Right Jackass) Being Banned From Twitter (catalouge of WTNPH commentaries in which he defends a misogynist ass because he agrees with this far right views).

Image: Ben Garrison hearts Milo Yiannopoulos. Because they're both misogynist assholes (would be my guess). In this cartoon Ben depicts knight Milo battling the evil SJW hydra.

OST #162

Regarding WTNPH Usage Of The Term "Social Justice Warrior" As A Pejorative (In Agreement With Slimeball Ben Garrison)

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart (no surprise) subscribes to the pejoritive usage of the term "social justice warrior". In the past the term "had been used to refer to Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr [re] their efforts on behalf of social justice". Social justice being defined as "the fair and just relation between the individual and society [which] is measured [by looking at] distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges".

Sounds good, right? I mean, a wide gulf between the poor and the wealthy is not considered a desirable thing (How income inequality hurts America). One of the points of pride for the United States being the fact that we have a strong, powerful and vibrant middle class. Or we used to, at least (it has been eroding ever since the election of Ronald Reagan).

But being called a "Social Justice Warrior" is now an insult. At least when flug by those on the Right. Wikipedia notes that it is "a pejorative term for an individual promoting socially progressive views; including feminism, civil rights, multiculturalism, political correctness, and identity politics".

Willis Hart being opposed to all of these. His opposition taking the form of commentaries on his blog. Misogynist tirades deriding the radical Marxist feminists (AKA feminazis) as well as racist screeds decrying the Black Lives Matter movement (how dare Black people complain about the fact that they're 300% more likely to be shot by the police than a White person).

If you read Hart's blog, you'll find that he believes that political correctness is "bald, unadulterated, virulent tyranny".

Tyranny? Or is Hart "pushing the term in order to divert attention from more substantive matters of discrimination and as part of a broader culture war against liberalism"? (which according to Wikipedia, "commentators on the left have said").

Yes; I think they say this because it's true. According to Conservatives it's intolerant when a Liberal points out a Conservative's intolerance (intolerance of intolerance is intolerant) and "tyranny" when the force of law is used to protect minority rights.

Regarding the "broader culture war against liberalism", Willis Hart uses tactics of the Right and directs his anger most frequently at the Left. Ironic on a blog called "Contra O'Reilly" that Willis too is a culture warrior. Although he dispenses with the defense of "traditionalism" (except when it comes to his transphobia or defense of bakers to not be forced to produce a gay wedding cake) and Christianity (Bill O'Reilly's war on Christmas being one example). Because Hart is a non-believer.

But both Willis and culture warriors on the Right like O'Reilly hate the Left (Progressives, IMO, easily beating out Neocons as the source of the bulk of his ire). And he employs many of the Right's buzzwords. Marxist feminists (women for pay equality who speak against our rape culture, etc), minstrels (Black Liberals with a media platform), Warmists (people who believe in science re AGW) as well as others I'm likely overlooking.

And now (to add to that list) he employes (as a pejorative) "Social Justice Warrior" (SJW).

Willis Hart: Like with this Garrison fellow who did the Michelle Obama looking like a power-forward cartoon (which, yes, was somewhat distasteful but then a great amount of satire tends to be - HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The SJWs went after him full-bore (he even got death-threats which makes SJWs no better than al Qaeda) and now he's more popular than ever. Oops, OOOOOOOOPS. (5/31/2016 AT 5:13pm).

I don't know about death threats against Garrison. I'll believe Willis that there have been some. Although I'd point out that ALL that this proves is that there are nuts of all political persuasions. But Willis uses the (supposed) death threats to paint ALL SJWs as "no better than al Qaeda".

FYI, Willis, al Qaeda ACTUALLY kills people, whereas people who respond badly to slimes such as Ben Garrison hardly ever follow through. Not that death threats are OK (they aren't), but I'd be ASTOUNDED if (we later found out) that anyone who (supposedly) made such a threat then proceeded to (attempt) to carry it out (it's all hyperbole, or "an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally"). Unlike the Taliban. Who threaten people with death... and then kill them.

Secondly, Willis' description of Garrison's cartoon as "Michelle Obama looking like a power-forward" and "somewhat distasteful", is highly offensive. IMO and in the opinion of many others, I'm sure (see OST #148 for my expanded commentary on Garrison's racist, misogynistic and transphobic cartoon).

Although, that Willis cheers Garrison gaining popularity (supposedly) due to the outrage of SJWs, is no surprise given how much he has in common with this sack of excrement.

Ben Garrison is an American editorial cartoonist from Montana. His stated goal is "to help raise awareness of the drift toward tyranny". He is a self-described libertarian, though his cartoons tend to contain a strong paleoconservative streak as well. In his cartoons and writing on his blog, he has expressed strong opposition to Islam, political correctness, social justice warriors, neoconservatism, gun control, the Federal Reserve, [etc]. (RationalWiki/Ben Garrison).

