On Willis Hart Being So Moronic That He Actually Believes Some of Donald Trump's Critics Think Trump's Sons Killed A Woolly Mammoth, A Saber Toothed Tiger And A Triceratops

The Trump-defending Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart LOVES to bash Liberals. And he LOVES it even more if he can bash Liberals for criticizing Donald Trump.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Some of Donald Trump's Critics Are so Moronic that They Actually Believe that the Dude's Sons Killed a Woolly Mammoth, a Saber Toothed Tiger, and a Triceratops [see video below]. Yes sir, that's a special kind of stupid. (3/26/2017 at 4:30pm).

The video in question, titled "Trump's Sons Kill a Triceratops on Hunting Safari - Liberals Believe, And They're Very Upset" (5:48).

I don't think that this is a case of people being stupid, it's a case of people not paying attention. Thinking of what they're going to say instead of listening. Or not expecting that the object of the interviewer is to make them look stupid. I mean, I've seen similar pranks on the Tonight Show. Word replacements that people, if they were paying attention, would catch.

My guess at to what is going on? Predictive perceptual signaling, which is a phenomenon in which the brain attempts to predict future perceptual input.

From the Science Brainwaves article "Hearing what you expect to hear"...

Most of us have had the experience of finding a glaring error in some written work that we had previously checked several times. For example when blogging I often find at least one simple error on a post once it has actually been published, despite proofreading it thoroughly before submission. In such circumstances it seems impossible that one can have overlooked such an obvious error. The reason that such mistakes get missed is that we tend to perceive what we expect to perceive. When proof reading something we ourselves have written we know what we were planning to write. We therefore tend to perceive the words we think we put on the page, rather than those that are actually there. (11/9/2014 article by Rob Hoskin PhD, the Neuroscience Department of Sheffield University).

The portion of the article I quoted has to do with seeing words what we expect to see, and not the words that are actually there. But the same applies to spoken words. Clearly the people being interviewed did not expect to hear the words "Woolly Mammoth", "Saber Toothed Tiger" or "Triceratops" because they are expecting "Lion", "Tiger" or "Elephant". And therefore they did not hear the names of extinct animals.

A more likely an explanation than people actually being so stupid as to they think the Trump sons killed extinct animals, no? And that, IMO, is ALL this video proves. That people hear what they expect to hear and not what is actually said. And that people aren't expecting that when an interviewer asks a question, the REAL intent is to prank them.

If the interviewer had said, "wait a minute, did you hear what I said - pay attention", I predict that zero of the people being interviewed would agree that the Trump sons could have killed a Woolly Mammoth, a Saber Toothed Tiger or a Triceratops.

BTW, the brain uses predictive perceptual signaling because "in the vast majority of cases expectation improves perception". According to the article "there is ample evidence from behavioural science that being able to predict the content of an upcoming stimulus improves our ability to successfully perceive it".

For more information read the article. Bottom line is, the human brain often deceives us. Also note that nobody in the video repeats what the interviewer said. Nobody says "yes, I agree that Eric and Donald Jr. killing that Woolly Mammoth was bad".

But the Hartster wants SO MUCH to believe that Liberals are this stupid. So he sees this prank and thinks, yeah, these people heard EXACTLY what the interviewer said and agreed that the Trump sons hunted and killed extinct animals. It is a "fact". Which points to Willis being the one that is "so moronic", IMO.

OST #203

On WTNPH's Belief That Trump Should Get Cred With The Left For Lying

The Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart seems to think that Donald Trump should get "cred" with the Left for lying. As per this commentary.

Willis Hart: On Trump Versus the Left. I find this whole thing a bit perplexing in that if you take the time to look at his positions, he's actually kind of a leftist himself. For example, the dude's a) a protectionist, b) a believer in the graduated income tax (the first $50,000 tax free, as I recall), c) a person who wants an enormous infrastructure project (bigger than Obama's, for Christ!), d) a person who while he denigrated Obamacare has seeming signed on to something virtually identical, and e) someone who wants to establish a brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave. No, it's not a down-the-line leftist agenda but it's certainly close enough to where you would think that the left could at least work with the guy, no? Oh and, yeah, he eviscerated George W. Bush. That alone should give him some cred. (3/25/2017 at 4:19pm).

