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.

It's A Strange Ignorance Coming Down (Re WTNPH Discounting Evidence That gwb Allowed 9/11 To Occur)

Note that in this commentary the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart refers to me as a "colleague". This was before he banned me from his blog. Now I'm a psychotic troll, and he's restricted his commenting policy so that only team members can submit anything.

Willis Hart: It's a Strange Hate Coming Down... Our colleague, wd, is on the record as saying that President Bush MAY (yes, he gave himself a little wiggle room) have known in advance that 9/11 was going to happen, and let it happen as a pretense to start a war in Iraq. An interesting theory, isn't it? I do have to wonder, though. Is wd aware that, had those planes struck a little differently and the evacuation not gone so smoothly, it wouldn't have been 3,000 human beings dead? It would have been 30,000, 40,000, or 50,000 human beings dead. Does he really think that Mr. Bush is evil to that extreme? Hm, I guess that only he can answer that, huh? (8/28/2011 AT 8:11pm).

Remember the PDB (presidential daily brief) from 8/6/2001 that warned Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US? Condi Rice fibbed and said "the CIA's PDB did not warn the President of a specific new threat but "contained historical information based on old reporting". Implying there was no reason for them to act... "historical information based on old reporting".

But that is CLEARLY bullshit, given the in Ladin Determined To Strike in US warning contained within the PDB. You don't act when you're being WARNED?

An excerpt from the PDB (dashes denote redacted words).

Clandestine, foreign government, and media reports indicate bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to conduct terrorist attacks in the US. Bin Laden implied in U.S. television interviews in 1997 and 1998 that his followers would follow the example of World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and "bring the fighting to America". *snip* Convicted plotter Ahmed Ressam has told the FBI that he conceived the idea to attack Los Angeles International Airport himself, but that in --, Laden lieutenant Abu Zubaydah encouraged him and helped facilitate the operation. Ressam also said that in 1998 Abu Zubaydah was planning his own U.S. attack. Ressam says bin Laden was aware of the Los Angeles operation. Although Bin Laden has not succeeded, his attacks against the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 demonstrate that he prepares operations years in advance and is not deterred by setbacks... Al Qaeda members -- including some who are U.S. citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the U.S. for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks. *snip* We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a -- service in 1998 saying that Bin Laden wanted to hijack a U.S. aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Sheikh" Omar Abdel Rahman and other US-held extremists. Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks...

Yes, there is "historical" data here, but it also says that bin Laden IS DETERMINED. More attacks WILL come. And this warning (and it absolutely was a warning) was delivered less than 4 months before the 9/11 attacks occurred. There were other warnings, however. Warnings that date back the early days of the bush presidency.

They're coming here: Bush admin. ignored multiple pre-9/11 warnings (11/14/2015 RT article excerpt) Disclosures from more than 100 hours of exclusive interviews with 12 former CIA directors reveal that the George W. Bush administration ignored repeated warnings of an Al-Qaeda attack before September 11, 2001, according to a new Politico report. ... A key meeting took place on July 10, after the head of the Al-Qaeda unit at the CIA... "The information that we had compiled was absolutely compelling. It was multiple-sourced. And it was sort of the last straw" [Cofer Black, a CIA chief of counterterrorism] said. ... "It was very evident that we were going to be struck, we were gonna be struck hard and lots of Americans were going to die" [according to Black]. Black and [CIA director George] Tenet requested an urgent meeting at the White House and met with Bush's National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. The president was on a trip to Boston at the time. Rice was told there would be significant terrorist attacks against the US in the coming weeks or months. "The attacks will be spectacular. They may be multiple. Al-Qaeda's intention is the destruction of the United States", said [Al Qaeda unit head, Richard] Blee, according to Tenet. Rice asked what they thought they needed to do, and Black blasted "We need to go on a wartime footing now!". Despite this warning, Black said the administration sat back.

The Politico article conclusion fits with Willis Hart's "strange hate" description, in that the author concludes that the warnings were actively ignored.

