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

"My opinion has always been that while George Bush (or at least people in his administration) may indeed have lied about WMD" was the absurd and laughable lie from the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart I addressed in my last commentary (OST #206).

Well, the absurdity continues; now the Hartster says gwb's Secret Service detail "already knew that he wasn't a target" (and that's why they let him sit in that classroom reading the goat book for so long. As opposed to immediately hustling him out of there).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even After a) Both of the Twin Towers Had Been Struck, b) it Had Been Determined that More than a Few Other Planes Were Still Unaccounted for, and c) Mr. Bush's Visit to that Grammar School In Florida Had Been Fully Publicized, the Secret Service Allowed President Bush to Remain In that Classroom for Another Fifteen Minutes or so (an Act that if the Official Story Was True, Would Have Put Not Just Bush In Danger but Those Kids as Well). So yet again, we're either looking at incompetence to a criminal degree or complicity (they didn't get Bush out because they already knew that he wasn't a target). Scary shit, huh? (5/24/2017 at 8:53pm).

So the Secret Service knew that terrorists were going to crash planes into the Twin Towers? That would indicate that the conspiracy was BIG. And yet, nobody has ever squealed. BTW, I have suggested incompetence or complicity, but all I ever got was laughs on Hart's blog (back when I was not banned).

Now he's suggesting the Secret Service let bush sit there reading the goat book because they knew he wasn't a target?! That's a bridge too far for me. I think he was simply stunned. I mean, I think he knew an attack was coming (and wanted it to occur, as per PNAC's desire for "a new Pearl Harbor"), but that he didn't know exactly what it would be. That, or he was stunned just because he didn't know when it would happen, and he was thinking "this is it".

"U.S. intelligence officials warned President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that Osama bin Laden's terrorist network might hijack American planes". Additionally, the Phoenix FBI "recommended an urgent nationwide review of flight schools". The worry was that students at such schools might be found to have terrorist connections. According to Dick Durbin, who read an FBI memo on the matter, "that should have been fair warning" (Bush Warned of Hijackings Before 9-11).

Yet, even though these warnings were received (some months before the attacks) NOTHING was done. So, yeah, I'm with Willis on this one. Even though I've held this opinion all along, while Willis has only recently blogged about bush complicity in the 9/11 attacks. Over a decade later!

Although Hart lies and says he has ALWAYS held this opinion. What a bunch of bullshit! As I previously pointed out, NOW he says bush possibly lied about WMD, but when I wrote a comment on his blog saying this, he responded by writing "you gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public".

Now he goes even further than I ever have, suggesting the conspiracy was much bigger! So big that the Secret Service knew bush was not a target! Why wouldn't he be a target? Because there was coordination between the terrorists and bush? I mean, what else could explain this assertion?

And that (coordination between OBL and gwb) is REALLY out there, IMO. This is 9/11 Truther stuff. Is Willis going to next be suggesting that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition and that it was a missile and not an airplane that hit the Pentagon? (two conspiracy theories I think are complete bullplop, for the record).

Image: Despite being notified by his Secret Service detail that America was under attack, bush decided to finish reading "The Pet Goat". He remained in the classroom for almost another half hour! As opposed to quickly leaving to see if he was needed to make any Commander-in-Chief decisions. Possibly because he guessed that the attacks might be ongoing and he wanted to give the terrorists more time to complete their mission? "It's almost as if they (and, yeah, I'm talking Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, etc) wanted the planes to hit", Willis says.

OST #207

A Devolution Toward Increasing Gun Nuttery (Evolving Willis #3)

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is clearly a gun nut. In that he has nutty views about guns. He says he doesn't own any (or, not a "great many" at least), but I'm not sure I believe him. But even if he owns zero firearms, I STILL say he's a gun nut [1].

Due to his devolution toward increasing gun nuttery (agreeing with gun nut talking points). In this case it's him going from supporting the universal background check (UBC) to saying such a law would be pointless, in that enacting a UBC would have no effect at all. This we know because we essentially already have the UBC. And becsuse the gun show loophole is a "myth".

Willis Hart comments that show his devolution over time (2012 to 2016).