Apparently Willis does not realize that Trump LIES. And he lies constantly. As Thom Hartmann says, Trump won by running as a Progressive Progressive (in many respects). As Willis points out. But Democrats (and many others) know that Trump lies. He says what he thinks will get him what he wants at the time. He makes promises with no intention of following through, unless doing so is easy.

Like with canceling the TPP. That took no work. All he had to do was not move forward with it. Devising a national health care bill, on the other hand, requires work. Trump promised "repeal and replace" because it got him votes. Then he pushed a garbage bill that he did not understand, then gave up after 18 days (when, as Lawrence O'Donnell points out, Obama's bill took 18 months).

BTW, Trump did NOT "sign on to something virtually identical". The AHCA (American Health Care Act) was a not a health care bill. It was a tax cut bill. As the NY Times pointed out "the beneficiaries would be the richest Americans who for years have complained that the Affordable Care Act unfairly burdened them with the responsibility of subsidizing insurance for the poor".

The objective of the ACA was providing health care for most Americans (nixed by the Supreme Court which tossed the Medicaid expansion). The objective of the AHCA was CUTTING TAXES [1]. People would have lost coverage under it. 24 million, if I recall correctly. "Virtually identical" my ass.

A believer in the graduated income tax? So what? What we know is that Congress will move on tax cuts targeted at the wealthy. Now that "repealing" Obamacare has failed. I'm sure that's at the top of their agenda (What Trump and the GOP Can Agree On: Tax Cuts for the Rich).

The enormous infrastructure project is another giveaway to the wealthy, as Trump proposes funding it by giving "$137 billion in federal tax credits to private investors who want to back transportation projects". Also, we're talking about projects on which "tolls or user fees" could be charged. So, we pay (via tax breaks) for investors to build the infrastructure, but they own it and make money off it. Sounds like a great idea. If you're a wealthy investor looking to buy infrastructure (that the government pays you back for via tax credits). Then sit back and collect the profits. Clearly a bad deal for taxpayers and end users (people who will be paying the tolls and user fees), though.

As for the "brand new entitlement relative to child care and family leave", CNN Money describes the proposal as a "gift to the rich [because] 70% of the benefits will go to families that make $100,000 or more. And 25% will go to people earning $200,000 or more". Big surprise.

BTW, even though Willis obviously does not realize it, Trump only "eviscerated" gwb because he thought it would harm Jeb's candidacy. I mean, Trump SUPPORTED the Iraq war (despite his lies). He's on tape saying so (on Howard Stern). Once Jeb dropped out Trump's "lie" accusation (re gwb and WMD) changed to "I don't know" (SWTD #326).

Work with him to give taxpayer money to the already wealthy? WHY the f*uck would Democrats work with Trump to accomplish that? And "cred" comes from ACTION, not words. Words that are mostly lies. If Trump wanted TARGETED tax cuts (nothing for the wealthy), was to do the infrastructure right (raise taxes to pay for it) or offer tax breaks/credits to anyone (not just the well off) for child care/leave? Then yeah, Democrats would work with him. Heck, I think Dems would work with Trump on lowering the corporate income tax (if all loopholes were eliminated and it was estimated that revenues would go up as a result). And he agreed to go after offshore tax havens and inversions (although Trump doesn't know what a corporate inversion is).

But I don't see that happening. Especially given the FACT that if he was to put forward proposals that appealed to Democrats... Ryan and the GOP controlled Congress would turn on him. In any case, that Dems won't work with him is NOT "perplexing", unless you're dumb enough to not realize that Trump lies constantly. But apparently the Willis is dumb enough. Even though he implies he knows Trump is a liar.