Tenet and Black pitched a plan, in the spring of 2001, called "the Blue Sky paper" to Bush's new national security team. It called for a covert CIA and military campaign to end the Al Qaeda threat - "getting into the Afghan sanctuary, launching a paramilitary operation, creating a bridge with Uzbekistan" "And the word back", says [CIA director George] Tenet, "was we're not quite ready to consider this. We don't want the clock to start ticking"... Translation: they did not want a paper trail to show that they'd been warned. (11/12/2015 article by Chris Whipple).

So it isn't just me who thinks that the bush administration ignored the threat that an attack was coming, and that, had they acted, they might have prevented 9/11. Note that the "word back" was that they did not want "the clock to start ticking", not that they weren't convinced.

That the attacks were ALLOWED to occur is a solid conclusion, IMO. As a pretext for invading Iraq. As per the stated desire of PNAC for a "new Pearl Harbor". (Wikipedia/Project for a New American Century/Critics: Journalist John Pilger pointed to this passage when he argued that Bush administration had used the events of September 11 as an opportunity to capitalize on long-desired plans).

The bush administration was also warned that hijacked planes might be used as weapons.

WH spokesman Ari Fleischer said that while President Bush was told last summer that bin Laden's al Qaeda network might hijack planes, "until the attack took place, I think it's fair to say that no one envisioned that [using planes as suicide bombs] as a possibility". However, a federal report issued exactly two years before the Sept. 11 attacks contrasts with that statement. The report, entitled the "Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism: Who Becomes a Terrorist and Why?", warned the executive branch that bin Laden's terrorists might hijack an airliner and dive bomb it into the Pentagon or other government building. [Also] the New York Times reports that an FBI agent in Arizona warned his superiors last summer [2000] that bin Laden might be sending students to U.S. flight schools. (What Bush Knew Before Sept. 11).

Then there is the fact that the WTC was bombed previously, due to it being seen by al Qaeda as a symbol of the United State's economic power. On 2/26/1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower, killing 6 people and injuring more than a 1,000. Given the fact that the 1993 plan basically failed, in that those responsible had intended to bring down the entire structure and kill many more, I think our government should have assumed that another attempt was likely and only a matter of time.

When WTNPH says "does he really think that Mr. Bush is evil to that extreme" he predicates it upon his assumption that I said bush knew EXACTLY what was going to happen (that al Qaeda would fly planes into the WTC). But, while the bush administration might (or should) have been able to connect the dots and make some educated guesses as to what al Qaeda may be planning, they chose not to (didn't want the clock to start ticking).

bush, IMO, likely knew there would be an attack, but they had NO idea how bad it would be. My conclusions (which many others have reached) don't represent a "strange hate". Not strange and not hate. Only a rational conclusion based on an examination of the facts. Although I think hate surely would be justified.

Also, I say he LIKELY knew. I (of course) do not know with 100 percent certainty that bush knew an attack was coming. Given the fact that he (as president) was an incompetent doofus, maybe Cheney played him for the useful idiot (and that it's Cheney who is truly evil)?

Me, I'm thinking that Cheney (who was one of 25 people who signed the PNAC's founding statement of principles, while bush wasn't) wanted a "benevolent global hegemony" which would be brought about by toppling Saddam. i.e. the domino theory which said that if the US "overthrows Hussein and creates a pro-Western democratic regime in Iraq, the example will increase internal pressure to open closed societies such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria").

Whereas bush wanted to take out Saddam because he allegedly tried to kill his daddy.

During a campaign speech in September 2002, Bush cited a number of reasons - in addition to alleged terrorist links and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) about why Saddam was so dangerous to the U.S., noting, in particular that, "After all, this is the guy who tired to kill my dad". He was referring, of course, to an alleged plot by Iraqi intelligence to assassinate Bush's father, former president George H.W. Bush, during his triumphal visit to Kuwait in April, 1993, 25 months after US-led forces chased Iraqi troops out of Kuwait in the first Gulf War and three months after Bush Sr. surrendered the White House to Bill Clinton. While the alleged plot was never cited officially as a cause for going to war, some pundits... have speculated that revenge or some oedipal desire to show up his father may indeed have been one of the factors that drove him to Baghdad. (So, Did Saddam Hussein Try to Kill Bush's Dad? by Jim Lobe. 10/19/2004 Republished by Common Dreams).