Paleoconservatives apparently are Conservatives who have gone back to the roots of Conservatism. The roots being the belief that (as per RationalWiki) "more capitalism and xenophobia can solve everything". Paleoconservatives are also subscribe to religious bigotry (homophobia), nationalism, isolationism, and economic protectionism".

So, although Garrison's Paleoconservative ideology doesn't quite square with Libertarianism, it does explain explain why he is a Trump supporter. Willis Hart, as a Libertarian, rejects (or says he rejects) most of that (with the exception of worshipping capitalism). Yet he takes schadenfroh delight that the (supposed) SWJ campaign to damage Garrison's livelihood (supposedly) backfired (and benefited the dirtball Garrison instead).

What this points too, I think, are the Hartster's biases. And shows he is MUCH more strongly aligned with the Right (despite his claims of criticizing the Right and Left equally). The truth is that his criticisms are (most often) confined to anti-Neoconservative screeds. As well as screeds against anyone voicing opposition to free trade. Something the Garrison-supported Trump has done.

Trump, while he SAYS he's a "free trader", has made his opposition to "bad trade deals". Not that I disagree with Trump. I think he has a point. But Willis is NOT with Trump (or Garrison) regarding "trade". Willis being VERY much in favor of destroying American jobs via unrestricted labor offshoring/outsourcing, which is NOT THE SAME thing as trade.

My point is that Willis has PLENTY he could disagree with Garrison on, but instead he cheers Garrison's attacking SJWs over perceived injustices (re people's RIGHT to protest via boycott) and laughs at the (supposed) backfiring of anti-BG SJW efforts.

Although, as far as Libertarians being "socially liberal", I think that is debatable. As I pointed out, Willis FREQUENTLY comes back to the topic of "Christian" business owners discriminating against gay customers (he thinks they have the right to do so), etc.

And Libertarians are HUGE on the idea that the minimum wage should be done away with so African American workers can be hired for lower wages than White workers. Because they believe Black labor is less valuable than White labor (DSB #2). Although they frame it as labor union racism. In the past "lily-white union schmucks" negotiated for higher pay thereby freezing out Black labor which is worth less (See WTNP post Waging Wages for an example of what I'm talking about).

So, maybe Hart and Garrison have a LOT more in common than one might think. Because a lot of Libertarians are really not that "socially tolerant" (The Ben Garrison and Willis Hart types). Which is why I speculated that Willis might vote for Donald Trump (OST #158). But, hey, I'm sure Gary Johnson despises SJWs a lot too. Because Gandhi and MLK were actually total dicks. Poor laborers SHOULDN'T be exploited to further enrich the oligarchs? Come on!

Image: Ben Garrison cartoon that depicts Donald Trump as... the adult in the room?

OST #160

Is Willis Hart Going To Vote For Donald Trump?

Seems that one of the (former?) buddies of the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart thinks he might.

Dennis Marks: Maybe Will "Get No Readers" Hart is a Trump fan? I have no idea, but I would not be surprised. But it seems that his number of yearly posts is inversely proportional to the number of commenters. (7/1/2016 AT 08:23:00 PM EDT).

Actually, no. Willis has said a number of times that he's voting for Gary Johnson. Likely because agrees with Dennis that "Gary Johnson is a fine candidate [because] his views reflect a concern for the rights of every single American, and not a tiny handful of plutocrats".

That Gary Johnson isn't in favor of handing off as much power as possible to the plutocrats is complete BS, of course (The True History of Libertarianism in America: A Phony Ideology to Promote a Corporate Agenda). Point is, Willis and Dennis both like Johnson and dislike Trump.

Or so I thought. Dennis (in the comment I just quoted) also says (re Johnson) "I wish he counted for more than a spoiler"... and Willis recently posted a comment in which he agrees (says Johnson "isn't viable"). This despite him previously (on 5/4/2016) writing "I'm begging you, at least consider voting for Johnson".

Willis Hart: My personal suspicion is that Donald isn't an anti-Semite and that the guy just mindlessly (this being the operant word) re-tweets this shit (this one I gather coming from some alt-right anti-Jew web-site). But either way (bad judgement versus bigotry) it's bad for the fella' in that it makes it difficult for folks like me who detest Hillary and who would like a viable alternative (Johnson's a good guy but he isn't viable) to even consider voting for him. EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. (7/6/2016 AT 4:59 PM).

So, it's "difficult" for Willis to consider voting Trump? Notice that he said difficult and NOT impossible. Not impossible because (as Willis has said) "I'm not a huge Trump supporter" (an exact quote). Not a HUGE supporter being a far cry away from being opposed.

And, there is also the fact that the Hartster has defended Trump a LOT more than he's harshly criticized him. Most criticisms being incredibly mild. He even downplayed Trump's racist comments by referring to them as impolitic!

So there's Hart's defense of Trump, his not being a "huge" Trump supporter (implying there is a small amount of support), and the fact that Hart acknowledges Johnson is not viable...