On "Trump Is a Liar" Versus "the Media Is Biased and Corrupt"... In a saner time we could have entertained both notions. Not today, though. Not with the Fox Newses, MSNBCs, Salons, Breitbarts, and Huffington Posts of the world delivering what can only be called pure partisan pablum 24/7 and a public that is all-too willing to lap it up. No Sir. (2/23/2017 at 11:15pm).

WTF? Maybe Willis thinks Trump only lies sometimes? I mean, clearly Willis thinks Trump is telling the truth re his A to E list. As opposed to lying. Because that's what he does. Lies about EVERYTHING. Although I think he might be "protectionist". Even though he has his Trump crap manufactured outside the US. And brings in labor on work visas (or illegally) to work in his businesses.

Doesn't mean he couldn't be a hypocrite who doesn't practice what he preaches. I mean, following the rules as they are doesn't mean you can't be in favor of changing the rules. Even if the new rules will cost you. MAYBE. But I doubt it. Given the fact that everything else Willis THINKS the Left can work with Trump on - he's lying about.

Trump "actually kind of a leftist himself"? Via his LYING WORDS only. No "Leftist" action except cancelling the TPP (yet). And that didn't require any Leftists to work with him to accomplish. I'm sure some (Bernie Sanders, other members of the Progressive caucus) would have been willing to if it had been necessary.

BTW, the people with DO give Trump cred for lying? That would be his base, AKA the #trumpdupes. Everyone else knows he's a liar who lies about everything. Even most of those who voted for Stein or Johnson. Excepting idiots like the Hartster, who think Trump can be believed on ANYTHING. I guess.

Notes
[1] According to estimates made by Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, the AHCA would resulted in tax breaks totalling 600 billion, most of which would go to the wealthiest Americans. (Poltifact).

Video: Thom Hartmann: If Trump Actually Ran As A Republican, He Wouldn't Have Won The Election! Thom talks about how Donald Trump used populist ideas to gain support among voters. Published 11/17/2016 (5:54).

OST #202

Willis Hart Strawman In Defense Of Koch Plutocrats & Slander Of The Left

Yet another strawman from the strawman-loving Libertarin blogger Willis Hart. This one utterly amazing in it's stupidity.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Hard Left Goes Bonkers Even When the Koch Brothers Spend Their Money on Good (AKA, Nonpolitical) Things; $100 Million to New York's Presbyterian Hospital, $15 Million to Weill Cornell Medical Center, $30 Million to Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, $25 Million to the Hospital for Special Surgery, $100 Million to Lincoln Center, etc... How small and spiteful that the new left has become... Now, if only they, the Kochs, had spent that money toward ginning up racial animosity, pushing a discredited narrative, etc... (7/11/2015 AT 8:20pm).

First of all, WTF is Willis talking about? I'm guessing he read some unidentified news story about Koch Brothers charitable contributions and some Leftists criticism of it? Who knows. As usual the idiot assumes that anyone reading his blog consumes the same media he does and will therefore know what the hell he's talking about.

That, or he thinks this is a huge story that everyone should be aware of. Well, I have no effing clue what he's referring to... but I can tell you this - that the Koch brothers donate money to worthy causes is a good thing... although I'm sure they do it to aggrandize themselves as well as to buy good will. And as a tax write-off, of course. Another reason for the donating might even be them viewing themselves as good people and liking doing good things with their money.

I know that one aspect of Willis' worship of wealth is his great admiration for wealthy individuals doing just this sort of thing. He'd much rather wealthy benefactors bequeath a portion of their wealth for the charitable causes of their choice than We The People deciding these priorities (and paying for what We think is important with our tax dollars).

Of course, as a Progressive, I view this reliance of society on the largess of wealthy benefactors to address societal needs as both anti-democratic and a sign of oligarchy (and therefore at least a little troubling). But Willis takes the opposite view. According to him, this is the preferred method by which to accomplish good (and he has written a number of commentaries on his blog praising wealthy people's charity... both past and present).