Very Strong Support Willis Hart: ...the fact that people can still buy guns at gun shows without background checks is appalling. (6/30/2012 AT 6:46am). Willis Hart: I think that getting rid of the gun-show loophole is the key here. No, not a lot of criminals buy their guns there (less than 1%, I believe) but I suspect that a lot of the straw purchasers do and if we can at least slow that down a little, I'm game. (1/25/2013 AT 8:12pm). Willis Hart: You were totally right about him, Russ, and he [Dervish Sanders] is one of the main reason why I now fully support universal background checks. (2/13/2013 AT 8:35pm). Strong Support Willis Hart: yes, I am now strongly in favor of background checks. (3/4/2013 AT 9:35am) Moderate Support Willis Hart: I'm not necessarily saying here that I'm opposed to background checks, just that they're probably much more for for solace than they are preventative and that we really shouldn't be expecting much once they're instituted. (6/2/2014 AT 8:25pm). Weak Support Willis Hart: I'm not wedded to the number [limiting magazine capacities] or even the concept [background checks], just that something along those lines would probably be where I would be willing to compromise (4/22/2015). Opposition Willis Hart: Yet one more leftist anti-gun talking-point bites the dust... http://www.nssf.org/factsheets/PDF/MythofGunShowLoophole.pdf (4/21/2015 at 8:20 PM). [Note: this PDF "proves" that the gun show loophole is a "myth"]. Strong Opposition To the point of ridiculing president Obama for pushing for the UBC. Willis Hart: On President Obama's Push for Universal Background Checks (Which for All Intents and Purposes Already Exist but I Digress)... Only if they include al Qaeda and the Saudi royal family... (2/4/2016 AT 10:00pm).

Yes, it looks like the Harster went from opposing the UBC to weakly supporting it, back to opposing it (said he'd compromise on the UBC on 4/22/2015 after he said it was 100% unnecessary on 4/22/2015). But what do you expect, he's a gun nut.

Case in point, that PDF that Willis posted a link to (in his 4/21/2015 comment), is a "fact sheet" from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (a national trade association for the firearms industry) that is pure propaganda. In that it utilizes a mixture of facts, half truths and outright lies the purpose of which is to deceive gullible people like Willis Hart.

Following is an excerpt from "The Myth of the Gun Show Loophole". This would be the document WTNPH says causes a "leftist anti-gun talking-point" to "bite the dust".

Claim: The law allows unlicensed dealers to sell guns at gun shows. Fact: Unlicensed dealers are criminals. It is true that a background check and other regulations do not apply if you are an individual that wishes to occasionally sell a firearm from your personal collection in a private transaction. ...all vendors leasing space at a show, including private parties, must agree to run background checks, regardless of whether they hold federal licenses or not. The vast majority of guns sold at gun shows go through federal background checks.

Yes, licensed gun dealers who possess a Federal Firearms License (FFL) must perform BCs when selling a weapon. The gun show loophole isn't a reference to these sales (as the propaganda from the NSSF tries to make readers think). The gun show loophole refers to private sales at gun shows. The section highlighted in red (above) is false.

Private sellers at gun shows are not required to run a BC, record the sale, or even ask for ID (source). And these legal sales do contribute to gun crime.

According to a 1999 report by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) commissioned by President Bill Clinton, these legal transactions contribute to illegal activities, such as arms trafficking, purchases of firearms by prohibited buyers, and straw purchases. (Wikipedia/Gun Show Loophole).

It is also important to note that licensed dealers may sell firearms without doing a background check under the following condition.

...it [is] legal for FFL holders to make private sales, provided the firearm was transferred to the licensee's personal collection at least one year prior to the sale. Hence, when a personal firearm is sold by an FFL holder, no background check or Form 4473 is required by federal law. (Wikipedia/Gun Show Loophole).

Obviously the loophole isn't a "myth", nor did Willis' linking to this NSSF "fact sheet" cause any "leftist anti-gun talking-point" to "bite the dust". According to the first video below, 1/4 to 1/2 of all gun show sellers are private sellers who do not have to conduct a BC [2]. So we're talking about a lot of guns here. Many of which *do* end up in the hands of criminals according to the ATF.