So, bush evil? Yeah, I think so. Because of his actions. Most evil people don't view themselves as evil. Remember that Osama bin Laden thought he was leading a religious crusade against the Great Satan. And believed he was on the side of God (AKA Allah). But would Willis Hart say OBL wasn't evil? I really, really doubt it.

Point is, we always determine evil by what evil does. Or what evil people do. In this case the evil of george w bush in ignoring the warnings and allowing 9/11 to happen. Something the evidence strongly suggests happened.

"Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" Public Policy Polling asked in 2009.Wikipedia notes that "27% of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10% as Conservatives, responded YES".

The Hartster's response (when I quoted these figures to him) was that people who responded YES are crazy. But wasn't it MORE crazy to ignore the clear warnings the bushies were presented with? I mean, if bush had done the job he was elected to do as CIC, which was to keep America safe, then 9/11 ABSOLUTELY could have been prevented.

In any case, and to my reason for writing this commentary, I'm not attempting to convince anyone that bush knew and purposefully ignored 9/11 warnings (as people in that camp will likely never be convinced), but only to point out that there is a lot of evidence that strongly suggests bush knew. And that I'm not crazy, suffering from a "strange hate", or "as far outside the mainstream as it gets" (another WTNPH assertion).

For the record, when I say that Willis Hart's ignorance is strange, I mean for someone as politically aware as he is. I don't mean that such an opinion is out of the mainstream, as many people are (either unaware) or don't believe that bush ignored 9/11 warnings. Willis' ignorance is strange because he knows these things (as I pointed them out to him in the comment thread of the post quoted above). Yet he still discounts the probability entirely. And berates anyone who gives it any credence as crazy.

So, it's a WILLFUL ignorance. This from someone I'd wager would accuse others of being willfully ignorant (him viewing himself as someone whose eyes are wide open, politically).

OST #168. See also SWTD #350.

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.

On Willis Hart Lying About Congresswoman Sheila Jackson-Lee Asserting that the U.S. Border With Mexico is Secure

The following post; a commentary which is complete and utter bullplop, from the blog of the liar known as "Will Take No Prisoners Hart" (AKA Willis Hart, AKA WTNPH)...

Willis Hart: "On Congresswoman, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Asserting that the U.S. Border With Mexico is Secure"... I'll take, "Just One More Pitch-Perfect Example of Why We Need to Vote Every Single One of these Cork-Soakers Out of Office", for a thousand, Alex (posted to the blog "Contra O'Reilly" on 7/10/2014 at 4:56pm).

Problem is, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee did NOT say the US/Mexico border is secure... and the following partial transcript proves it!

Via the Breitbart website... JACKSON LEE: [T]hen on the other end, Craig, we have got to be able to deal with their care and then deal with our border. I disagree that our border is in devastating condition. Our border patrol agents are doing their job. MELVIN: Do you think the border is secure? *snip* JACKSON LEE: I think our border with now 21,000 border patrol agents is under control. We need to give them more resources, more equipment and they can stand to have more support as it relates to the increasing of those numbers that may come through the supplemental. There's a large amount of money for increasing numbers of border patrol and ICE officers. But I would not cry fire to suggest that our border patrol agents are not on the job. They are on the job. I have spoken to them. I have been on the border, I have been on the Rio Grande. I have been on the border at night. (Video below).

She says the border is "under control", not secure. Also notice the bit in emphasized in red (added by me)? What she said is actually far different than what the lying Willis boiled it down to. And the Breitbart (not a Leftwing site) header says "Shelia Jackson-Lee: I disagree that our border is in devastating condition".

"Not in devastating condition" is the same as saying it is "secure"??? I think not, Willis, you liar!

In any case, I AGREE with Jackson-Lee and The Economist, which says "The US-Mexico border [is] Secure enough".