On the other hand, Connecticut (the state WTNPH lives in), hasn't gone Republican in 20 years. So he could vote for Gary Johnson and not feel guilty about possibly having helped Hillary Win (she will probably take CT anyway).

That would be the ONLY reason I can conceive of that he'd vote for Trump (to stop Hillary). Although remember that he did say that he REALLY wishes he could vote for Trump. Because Trump is viable while Johnson is not. So... he might vote for Trump despite it being difficult? Because he does support Trump (just not hugely)?

Yeah, I think he might. In any case, I think it's quite clear he was full of crap when he said that, if a gun were held to his head and he was forced to choose between Hillary and Donald... that he'd probably have to pick Hillary. Sure.

Image: Pro-Trump/Anti-Hillary cartoon from Ben Garrison. Garrison is a racist and misogynistic Libertarian who has has expressed strong opposition to Islam, political correctness, social justice warriors (SJW/SJW's), neoconservatism, and gun control. He has a lot in common with Willis Hart in other words. With the exception of Garrison being a STRONG Trump supporter, whereas Hart says "I'm not a huge Trump supporter"... implying there is some support (further evidence of there being some support being WTNPH's many posts defending Trump).

OST #158

Another Example Of Willis Hart "Coming Out Early Tonight" (Transphobia, Trumpesque Bigotry, White Supremacistish Racism)

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart getting bent out of shape because "social justice warriors" fight back when racist Rightwingers spout off.

Willis Hart: Like with this Garrison fellow who did the Michelle Obama looking like a power-forward cartoon (which, yes, was somewhat distasteful but then a great amount of satire tends to be - HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The SJWs [Social Justice Warriors] went after him full-bore (he even got death-threats which makes SJWs no better than al Qaeda) and now he's more popular than ever. Oops, OOOOOOOOPS. (5/31/2016 AT 5:13pm).

The quote above is just a portion of his rant, which mostly concerns his outrage over racists on the Right being boycotted when they spew their racism. Though he ends with cheers because this Ben Garrison asshole supposedly is "more popular than ever". (Note: RationalWiki page for Garrison says he isn't an "overt racist", and I agree. His racism, like WTNPH's, is not overt).

The cartoon that Willis refers to (see below) depicts a butch Michelle Obama next to an image of Melancholia Trump (what a First Lady should look like according to the cartoon). Notice that there is a bulge in an area suggesting Michelle is a transexual. A "joke" Willis previously indicated that he found hilarious (wondering in a blog post which bathroom Michelle uses). You know, because she used to be a dude and due to new discriminatory laws should be using the men's room (OST #144).

The Left getting offended by the depiction of Michelle Obama as a transexual is very funny according to Willis. Even if it is "somewhat distasteful". Although some have disagreed wit the "somewhat" part.

A cartoonist has been accused of racism after he portrayed Michelle Obama as masculine and butch next to a pageant-ready Melania Trump in a controversial drawing. The cartoon – which has been branded "racist and misogynistic" – shows a muscular Mrs Obama wearing a green dress with a bulge in the groin area. (Make The First Lady Great Again?!? Racist Cartoon Compares A Butch Michelle Obama To Melania Trump).

Racist? Yeah, I think so. Misogynist? Absolutely. Transphobic as well. That's who Willis is cheering on (a sleaze who'd draw such a cartoon). But Willis, a Libertarian who SAYS he's "socially tolerant", has displayed bigotry for transexuals on several occasions; referring to a trans-woman as "some transgender" and assuming she's a Leftist (obviously all transgender people are Leftists, OST #140); thinks Garrison's bigotry is only "somewhat distasteful". As opposed to being highly offensive. In fact that is actually the super funny part. Leftists being offended. Or "triggered", as he puts it.

Here, it isn't a victory for the assholes, racists, transphobics, misogynists and bigots that Willis is offended by, but the "Social Justice Warriors" who take offense. Scumbags who, with Trump as the gop potus nominee (whom Garrison is a supporter of), have been GREATLY emboldened. And Willis too, apparently. The post above being another example of him "coming out early tonight". That phrase being code for displaying his racism, I'm guessing (from a comment Willis says a "marginally literate boob" submitted to his blog).

Ugh. Can there really be ANY doubt any more that this guy is a hardcore bigot? Frankly, I'm wondering if the Hartster is a White Supremacist given his recent comments re Black people being "the real racists".

I refer you to a Willis comment in which he says "there's racism in America alright; blacks hating whites being the bulk of it" (his conclusion after posting about black-on-white violent crime). Versus White Supremacists who "issued a statement saying that Dylann Roof had some legitimate grievances against Black people and that the group's website accurately and honestly reports black-on-white violent crime".

Image: Racist misogynistic transphobic "satirical" cartoon by Rightwing Trump-supporting slimeball Ben Garrison. Given that satire is "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc"... is this satire? I mean, I see the ridicule, but what vice or folly is being exposed? My guess is that (in the view of Rightwing racists like Garrison) it was "folly" to elect a Black man POTUS.

OST #148