There is also the fact that (outside of gun shows), when one person sells (or gives) a gun to another there is no BC. According to PolitiFact "professors at Northeastern and Harvard universities conducted a gun survey in 2015... [and] found that 22% of the people who purchased guns - at gun shows, stores or elsewhere - underwent no background check".

So that's another ding to the Hartster's claim that "universal background checks... for all intents and purposes already exist" bullshit. A ding that brings the total for no BC up to 22% in regards to all gun transfers. Or, all gun transfers that could potentially be subjected to BC (not counting illegal sales and transfers, but there are already laws against doing that).

(Note: this commentary is the 3rd published under the "Evolving Willis" label. "Evolving Willis" being a series in which I document the political 180s of Willis Hart. AKA reasons he may view himself with suspicion).

Video1: Hidden camera video from gun show. Making it easy for criminals to buy guns [2] (3:30).

Video2: Undercover sting shows 19 out of 30 sellers broke the law. Under the law private sellers can sell firearms without a BC, but only if they have no reason to believe the buyer would not pass a BC. In this video the buyers specifically say they "probably couldn't pass a background check" (1:59).

Footnotes
[1] A gun nut (according to Wikipedia) is a term that "has been used to describe firearms enthusiasts who are deeply involved with the gun culture". I acknowledge that if you don't own a gun, then, under this definition, you are not a gun nut. However, as I wrote in SWTD #134, IMO the term "applies if said individual opposes reasonable legislation such as universal background checks". Also if they parrot pro-gun and NRA talking points. As Willis Hart does.
[2] Laws differ from state to state. That a quarter to one half of all sales at gun shows are via private sellers (and not subjected to BCs) is according to a report from WLWT, which serves the Ohio/Oklahoma area. Obviously these stats vary from state to state depending on state law.

OST #169. See also SWTD #279.

Evolving Willis #2: Abraham Lincoln 180 Degree Flip-Flop

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart claims that he hasn't changed. He once authored a post in which he found the suggestion so ridiculous as to be amazed that someone would actually suggest it.

Willis Hart: On the Claim that I've Changed... I've changed? I'VE CHANGED? Wow, huh? (11/15/2015 AT 9:02am).

Wow? No, the only thing I'd say "wow" to is the number of examples one could give that the opinions of Willis have changed RADICALLY. To illustrate this point I have created this series of posts... which I have labeled using the tag "Evolving Willis" (Note that this is only the 2nd one in the series, but there will be more).

The shocking 180 degree flip-flop I examine in this post concerns Mr. Hart's feelings regarding the 16th president of the United States.

Willis Hart: The Five Greatest Presidents in U.S. History IMHO... 5) Teddy Roosevelt (trust-busting, conservation, "speak softly but carry a big stick"). 4) Harry Truman (strong anti-Communist, pro-business, "the buck stops here"). 3) John F. Kennedy (the Cuban missile crisis, cut taxes, "ask not what your country can do for you"). 2) George Washington (yes, he was a slave-holder but he also founded the damned country). 1) Abraham Lincoln (the Emancipation Proclamation, saved the union, "four score and seven years ago"). (9/23/2011 AT 6:58pm).

Wow, indeed! In the opinion of Willis, Abe is the #1 greatest prez ever? Looks like it, me buck.

Or so he used to believe... apparently. At the time, but no more.

Willis Hart: On Lincoln Equating "Departing from" with "Destroying"... Delusional, illogical, and right up there with his contention that the Union preceded the states and his absolute ignoring of the 9th and 10th Amendments (where one could quite readily assert the right to self-determination) and replacing them with one of his own. (12/12/2015 AT 9:32pm).

As per a 12/9/2014 post Abe Lincoln is #1 on Willis Hart's list of "all time least favorite presidents. So Willis went from heralding Lincoln for keeping the Union intact, to condemning him for it. And calling him "delusional" to boot (as per the above quoted commentary).

Does this mean that Willis was delusional when he proclaimed Abe to be the #1 greatest prez because he "saved the union"? Or maybe Willis is delusional now, given the fact that Lincoln generally IS considered one of our best presidents?