The Economist: Spending billions more on fences and drones will do more harm than good. ...border enforcement costs $18 billion a year, more than all other federal criminal-law-enforcement agencies combined. ... Most of America's 2,000-mile southern border is tighter than it has ever been. Greater use of surveillance technology may reduce crossings further. Yet the growth in numbers from Central America shows how strong the "push" factors behind migration remain. America's politicians may or may not find a way to declare the border "secure". But if Mexico's economy stutters, or violent crime soars again, the magnets of high wages, jobs and security across the border will prove too powerful for many to resist (6/22/2013).

The article also notes that Republican Senator John Cornyn refuses to talk immigration reform until "the southern border is 90% secure", yet some estimates say it is already 87% secure. This "secure the border" meme is, in other words, a political ploy.

One that the Hartster has clearly fallen for. And I thought he knew better. I mean, the dude has argued for more immigration (to provide cheap labor for the plutocrat's factories, in order that they don't have to go overseas when they are desirous of exploiting workers).

The truth is, we spend way too much on border security. A much better use of these monies would be enforcement of laws that say you must be an American citizen (or have a work visa) to secure employment in the United States.

That IS the reason people cross our Southern border... for jobs. No jobs; no reason to come. But wealth-worshippers like the Hartster know that is the LAST thing the plutocrats want (to cut off their supply of cheap labor).

That is why Republicans misdirect with baloney about "securing the border". And playing to the xenophobia of their base helps them accomplish their goal of keeping illegal workers illegal.

With a path to citizenship the illegal workers could come out of the shadows; the shadows where they have no choice but to tolerate being pushed around by employers who tell them they must accept low wages and unsafe working conditions or be reported to ICE.

The "secure the borders" crowd is a part of the deception designed to keep wages low and working conditions unsafe... and WTNPH, with his dishonest commentary about Shelia Jackson-Lee aligns himself with these liars. And for that I say, shame on you, Willis!

OST #26. See also SWTD #265.

Competition Will Drive Down Healthcare Costs Sez Free-Market-Magic Believing Libertarian

Willis Hart, a true believer in the Libertarian "free market" fairy tale, says those who think a healthcare free market wouldn't work for obvious reasons are wrong...

Willis Hart: "On the Idiotic Assertion that Competition Won't Bring Down the Cost of Healthcare Because Healthcare is a Necessity"... This is an easy one to refute... All that you have to do is compare healthcare spending as percentage of GDP prior to Medicare and Medicaid with that of what it's been since these programs. ... For the first 180 years or so... healthcare spending as a percentage of GDP was consistently in the low to middle single-digits, and it wasn't until government got massively involved (in the 1960s) that the numbers started skyrocketing. And the reasons for this are obvious. Whenever government gets into the business of subsiding something, the cost of that something invariably escalates. (6/10/2014 AT 7:23pm).

Missing from Willis' analysis of the healthcare market is the fact that other industrialized nations have Single Payer insurance. And THEIR subsidization is very high. However, their costs are much lower. But Willis foolishly overlooks this fact to make his magical "free market" argument.

Of course the reason prices have been going up has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that healthcare and healthcare insurance USED to be provided on a not-for-profit basis... NOT.

So why did health care costs being skyrocketing in the 60s? Willis blames government subsidization, and foolishly says it's "obvious" that "whenever government gets into the business of subsiding something, the cost of that something invariably escalates".

Sorry, but no, that was NOT the reason. As Forbes points out, in an article titled the "capitalist case for nonprofit health insurance", the reason for the costs going up was because we switched from a nonprofit to a profit model.

Forbes: Blue Cross, the most recognizable name, began in 1929 as a tax-exempt insurer... Blue Shield was started as a tax-exempt insurer... [We moved away from the nonprofit model] starting in the 1960s and through the 1980s when Wall Street discovered there was money to be made turning nonprofit health insurers, hospitals and nursing homes into investor-owned companies. (excerpt from a 10/12/2009 article by John Girouard).

So, we should be getting government out of the way and the "free market" will solve the problem when the problem was CAUSED by us going the for-profit route (free market = for profit)? I don't think so.

We already know what model works. Not-for-profit worked pre-1960 in the US, and it works in all the other industrialized nations Currently (Single Payer being not-for-profit). And a transition to single payer would be far easier to implement. Unlike the foolish Hartster's idea of getting rid of HCI altogether (except for catastrophic coverage).

