False Equivalencies In Defense Of Dotard's Sedition

According to the Libertarian Dotard-defending blogger Willis Hart, republicans objecting to the Electoral College votes being counted in states that went for Biden is just fine. Because Democrats did it too.

Al Gore and Hillary Clinton insisted for months that the election had been stolen from them? They fomented violence that resulted in supporters storming congress in the middle of the electoral college vote? I don't remember that happening.

Did Al Gore, in his position as outgoing VP, call ANY state rep and ask them to "find" enough votes to make him the winner, Willis? What state officials did Hillary Clinton pressure? Did Al Gore or Hillary Clinton (or any associate) urge their supporters to march on the capitol and engage in "trial by combat"?

I do agree with Willis that we have two sets of political rules in this country; one for Republicans and one for Democrats. He's wrong about who needs to develop a backbone, however. It's the Democrats. republicans (who want fewer people to vote) are going to move agressively to make it harder for people to do mail-in voting. Instead of allowing them to do this, Democrats need to counter them agressively.

As opposed to allowing republicans to get away with it. As they've allowed republicans to get away with supressing the vote for decades. Voter suppression is what allowed gwb to get the vote close enough in FL so his brother (with an assist from the Supreme Court) could steal the election from Al Gore.

High on the Biden Administration's agenda (as well as the agenda of the incoming Democratic congress) should be to pass the John Lewis voting rights act. Also high on the Democratic agenda should be pursuing charges against Dotard for his seditious actions (call to GA threatening that republicans in charge there "find" him enough votes to flip the election, inciting violence in DC, etc).

btw, if the VP can decide to throw out votes (as Dotard believes Pence could have), why didn't Al Gore throw out FL (or any other state) and make himself president?

OST #221

Another Hartbart PizzaGate Alternative Fact (AKA Bullshit). What A Sick Freak!

Hartbart (AKA Willis V. Hart) is a blogger obsessed with the debunked PizzaGate conspiracy theory. The following "alternative fact" comes (I presume) from one of the internet messageboards (4Chan?) where fellow alternative-fact-loving conspiracy theory nuts spin their bullshit.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that this Was One of the Images on Display at Comet Ping Pong [see pic below]. Oh yeah, that's "family friendly" for sure (with the red public hair being an extra special touch). Sick freaks. (2/1/2017 at 8:57pm).

Wrong. The piece of artwork above is from the "Lovers and Dragons" book of paintings by Olympia WA artist Arrington de Dionyso (also an album). It is not now, nor was it ever on display at Comet Ping Pong. It is true that Arrington de Dionyso painted a mural that was on one of the walls of Comet Ping Pong, but it was PG (no bare breasts or pubic hair).

Here is a photo of the artist standing in front of the ACTUAL mural he painted and was displayed at Planet Ping Pong (2010).

I don't know how long this mural existed at the Washington DC pizzeria, but a 12/23/2016 article titled "Artist Targeted by #Pizzagate Conspiracy Theory Speaks", says it was "painted over nearly six years ago". So... wrong artwork. Also, it isn't there anymore.

Anyway, talking about images of nude women, Hartbart has some on his blog. For example, this photo from a 4/2/2016 post titled "On the Brilliance and Versatility of Berkshire Photographer, Denise B. Chandler" (the last nude the pervert posted to his blog, although I remember seeing others).

So nudes are "brilliant" when they don't show red pubic hair, apparently (the decapitated heads are more of a WTF for me, but Hartbart doesn't mention them). Also note that his image of boobies is a photograph, while the one NOT displayed at Comet Ping Pong (but from an art book) is a painting (and not that realistic looking).

Clearly the Hartster's blog is NOT "family friendly". What a sick freak! Not for posting nudes, but for his sick hypocrisy and sick gullibility. Oh, and for his sick objectivization of women and sick misogyny (although that's another matter).

OST #194

Willis Hart Is A Misogynist Hypocrite (Re Samantha Bee Being A Stupid "B")

Even though the election is over and Donald Trump will be our next preznit (baring the Electors voting for the popular vote winner), the Libertarian idiot Willis Hart is still attacking Hillary Clinton and posting mildly critical (at most) comments about the Orange Buffoon. Or fluff like "It's different. I grant you that" (re Trump's tweeting continuing when he is preznit).