New ranking of U.S. presidents puts Lincoln at No. 1, Obama at 18; Kennedy judged most overrated. (article except) ...in 2014 we surveyed 162 members of the American Political Science Association's Presidents & Executive Politics section and asked them to rate the U.S. presidents. ... Abraham Lincoln was rated the greatest president, with an average score of 95 out of 100. (Washington Post 2/16/2015). How experts determine if Obama, others are "best presidents". (article excerpt) In 2014, NYT columnist Paul Krugman's claims that Barack Obama should be considered one of the best recent presidents has generated a lot of debate. But how do historians and political scientists rank leaders over a long time span? ...historian Arthur Schlesinger, who decided to poll other historians about the past performance of presidents. Schlesinger polled 55 historians about 5 rating categories for an article in Life magazine. ...his list included George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. (Constitution Daily, blog National Constitution Center blog).

Note that the "The American Political Science Association (APSA) is a professional association of political science students and scholars in the United States" and the "National Constitution Center is a nonprofit, nonpartisan institution devoted to explaining the US Constitution and what it represents [which] regularly hosts government leaders, journalists, scholars, and celebrities for public discussions including presidential debates".

Groups with some authority to produce these rankings, in other words. Although rankings produced by public polling produce similar results. here is one such ranking that puts Abe in the #1 position (The Top Tens), and here is another that rates Washington #1 and Lincoln #2 (Ranker.com). Point is, Willis is in the minority with his assessment of Lincoln.

Negative opinions of Lincoln aren't generally seen until you look at what Libertarians and far-Right nutjobs say. And that's where they get EXTREMELY negative.

Mises Daily (Libertarian think tank) Confronting the Lincoln Cult by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, 6/3/2002. World Net Daily (A Far-Right extremist website know for indulging in conspiracy/racism/bigotry) Lincoln's Legacy of Corruption by Ilana Mercer, 2/13/2002.

Note that if you go to Wikipedia and enter "Lincoln cult" you will be redirected to the page for Thomas J. DiLorenzo. BTW, that people who promote the idea that Abe Lincoln was one of our best presidents are members of a "cult" is a meme that Willis subscribes to.

Willis Hart: A Very Simple Question for the Cult of Lincoln... If Mr. Lincoln was so opposed to slavery, then why did he not abolish it in those places where he had the power to; the northern and border states of Kentucky, Missouri, Delaware, and Maryland, numerous counties in West Virginia, and the northern occupied parts of the Confederacy (New Orleans and other sections of Louisiana)? That, and why did the dude wait until it looked like the South was winning before he put forth this wonderful Emancipation Proclamation (which, again, only made slavery illegal in the Confederacy)? Da' ya' think that maybe it was because he was trying to stir up a little bit of trouble down there? That's my theory. (3/19/2014 AT 9:26pm).

I have a very simple question for the Willis, which is, is the belief that Lincoln was one of our best presidents held by people in a "cult" or is it more of a mainstream consensus? To me it definitely looks like the latter and not the former.

For the record, I understand the (Libertarian-informed) argument Willis is making. I just don't think it's accurate. That argument being that "if there had been no Civil War, the South would have abolished slavery peaceably".

The Politically Incorrect Guide to The Civil War (excerpt from a review of the 10/21/2008 book by Mother Jones author Nick Baumann)... I find the idea of the slave states voluntarily giving up their slaves to be really, really dumb. The Southern states seceded largely because they didn't want to be ruled by Lincoln, who had argued against expanding slavery into new territories. The Confederate constitution says, "No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed". But in case you don't believe me, I asked retired army Lt. Colonel Robert Mackey, author of The UnCivil War and bona fide Civil War geek. Dr. Mackey, a combat veteran who was Assistant Professor of Military History at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, says it's "a heaping pile of bullshit" and offers up a few reasons why... [including the fact that] Slaves represented real property value. The South's biggest asset wasn't cotton, it was human beings. [Post Civil War The South's] entire economic system... was based on sharecropping. Sharecropping only worked because the "New South" replaced [actual slavery] with [virtual slavery]. It was a form of slavery as well - just one in which "the owners" had no moral or ethical responsibility to care for the slave... since they had no "property rights" [ownership of their slaves]. There is zero evidence slavery would have naturally ended. There was no antebellum abolitionist movement in the South. On the contrary, the entire social system was set up to reinforce slavery. Lastly, just imagine how easy it would have been for anti-labor industrialists to move factories South, where you not only did not have labor unions, but could contract for workers from their "owners" at a set, low rate. It would have been horror, and the death of any hope of democracy in America.