Also, the assertion that competition won't bring down costs because healthcare is a necessity is not "idiotic", it is TRUE! People do not have the option of not buying AT ALL, as consumers in a true free market do. Supply and demand drives a free market, and, obviously, when the demand is such that people must buy your product or die, the supplier can charge more. The only thing idiotic here is that someone would be deluded enough (by Libertarian free market fantasies) to believe this is not the case.

OST #19. See also SWTD #261.

Exciting New Literary Work From Amateur Historical Revisionist Willis Hart!

Announcing an exciting new work of historical revisionism by novice history revisor Willis Hart...

Willis Hart Pontificates on the War of Northern Aggression: A Dissertation in 1,001 Parts, Volume 1 (Where the History Books are Right and Where the History Books are Wrong).

Anyone going to be lined up at Barnes & Noble on the day this is released to get his or her copy personally autographed by Willis Hart?

Published by "The Crazy Southern Conservative History Revisionism Press" (Copyright 11/28/2014). Makes the perfect Christmas gift for your crazy Rightwing history-revising-enthusiast relative!

Rejected (unread) by more than a dozen major publishers due to Willis' REFUSAL to use paragraphs. Although, if he had used pargraphs they likely all would have rejected it anyway, due to it's major historical innacurracies ("innacurracies" some might refer to as canards).

(This post in response to a commentary from Willis regarding my "new Netflix series").

OST #13. See also SWTD #257.

Willis Hart Lies About Extremely Dangerous Nuke Power Being "Carbon Free"

Willis Hart, a big-oil-loving climate-change-denying oligarchic-stooge-talker who hates green energy (and has devoted many posts on his blog to deriding it), foolishly and incorrectly believes that nuclear power, in addition to being safe, is "carbon free".

This is a person, believe it or not, who describes the reactions to Chernobyl and Fukushima (perhaps we should rethink going forward with this extremely dangerous energy source) as "hysteria", and worries "that the hysteria involved in these two episodes was probably a lot more harmful than the actual accident itself".

Willis Hart: And you have to realize that every country has to go through its own decarbonization process. Like in America, we started with wood (a 10:1 carbon to hydrogen ratio), went to coal (4:1), started using more oil (2:1), ditto natural gas (1:2) and then ultimately nuclear which is carbon free. And my suspicion is that the Chinese are still probably better off with the gas masks than they were back in the old days starving to death in the fields. (5/16/2014 AT 10:04pm).

Unfortunately, for Willis, this statement of misfact is completely false, as is a great number of the "facts" he dissembles on his blog of misinformation...

Christian Science Monitor: Saying nuclear is carbon-free is not true... Nuclear power has more than just a little greenhouse gas attached to it, when mining uranium ore, refining and enriching fuel, building the plant, and operating it are included. A big 1,250 megawatt plant produces the equivalent of 250,000 tons of carbon dioxide a year during its life... (By Mark Clayton, Staff writer, 3/7/2007).

Also notice the false choice he presents for the people of China? It's either starving to death OR wearing gas masks due to pollution... and it the latter situation in which they are "better off"!?

Is this guy a deluded stooge for the Big Energy plutocrats who benefit polluting our environment and killing us, or what? I mean, he's constantly advocating for dirty and/or dangerous forms of energy while railing against cleaner and safer forms of energy.

OST #12. See also SWTD #128.

On CO2 Atmospheric Content Increases Being Infinitesimal & Therefore Doing Nothing Not Being Risky At All

According to the "lumanarious" AGW skeptic Roy Spencer (an individual oft quoted by the blogger Willis Hart) "the idea that severe weather, snowstorms, droughts, or floods have gotten worse due to the atmosphere now having 4 parts per 10,000 CO2, rather than 3 parts per 10,000, is... sketchy" in an article from his website titled "Hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term risk".

Mr. Spencer's Number one fan agrees, saying (in a recent post) that people thinking that this infenitesimal increase will cause a global catatastrophe "is exactly what happens when science and government crawl into bed together".