The reference to spending money "ginning up racial animosity" and "pushing a discredited narrative" is a call back to another commentary on his blog in which he claims that it's a fact that "George Soros has purportedly spent $33 billion million financing protest groups in Ferguson, Baltimore, and Other Racially Charged Hotspots". And that in Ferguson we ALL KNOW that "hands up, don't shoot" was a "damned lie".

To which I say BULLSHIT. We do NOT "all know" that "hands up, don't shoot" was a "damned lie". This "lie", as I understand it, came from his friend Dorian Johnson. Several other witnesses say Brown raised his hands briefly. Frankly I think it is more likely that Johnson, in shock from seeing his friend murdered in front of him, wrongly remembered what happened. Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. This, IMO, is an example of this, and not a "damned lie".

And, in any case, I do not think it matters whether Brown had his hands up in surrender or not. The fact is that Brown was 148 f*cking feet away from Wilson. Something the cops lied about, claiming the distance was only 35 feet. While Brown was running away Wilson should have ducked behind his car and called in the incident. Instead he shot Brown in cold blood, murdering him [1].

Willis' focuses on the "damned lie" to distract from this fact. Just as he distracts from the fact that the Koch plutocrats are attempting to buy the next presidential election by pointing to some worthy causes they are throwing money at (not necessarily for altruistic reasons).

And Willis present ZERO proof that the "hard left" is going "bonkers" over these donations. NONE. He saw or read it somewhere (presumably), but WHERE? How am I supposed to know if this happened or not if Willis is not clear WTF he's talking about? And notice that first he says the "hard left" went bonkers, then that changes to the "new left".

Which is it Willis? And who the hell is he talking about with this reference to the "new left"? Seems to me that the "new left" is anyone who identifies with the Left of today. The Left of the present and not the Left of the past. Which would include ALL Democrats and ALL Progressives, as well as everyone else who identifies with a left-leaning political ideology (Greens, Democratic Socialists, Socialists, etc).

Which is a TOTAL strawman. For example, I watched a segment on Democracy Now with Amy Goodman the other day in which a man working for the Koch brothers and Van Jones appeared. Seems they are joining forces to do something about the fact that the United States prison population is one of the largest (if not THE largest) in the world. Van Jones (who I am POSITIVE Willis would consider a part of the "hard left") was not going bonkers.

Mr. Jones noted that people on his side of the fence normally have problems with MOST of what the Koch Brothers do, but that in this instance they were on the same side, and that working with the opposition when there are areas of agreement is a good thing (and that it should be done).

But the strawman-loving Hart condemns everyone on the Left (or the undefined "new left"), calling everyone in this group "small and spiteful". All while NEVER revealing a source or identifying who, exactly, went bonkers. Or even what these people going bonkers entails. Were these people protesting? Did they issue a statement? What did they say?

I say that Willis can stuff his condemnation sans meaningful details. This post by Willis is nothing but hot air. Him expressing his hate of the Left/Progressives (or the "hard left" or "new left") with a commentary completely devoid of any facts to back up his accusations.

BTW, in regards to Willis' commentary "on the fact that George Soros has purportedly spent $33 billion million financing protest groups in Ferguson"... I say, which is it? Is this a "fact" or is it "purported"?

According to Snopes this rumor is a mixture of True and False. Snopes points out that "a grantmaking network founded by George Soros provided funding to some groups that engaged in Ferguson-related protest activities" but that Soros did NOT give "money to various groups for the express purpose of promoting Ferguson-related protests and riots".

So Willis lies, and that is a FACT. I am not alleging it, I am proving it. You can not call protesting a police shooting of an UNARMED Black man "ginning up racial animosity", you racist piece of shit!

Even if you disagree with the protestors... they still have the right to protest. And they were protesting what they saw as an unjust shooting, NOT "ginning up racial animosity". The "racial animosity" Willis refers to is his own (as well as the animosity of other racists).

But these people ginned it up themselves - when they viewed people legally protesting and (as Willis might put it), "got all butt hurt" at these (as Willis might put it) "assholes" having the nerve to not agree that the shooting was justified.