Frankly I'm more inclined to agree with this opinion than disagree with it. The Civil War, as horrific as it was, was what ended slavery. Slavery would not have ended without it. Although Willis disagrees.

Willis Hart: I'm also strongly of the opinion that we could have eventually gotten rid of slavery without 3% of the population being murdered (a substantial number of them being civilians as a part of Lincoln's "total war") and half of the country's total net worth being destroyed. Literally every other country in the world (Haiti being the exception) did it that way and so, why not us? (3/20/2014 AT 9:57pm

Would getting rid of slavery without a war have been possible? I'm not 100 percent sure, but (like I said) I'm inclined to believe with the statement that "there is zero evidence slavery would have naturally ended". As for Hart's other anti-Lincoln arguments, I'll leave them for possible future posts, although I have rebutted some of his arguments previously (see OST label CIVIL WAR and SWTD label CIVIL WAR).

The point of this post was to point out the RADICAL flip that the Hartster made regarding his opinion of Abe Lincoln. I mean, the guy takes umbrage at the suggestion that he's changed, but he clearly has. In that the "small L libertarian" has become much more Libertarian. In that it's the Libertarians who hold the opinion that Lincoln was a crappy president. As opposed to the mainstream opinion, which is that Abe was our greatest prez (or highly ranked among the best).

Supporting Document
[DSD #20] The "Small l Libertarian" Who Bought The Out-Of-The-Mainstream Libertarian "Lincoln Cult" Lincoln Hating Argument With Gusto. (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he attacks Abe Lincoln as a president who committed "atrocities" and was "majorily insane").

OST #130

Evolving Willis #1: Planned Parenthood 180 Degree Flip-Flop

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart recently, in reaction to PP "chopping up kids and selling the parts", decided that PP should be defunded, in agreement with our current Republican Congress.

Willis Hart: Yes, continue to provide poor people with birth control but do it in a different way and let PP get their cash the old fashioned way; by earning it and through private donations. (7/29/2015 AT 10:15pm).

But wait... seems as though this is a 180 degree flip-flop from his previous position on PP.

Willis Hart: I just thought of three more instances where I disagree with conservatives; a) funding for planned parenthood, b) public financing of elections, and c) the proposed Muslim center in NYC. And I better stop talking before Mr. Rusty starts lumping me in with you. (8/31/2011 AT 7:26pm).

This was in reaction to me saying that Willis believes Conservatives are more correct than Liberals. That is, he more often agrees with Conservatives than with Liberals.

It was true then, and even more true today. The Hartster has become even more Conservative than he was (a little less than a month shy of) 4 years ago. This complete 180 degree U-turn on PP being but one example of his evolving political positions (flip-flops). (More examples to come in the "evolving series", of which this post is but the first installment).

Also note that he's giving his blessing for PP to continue to "provide poor people with birth control" IF they can make up the 500 million in government funding (and aren't forced to close their doors). By charging those poor people more ("earning it") or getting more donations (as if they are currently turning down funders).

But what about abortions? Outlaw them? Willis doesn't say. Why not? Why only say birth control is what PP should continue to do? The topic of HIS OWN POST was abortions, not birth control. And (now) he seems pretty hostile to doing something constructive and beneficial to society with the fetal tissue... tissue that's going to continue to be generated unless abortions are outlawed.

But, wow! What a flip-flop, huh? Before he was for government funding. And he pointed out that this was something he thought important to mention as a subject he disagrees with Conservatives on. Now he's in complete agreement (re defunding) with anti-choice Conservative radicals.

For the record, the "chopping up kids" comment was not something Willis wrote (a commenter on his blog was responsible for this ridiculousness)... although Willis did not object nor note any disagreement with this insane characterization of PP "selling" (losing money or only recouping their costs) fetal tissue for needed and very beneficial medical research (research that has saved many, many lives).

OST #63