But this increase is really not as small as the Hartster implies. Dr. Barry W. Brook, a research Professor at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute, explains - on his blog "Brave New Climate" - just how LARGE this increase in the trace gas actually is...

Barry Brook: Every cubic metre of air contains roughly 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of CO2 (10 to the 22nd power), [which is] a rather large number. ... let's try to get a feel for just how large a number this is. The number of stars within the 14-billion-light-year radius of the visible universe (Hubble volume) is estimated to be thirty billion trillion, i.e., 3 x 10 to the 22nd power. Thus, a mere 3 cubic metres of air, which would sit comfortably on most dining tables, contains as many CO2 molecules as there are stars in the vast span of the visible Universe. Bearing these mind-boggling numbers in mind, it's perhaps not quite so hard to understand how trace atmospheric gases in our atmosphere really do a good job at intercepting infrared radiation. (CO2 is a trace gas, but what does that mean?).

Sounds to me like this 33.3 percent increase is actually quite large and very much a cause for concern. Also, that Mr. Spencer's assertion that something is small when it is actually large is but one reason why this dude can't be trusted. Spencer says "hey, IPCC, quit misusing the term risk", but doing nothing when CO2 levels are increasing so dramatically sounds very risky to me.

OST #9. See also SWTD #249.

On The Climate Models Being "So Inaccurate" & 97% Of Climate Scientists Being Total F*cking Morons

Blogger Willis Hart is a strident AGW denier who constantly derides as idiots and liars the scientists who concur that global climate change is occurring, man is responsible, and it is cause for concern. Case in point, the latest from Mr. Hart...

Willis Hart: On Why the Climate Models Were So Inaccurate... It was because they were based on two equally erroneous assumptions; a) that the climate is inherently stable and b) that the major driver of climate change is CO2 - assumptions that even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd but which the well-connected ruling class utterly failed to. (4/29/2014 AT 10:49pm).

I don't know, Willis. Where the climate models really "so inaccurate"? Information I've found suggests older models were inaccurate, but newer models have actually been proven to be "remarkably accurate". This is according to an analysis of climate change modeling over the past 15 years, as written up in a 3/27/2013 paper published in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The study by Professor Myles R. Allen of the Climate Dynamics group at the University of Oxford (and colleagues) reveals that the models accurately predicted temperature increases "to within a few hundredths of a degree". Unless they're lying - that sounds pretty damn accurate to me.

Also, in regards to "assumptions that even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd" - I really wonder if these scientists are so stupid - how the hell did they earn their advanced degrees? If they fail to understand facts that "even a second year earth science student should have been able to detect were absurd" - wouldn't they have flunked out of college?

Maybe I should be more offended regarding Willis' constant slandering of the VAST majority of climate scientists? I mean, Willis was outraged when he thought I dissed the "luminaries" he admires. Problem is I acknowledge the fact that Climate Science is complicated, I know very little about it, and that there is room for dissenting opinions.

Dissenting opinions that I would never support anyone attempting to silence. I just think that when 97% of scientists agree that there is a problem and if we don't act the consequences should be severe - perhaps we should listen and actually consider doing something to at least mitigate the bad consequences?

Call me a moron, but I just don't buy into the grand conspiracy as envisioned by Mr. Hart. Seems to me that the denier's belief that no actions need be taken - and that we can continue spewing as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we want without consequence - works out nicely from those whose profits might be hurt if we actually did anything.

OST #8. See also SWTD #248.

A State of Will-ful Ignorance

What follows is a somewhat accurate commentary by Libertarian blogger Will Hart (or Willis Hart), except that most "states", historically speaking, have not been democratic or represented the will of the people. As such, the following is in reality quite dishonest, in that we KNOW the Hartster is talking about the US Federal government...

Willis Hart: On the State... It is the greatest source of death and destruction known to man (it isn't even a contest), and the fact that there are still people out there who so casually want to enhance its power is exceedingly troubling. (3/29/2014 AT 12:33pm).

In response all I can say is... DUH!! The state is the only entity that has the power to wage war, so OF COURSE it would be the greatest source of death and destruction. However, in a democracy it is THE PEOPLE who make the decisions, through their elected officials... arguably. A democracy requires, of course, that THE PEOPLE are informed and actually vote.