This time the hypocrisy and misogyny of the Hart idiot is in regards to former president Bill Clinton and how (back in 2013) Willis was not all that concerned about WJC being a "cheater".

Willis Hart: On Bill Clinton Being a Cheater... Fair enough. But after 13 years of noncheaters, maybe a cheater is exactly what we need again... I'm just sayin'. (9/25/2013 AT 4:26pm).

A cheater, but not the wife of a cheater. That is someone we DEFINITELY do not need as president. Fact is, when a cheating husband cheats, it is the wife's fault. And while not a big deal when Bill Clinton did it, it IS a big deal now and is something Willis uses... to criticize Hillary Clinton! (as well as another woman who DARES to defend/support her).

Willis Hart: Note to Samantha Bee... You stupid bitch. You stupid, stupid bitch. Yes, Trump is a douche-bag and, yes, he's said some sexist things... but your candidate, your goddess, Mrs. Clinton... denigrated the women who her husband has been accused of sexually assaulting and having affairs with (calling them "trailer trash" and other such insults)... [blah, blah, blah] her philandering husband... (11/17/2016 AT 11:26pm).

Gee, what a surprise that the Hartster uses the "B" word to describe a liberal woman pundit/political comedy show host he doesn't like. If she were also Black the insult would almost certainly have been that Samantha Bee is a "minstrel" as well (because, in addition to being a misogynist, WTNPH is quite racist).

BTW, Trump has said "some sexist things". Ya think? But what about his bragging about sexually assaulting women (grabbing them by the pussy)? Willis thinks that was just Billy Bush having "a conversation with Donald Trump about chicks". And, YES, that is an exact quote!

Bragging about sexually assaulting women is "a conversation about chicks". A DOWNGRADE from "locker room talk"! Can there be ANY doubt that the Harster is a misogynist? Seriously?

OST #184

Government Passed Laws Should Only Be Suggestions & Absolutely Not Enforced Libertarian Sez

What explains this is the fact that Libertarians (such as Willis Hart) believe in Kingdom and hate democracy. The Liberty and Freedom they subscribe to depends on how much money a person has. The more money someone has, the more liberty and freedom they are deserving of. Everything being a commodity under their worldview (DSB #44).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Whenever You Go to Bottom of the Rabbit-Hole with Groups Like Black Lives Matter, Occupy Wall Street, the Bernie Sanders Crowd, etc. and Ask These Folks How They're Going to Implement Their Agenda, They Always Have to Confess that it Will Only Be Obtained Through Coercion, Force, the Threat of Violence, and Violence Itself... Via the full force of the state, in other words. But relax, it's for our own good, they say. (5/27/2016 AT 4:34pm)

Willis Hart, like many on the Right, frame their hatred for democracy as a love of republicanism. Our country is a republic and not a democracy because our Founders recognized that the rights rich people needed to be protected from the masses. The danger being the rabble voting to steal from rich people so they can loaf (i.e. the "Makers vs Takers" meme).

This Randian argument says that "since the takers don't pay taxes - they just take government benefits - they are endlessly incentivized to support politicians who keep their Ponzi scheme going" (Makers, Takers, and YOYOs). This is a false/divisive meme that Hart subscribes to (strongly).

Willis Hart: ...people when given the choice will almost always vote for those who promise them the most while making others pay for it) and why the Founding Fathers created a Republic instead. (4/2/206 AT 3:21pm).

This despite the fact that we're talking about making investments that will be economically beneficial. The higher the level of education attained, the more the individual in question pays in taxes over their lifetime. Also, those with more education draw less from social support programs (How Taxpayers Benefit When Students Attain Higher Levels of Education). Which is why the proposals of Bernie Sanders (for free college) and Hillary Clinton (for debt free college) would more than pay for itself.

None-the-less Willis opposes free college.

Willis Hart: Oh, free college education now! Do you have ANY idea how expensive that would be? And do you even care? We'll pay for it by taxing the rich, right? (7/3/2011 AT 9:00pm)

His primary concern here (as it is ALWAYS) is how much the rich will pay in taxes. Which explains his anger at the Occupy Wall Street movement and "the Bernie Sanders Crowd". With Black Lives Matter, his outrage concerns cops who shoot unarmed suspects. Apparently be believes cops should should continue to be allowed to shoot Black people indiscriminately.