Footnote
[1] IMO the police lying is more of a "damned lie" than Dorian Johnson (after seeing his friend murdered in front of him) saying Michael Brown had his hands up and was surrendering. 1st, I'm not 100 percent convinced this isn't exactly what happened. And 2nd, if it did not, I'm even less convinced that Dorian Johnson did still not recount the incident - as he remembered it.

OST #60

On Willis Hart Using Someone's Weight To Denigrate Them & Referring to An Overweight Person As A "Fat Fuck"

Most recently in regards to Liberal documentary filmmaker Michael Moore.

Willis Hart: On Fat, Stupid Michael Moore Denigrating American Sniper/War Hero, Chris Kyle, Calling Him a Coward... I can't even look at this asshole anymore... And did you see how he tried to back away from it once the shit hit the fan, saying that wasn't actually talking about Kyle? I mean, come on. (1/19/2015 AT 9:31pm).

What the hell does Mr. Moore's weight have to do with his tweets in response to the release of the movie "American Sniper"? Absolutely nothing. Willis is one of those people who judges people based on appearance. An incredibly shallow and vain person, in other words.

As for what Mr. Moore said about snipers I say "eh". He has a point. Chris Kyle killed a lot of people, some of them innocent. Although it was ex-preznit bush who illegally invaded Iraq. So, I'd say we shouldn't have even been there. Or Afghanistan. Then CK wouldn't have killed anyone.

But, naturally the Rightwing is going crazy over comments such as Mr. Moore's in regards to this film by the Republican Clint Eastwood (he who embarrassed himself at the GOP convention by talking to an empty chair).

The film is a "pro-War on Terror masterpiece" according to an article on the Breitbart site.

Yikes! I haven't seen it, but if that is an accurate description that I'd have to agree with Seth Rogan... who tweeted that he thought it had some similarity to a Nazi propaganda film (specifically the film within the film "Inglourious Basterds").

Although I've also heard the movie described as an account of the effects of war on soldiers... Kyle did feel guilt over those he'd killed and suffered from PTSD (I think, although I'm not positive).

My guess is that the Rightwing will read into the movie what they want. Although perhaps the Breitbart description is accurate given who the director is. Although some on the Left say the film shows the horrors of war and the effects of it on our soldiers... and thus is anti-war. But Breitbart claims that the movie is NOT anti-Iraq war... this is something the author of the article says the Left lies about.

That said, I haven't seen it, nor am I that familiar with Kyle's story. But I do find it odd that Willis refers to Kyle as a "war hero", given his claims of being "anti-war".

Anyway, on to the second example of Willis denigrating someone based on their weight. This time with a particularly vile (and profane) slur directed at the murdered Eric Garner (SWTD #275).

Willis Hart: he bears a huge amount of the responsibility for his death; some big fat fuck with asthma putting himself in a stressful situation (12/27/2015 AT 10:23am).

Geez... really, Willis? This guy is becoming increasingly foul-mouthed and more often than not aligning himself with the Right... this despite him believing he is an "independent". Here he's agreeing with the likes of NY Rep Peter King, who blamed Garner for his own death. Although Willis also laughly and idiotically blames politicians who support the cigarette tax.

Blaming the victim, fat shaming, and using profane language to refer to a dead man? Proof positive that Willis Hart is a piece of shit. Or, he's absolutely a piece of shit... in my book.

OST #38

On The Cop Arrested For Murder Because His Murdering Was Caught On Video While Willis Hart Predictably, Shamelessly & Moronically Ignores It

It's funny how Willis' Islamaphobic grandstanding can often backfire. I refer to the South Carolina officer who was charged with murder of Walter Scott.

NYT: A white police officer in North Charleston, S.C., was charged with murder on Tuesday after a video surfaced showing him shooting in the back and killing an apparently unarmed black man while the man ran away. The officer, Michael T. Slager, 33, said he had feared for his life because the man had taken his stun gun in a scuffle after a traffic stop on Saturday. A video, however, shows the officer firing eight times as the man, Walter L. Scott, 50, fled. (South Carolina Officer Is Charged With Murder of Walter Scott by Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo. 4/7/2015).