When they do the result will be a Democratic State that is a force for good in the lives of its citizens. And when the people don't stay informed or vote, that is when the special interests step in and take advantage of an apathetic electorate. In other words, it's all up to the people, but the Hartster OF COURSE completely ignores that reality. In his mind a powerful State representing the people is just as bad as a powerful State that represents the (the problem with our democracy), or itself (the problem with an aristocracy).

At least Willis makes no distinction what so ever with his commentary. He simply (and stupidly) says "State bad". And, while it most certainly is true that, even in a representative democracy, we must be wary of a State that does not act in the interest of THE PEOPLE, the answer is not to neuter government by striping it of it's power so it can't do evil OR good. The answer is for the electorate to get politically informed and participate!

There is a way by which we can ensure that the State works for us. But the Hartster clearly does not want that, which is why he conflates a representative democratic State that truly acts as a proxy for THE PEOPLE with a State that "is the greatest source of death and destruction known to man", and advocates disempowerment instead of fixing what's wrong. Disempower the State (representing THE PEOPLE) and the only ones left with any power will be the plutocrats.

Now, Willis may be eager to give up (stop trying to fix government and disempower it... thereby disempowering THE PEOPLE) - so we can surrender completely to the oligarchs... but I sure as hell am not.

OST #7. See also SWTD #245

In Regards To The Claim That The Civil War Was Fought Over States' Rights

According to a series of recent posts by Mr. Willis V. Hart the Civil War was not fought over slavery. Tariffs on Cotton was the reason, and those tariffs were a States' Rights issue. It is, however pretty easy to disprove bullplop like this - all one has to do is take a look at the Declaration of Causes of Seceding States which all cite slavery as their reason for leaving the union.

Between the dates 12/20/1860 and 11/20/1861 13 states ratified ordinances of secession, with four states - "Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas also issuing separate declarations of causes, in which they explained their reasons for secession" (quoted from Wikipedia).

Much of the complaining has to do with the North not adhering to the Fugitive Slave Clause contained in the 4th amendment to the Constitution (see here for the complete text of all four states' declarations).

Given the fact that four states specifically cited slavery as the reason they decided to leave the union, and no state ever cited States' Rights as a reason, it can be conclusively concluded that the Civil War was fought because of slavery. Case closed. The Civil War not fought because of tariffs or States' Rights. Both assertions (made on the blog of Mr. Willis Hart) are false and a disservice to those who seek an honest accounting of history.

Because without such an honest accounting we cannot acknowledge our mistakes and learn from them - which is exactly what many who dissemble on this issue desire. They don't want us to learn from history. Their desire is that minorities should continue to be discriminated against and deprived of their voting rights. I'm not saying this is Mr. Hart's motivation, but he surely is not a part of the solution with his recent (and numerous) Ahistorical commentaries on the subject of the Civil War and slavery.

OST #6. See also SWTD #242.

Willis Hart Taken In By Myth That Civil War Was About Tariffs

In a 3/15/2014 post the blogger Willis Hart speaks about the Civil War and how he believes we shouldn't have fought it. Regarding why President Lincoln decided fight a war to prevent the South from leaving the union, Mr. Hart says "my personal theory is that he just got so addicted to the tariff revenue... with which he was using to solidify his political power and cronyism that the dude literally couldn't stop himself".

Unfortunately for Willis, a 6/5/2013 NYT article titled "The Great Civil War Lie" points out that tariffs being the reason for sucession is a myth. According to the article, the North worried about England supporting Southern independance because of their "reliance on imported Southern cotton [and that] many in Britain thought that the" reason was the Morrill Tariff. These English pro-Southern succession believed the tariff "so incensed the Southern states that they left the union".

But the truth of the matter is that "passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession". Furthermore, the article states that "Pro-Southern business interests and journalists fed the myth that the war was over trade, not slavery – the better to win over people who might be appalled at siding with slave owners against the forces of abolition".