Bottom line, though, is that addressing these issue via LAWS is what the Hartster is objecting to in his rant. And, if people refuse to follow the law, he thinks nothing should be done? Should the authorities representing the State say "OK, it was really more of a suggestion"?

Of COURSE, if you're going to have laws (any laws), ultimately the threat of force is necessary to back them up. As a last resort, of course. There are other ways to persuade people to follow the rules. But, ultimately, if they refuse, then what choice is there but to back up those laws with force?

Is he saying he believes in Libertarian anarchism, or just the (democratic) passage of laws he disagrees with? In which case (if he doesn't believe there should be NO laws), then I say (if you go to the bottom of his rabbit hole) HE HAS TO CONFESS that the State powers he agrees with can only be enforced through coercion, force, the threat of violence, and violence itself.

But I doubt he will, as he is clearly an enormous hypocrite.

OST #147

Thoughts On Libertarian Blogger's Butt-Hurt Re Film Script 4 "Reagan Alzheimer's Comedy"

This commentary was prompted a post from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he speculated that a potential upcoming movie would prompt LOLs from yours truly. A post in which he expresses his hate for a progressive president while defending a Conservative one (hating on Progressives/defending Conservatives while laughably claiming to be "Moderate" being something he is a maestro at).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Hollywood Is Apparently Kicking Around the "Idea" of a Reagan Alzheimer's Comedy... Yeah, and if you get enough of these brain-dead progressive bloggers (Tao, Octopus, wd, etc.) to screen the thing, you won't even need a laugh-track. P.S. Of course the truly offensive part in my book is the fact that they would never do such a thing like to a liberal Democrat (even the loathsome ones like FDR) 'cause they're so in the tank for them. You gotta be even-handed. You gotta be. (5/10/2016 AT 5:28pm).

I have heard of this movie. It was supposed to star Will Ferrell, but he pulled out. Likely because the premise might be considered offensive by some. Not that Reagan wasn't suffering from Alzheimer's while president, because he likely was. Three years into his 1st term, according to his son Ron Reagan's book.

But there are people who think Reagan was a good president (for reasons that baffle me, given the fact that I consider him one of the absolute worst presidents. Unlike FDR, who was one the best). They likely would be upset and whine about such a project. Or even issue threats (Producer Adam McKay: "There were scary messages left at our office. Stuff like, How dare you say anything bad about Ronald Reagan, you better watch your back").

Also people who think that making a "comedy" based on someone suffering from a horrible disease would be in extremely bad taste. Me, I'm inclined to agree about such a film being in bad taste. But, heck, I'd be willing to give it a shot (not by watching, but by monitoring reviews before deciding if it might be something I'd like to see). Because, like I said, I think Reagan was a terrible president, and no, I do not think "you gotta be even-handed".

So, who knows if I would have LOLed as much as Willis speculates that I would. I'm thinking probably not, however, as I usually don't care for lowbrow comedies (which many of Will Ferrell's films are). In any case, I think Willis is totally full of shit with the implication that he is even-handed (despite him saying "you gotta be").

First, everyone has their biases. Second, the Hart's biases are more intense than the average persons. Take, for example, his hatred of the "loathsome" FDR. A president who was (and still is) quite popular.

FDR was the best-loved and most hated U.S. President of the 20th century. He was loved because, though patrician by birth, upbringing and style, he believed in and fought for plain people - for the "forgotten man" (and woman), for the "third of the nation, ill-housed, ill-clad, ill-nourished". He was loved because he radiated personal charm, joy in his work, optimism for the future. But he was hated too - hated because he called for change, and the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income and self-esteem of those who profited most from the old order. (The 20 Most Influential Americans of All Time by Time Staff. 7/24/2012).

I acknowledge that FDR was responsible for some loathsome things. Things WTNPH discusses ad nausea on his blog (internment of Japanese Americans, bombing of Dresden); while NEVER discussing the "warts" of Republican presidents (or discussing them infrequently at least). And, even if he does, it's usually in the context of downplaying them (gwb's Iraq war was "ham-handed and ultimately tragic").