So, this time it's on tape. And the cop is also seen walking back to where the altercation began - and where he dropped his taser - picking it up and walking back to the dying Scott and dropping it near his body.

If not for the videotape you KNOW this cop would have gotten away with this obvious murder. Given he gave the standard response that he "feared for his life". If a cop claims that... well, then the shooting is justified no matter what.

Something else we know is that if there were no videotape? Willis will defend the shooter, same as he defended the murders of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown. Although, even with video Willis STILL defended the White cop who choked Eric Grant. In this case the a-hole had the balls to attack the victim with some "fat shaming" regarding his weight.

Willis Hart: Note to Fat Asthmatics... Ixnay on resisting arrest. (2/4/2014 AT 2:40am).

And then the dumbass said "I agree that he was a victim (to a certain degree), ...but not of the cops. He was a victim of the greedy politicians who've put such a draconian tax on tobacco".

It's Willis' view that the cops were not to blame because smoking isn't bad for you, so it's those who "forced" the cops to uphold the law against selling untaxed cigs that are to blame. Also, being overweight is bad for you. No, wait. Willis probably acknowledges those things are bad but does not believe that the State should do anything to dissuade people from smoking. As a Libertarian Willis believes in a person's "liberty" to engage in bad behaviors... even if there is a cost to society.

Which is why cigarettes are taxed, by the way. To discourage people from smoking. "Greedy politicians" aren't a factor. In any case, the point is that Willis always believes the cop doing the killing and not the victim. Which is why he has been totally silent thus far regarding this recent killing. Because the cop can't be defended in light of the videotape.

Or, Willis has not said anything YET in regards to this recent murder of an unarmed Black man. He might say something and he might come out against the cop. I have my doubts, however, given his track record.

Which brings me to my motivation for authoring this commentary - it's that the moronic Willis has written a number of commentaries in which he predictably and shamelessly claims that "Leftists" are always silent when it comes to Muslims (and Muslim societies as a whole) discriminating against gay people.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Muslim Bakeries Have Also Apparently Refused Gay Couples While the Media and Liberal Establishment Predictably, Shamelessly, and Moronically Ignore it... It's funny how political grandstanding can often backfire (4/7/2014 AT 8:33pm).

Yeah right. "Leftists" are not "silent" about bigotry against Muslims who discriminate against gay people. It is simply that different societies progress at different rates. We can't expect every society on earth to move toward equality and equal rights for everyone at the same time. Remember that England abolished slavery quite some time before the United States did.

The "Left" (as well as others of differing political persuasions) can and SHOULD criticize those who discriminate (or are lacking in any area when it comes to anyone's basic human rights), but that criticism will go a lot further when directed at those within our own society. Because criticism directed at another society will likely not be appreciated - or even ignored.

Which brings us back to this Muslim bakery, which is located in the United States. As a Leftist I do not find this discrimination acceptable because the bakery is run by Muslim bigots - as opposed to Christian bigots. These Muslim baking bigots SHOULD be called out the same as the Christian baking bigots. And I am 100 percent positive that other Leftists agree with me. Bigotry is not acceptable no matter who the bigot is.

Willis can consider this commentary me breaking my "silence". Now I await his breaking of his silence regarding the aforementioned murder of yet another unarmed Black man by a White cop. Will it happen? It has not yet, and I imagine that Willis - the blogger who posts multiple commentaries a day - is aware of the story, given that he watches a lot of political programming (info I've gleaned via reading his blog).

So if he does not comment on this story I WILL consider it a definite "Silence". And a "silence" with some bigotry behind it. Due to the Hartster's long history of always coming out against the Black victim. In the case of Trayvon Martin killing the biased Willis actually put up more than a dozen commentaries defending the racist idiot George Zimmermann (SWTD #184 & SWTD #187).