And that is a myth that continues to this day. Because Southern history re-writers, still supporting "states rights" (code for laws intended to prevent Black voters from casting ballots), don't wish the truth about their shameful past to be known. And they surely do not want anyone pointing out the fact that discrimination is still very much alive in the South. When the Conservative SCOTUS members recently voted to strike down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, Southern States immediately submitted legislation designed to disenfranchise Black voters.

No doubt Willis read about how tariffs were the reason for the Civil War on some Rightwing website - and the gullible fool (who is very much opposed to tariffs) ate it up. Further debunking Mr. Hart's assertion is the fact that the Morill tariff "replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South". Wikipedia notes that the original tariff was passed in "1842, but in 1846 the Democrats enacted the Walker Tariff, cutting tariff rates substantially. The Democrats cut rates even further in the Tariff of 1857, which was highly favorable to the South".

Also bogus are Mr. Hart's claims that Lincoln was "so addicted to the tariff revenue" and needed the money to support cronyism. The truth is that "the Treasury was in financial crisis, with less than $500,000 on hand and millions in unpaid bills. The Union urgently needed new revenue".

Willis is way wrong about tariffs causing the Civil War, as the tariff would not have been passed if the Southern states had not left the union. This is a chicken & egg argument, with Mr. Hart getting the order of how things played out mixed up. But, as I already noted, the dude is a strong supporter of unrestricted "free trade", so his falling for this BS is not surprising. Given that this old lie feeds into the Southern states desire to conceal the truth about their voting laws designed to restrict the voting rights of minorities, it is quite unfortunate.

OST #5. See also SWTD #241.

On Willis Hart's Idiotic & Islamophobic Assessment of Blowback

In a 3/9/2014 post the blogger Willis Hart addresses Ron Paul and says "for Mr. Paul or anybody to think that 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings, and Benghazi wouldn't have happened had only our troops not been placed in Saudi Arabia for a spate is a little bit silly and naive in my estimation".

In reply I must say "what a dope". 9/11 was cited by bin Laden as his rationale, but a LOT more has happened since then, like the illegal invasion of 2 countries and sustained drone strikes that have killed thousands. The Boston Marathon bombings and Benghazi were blowback for those things, you dolt!

Mr. Hart goes on to list his problems with "radical Islam", and he has very valid concerns, but, in my estimation, a large number of those who have been "radicalized" chose the "revenge" route exactly because of our response to 9/11, which was for bush to take advantage of the shock of the nation, as well as the strong feeling at the time that we needed to strike back.

bush saw an opportunity to become a "war president", get political capital, use that to push his other agenda items and get elected to a second term. And it also presented a wonderful opportunity for the bushies to loot the treasury by way of "no bid" Afghanistan and Iraq "reconstruction" contracts.

And that Mr. Hart consistently has defended bush in regards to his lying and thieving is, in my opinion, thoroughly disgusting. Ron Paul, while I may strongly disagree with MOST of what he believes, is correct when he says 9/11 "was blowback for decades of US intervention in the Middle East". And he was also correct when he say "the last thing we needed was the government's response: more wars, a stepped-up police and surveillance state, and drones".

Yes, OBL "publicly denounced Saudi dependence on the U.S. military, arguing the two holiest shrines of Islam, Mecca and Medina, the cities in which the Prophet Mohamed received and recited Allah's message, should only be defended by Muslims" and cited our military presence in that country as the motivation for the 9/11 attacks, but Al Qaeda was (prior to 9/11) an obscure Islamic movement and most likely faded from existence is not for our military response.

It was our response post-9/11 that continued the blowback (and made it worse). Another response and the blowback surely would be much less than it is today. The Boston bombers specifically stated that the motivation for their actions was our killing of Muslims in our "war on terror".

That Willis Hart only cites Saudi Arabia as the only reason for the rise of radical Islam is more than a bit silly and naive in my estimation. The main point of his commentary is to push his Islamophobic POV in which the US is blameless and all fingers should be pointed at the "rag heads" practicing a religion he is biased against. (for the record WH doesn't use the term "rag head", but reading his commentary you very much expect him to).

OST #2. See also TADM #21 and SWTD #239.