And, following his defense of Zimmermann he authored a number of posts defending the killings of Brown and Garner. Which is why - if he decided to defend this latest cop shooting - I would not be surprised in the least. Although, if he does, I still call him out for his bullshit accusation of "silence" from the Left regarding Muslims guilty of gay bigotry. Willis is totally full of shit in that regard.

Full of shit in regard to his defense of the previous cop shootings of unarmed Black men as well. But I would give him props for not defending the murderer of Walter Scott. If he does. But so far? Only silence. And if he does break his silence I do expect some spin regarding the unarmed Black victim being responsible (to a certain degree) for getting shot in the back as he ran away.

Video: Anti-gay & anti-Muslim ex Fox Nooz contributor Steven Crowder dissembles on the "religious freedom" laws passed in a number of conservative states, does a hidden camera "gotcha" to catch a Muslim bakery discriminating and accuses the Liberal media of "ignoring" discrimination by Muslims to focus on Christian bakery discrimination (see here for the website this video was originally posted on).

Video: In video provided to The NYT, officer Michael Slager is seen shooting an unarmed man after a 4/4/2015 North Charleston SC traffic stop. Walter Scott, the victim, ran away and was shot in the back 5 times by Slager.

OST #37

Willis Hart LOL: Fake Ben Franklin Quote Is "Warning" To Modern Progressives

Ben Franklin was worried about lotters, moochers and parasites taking down the American democracy at some point in the future? Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is convinced he was...

Willis Hart: Benjamin Franklin to the Modern Progressives... "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been about 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage". Yeah, I would say that we're pretty far along that sequence. (1/18/2015 AT 8:06pm).

So, Willis thinks Ben Franklin was the Ayn Rand of his day? Yeah, I don't think so either. Mainly because the isn't genuine. Apparently it's a quote (or a version of a quote) that has been making the rounds among Conservatives for some time.

Here is an excerpt from an article that debunks Rightwing attribution of this quote to a number of people who never said it. And tracks down who actually said it.

David Wagner writing for "The Wire": none of the men cited above wrote these words [preceding has tweets from Conservatives attributing quote to De Tocqueville and Franklin... among others]. Atlanta, Georgia-based lawyer and politician Loren Collins heard the aphorism so often that he decided to do some research into its origins. He was able to trace the first known usage of the quote to a 1951 column by Daily Oklahoman newspaperman Elmer T. Peterson, who cites Alexander Fraser Tytler... as the original author. Tytler was a Scottish professor, lawyer, and Lord who lived during the American experiment's infancy. He wrote many skeptical takes on democracy, but the quote being passed around by conservatives right now wasn't one of them. The passage, "appears in no published work of Tytler's", according to Collins' research. Writing for the Freakonomics blog, Fred Shapiro was also unable to find anything like this in Tytler's works. And if anyone knows a thing or two about proper quote attribution, it's Shapiro, the editor of the Yale Book of Quotations. (Sorry, Conservatives, De Tocqueville Did Not Call the 2012 Election, 11/18/2012).

So, who actually said it? Looks like Oklahoman newspaperman Elmer T. Peterson fabricated the quote and falsely attributed it to Alexander Fraser Tytler.

In addition, the Wikiquote page for Benjamin Franklin lists this under "misattributed". Which makes sense, given that the original fabricator used it to argue against democracy. So it's obviously something Franklin, one of the Founding Fathers that created our democracy, would never have said.

Huh, I wonder what that says about Willis... that he buys (hook, line and sinker) a fake quote that originated from someone who "wrote many skeptical takes on democracy"? Perhaps Willis is skeptical of democracy himself? Maybe this explains why he constantly argues for plutocracy?

Does Willis believe America would best be governed by a council of "wise" wealthy people? He'd likely deny this. But one thing the fascist tool can't deny is that he is virulently anti-Progressive... as, in his mind it's Progressives who "vote themselves largess from the public treasury"... an action that will lead to the collapse of our democracy.

But, if our democracy does eventually collapse, what will be the cause? Providing for the needs of The People - or - kowtowing to the wealthy special interests? Yeah, I think it's definitely the later. And that THAT is the sequence we're pretty far along on.

OST #36