In any case, I think it's abundantly clear that Willis hates FDR so much because "the changes he proposed reduced the power, status, income and self-esteem of those who profited most from the old order". This has got to be the most loathsome thing that FDR did. At least in the mind of a wealth-worshiping Libertarian like Hart. Remember that FDR said "they are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred". Clearly that hatred persists to this day.

The oligarchs and wealth-worshipers (people like WTNPH) wish to ramp up the dismantling of FDR's New Deal because it's policies built the (now disappearing) Middle Class.

The creation of the world's largest middle class is the legacy of FDR, and explains his popularity (during his presidency and to this day).

It's not uncommon for presidents to leave office less popular than when they entered. In fact, very few achieve the opposite. Presidential approval rating polls go back to FDR's second term, and only two of the 13 presidents since then have left office with higher ratings than when they came in: FDR and WJC. ... [The most popular president, FDR, had an] approval rating when he left office [of] 70%. [His] average approval rating [was] 64%. (Presidential Approval Ratings Ranked From First To Worst Benzinga article, 11/22/2014).

Ronald Reagan comes in 5th place with an average approval rating of 52%, while Richard Nixon (whom WTNPH calls brilliant in a recent commentary) earns last place with a 25% approval rating (average 49%).

Note that Nixon's brilliance (as per WTNPH) concerned something Tricky Dick wrote in a book AFTER leaving the presidency regarding US democracy spreading. He said he was against it post-presidency, even though he acted contrary to that credo BIG TIME while president. Only "brilliant" if you think hypocrisy is a quality to be praised.

Or, if you don't want to term it "hypocrisy" but "evolving"? Surely Nixon evolved when it no longer mattered (whereas it would have mattered GREATLY) if he had reached the same conclusion before sabotaging the Vietnam peace talks. Or even while president, when he could have broken precedence by rejecting the idea that the US should spread democracy. Perhaps this precedence breaking would have made it harder for gwb to go to war in Iraq? (Who knows). But he didn't.

Anyway, the Reagan Alzheimer's movie will likely NOT be made now, so there will be no test screening during which my LOLing for a laugh track could be recorded. Nor the laughs of Tao and Octopus. As for the truly offensive part in the brain-diseased Hartster's book being the "fact" that they would never do such a thing to a liberal Democrat... I seriously do not give a crap that this movie was (or might still be) kicking around Hollywood causes Willis great "butt-hurt" (to use a Willisism).

Actually, that is the truly hilarious part, IMO. That this script "kicking around Hollywood" re a very bad Republican president causes Willis such enormous butt-hurt. As well as eliciting some totally unbelievable "gotta be even-handed" bullplop. Although, like I said, he's a maestro at it. Deluding himself into believing he's "Moderate", that is.

OST #143

Willis Hart Unplugged From Reality Re Richard Nixon "Brilliant" Comments On US Democracy Spreading

Bullshit from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he gives undeserved kudos to Richard Nixon. Because Nixon wrote (in 1990) that the US shouldn't be waging war to "spread democracy", ignoring the fact that RMN was preznit while the US was involved in just such a war.

Willis Hart: Richard Nixon, Unplugged... "We should not make the mistake of trying to impose our system on nations that have neither the traditions nor the institutions to make democracy work". That is brilliant, as much as I hate to say it and, yes, the final score; Nixon 1 George W. Bush and Barack Obama 0. (5/5/2016 AT 4:25pm).

Richard Nixon (1/9/1913–4/22/1994) did write this, but it was AFTER he left the presidency (1969-1974) - in the 1990 book From the Arena (according to this source). However, during his campaign for the White House Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War for political gain. Then, after being elected, he escalated the war.

In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings. Anna Chennault, one of Nixon's aides... was dispatched to the South Vietnamese embassy with a clear message: the South Vietnamese government should withdraw from the talks, refuse to deal with Johnson, and if Nixon was elected, they would get a much better deal. Eventually, Nixon won by just 1% of the popular vote. "Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968", says the BBC. (Nixon Prolonged Vietnam War for Political Gain—And Johnson Knew About It, Newly Unclassified Tapes Suggest).

Wikipedia notes that, "The U.S. government viewed its involvement in the war as a way to prevent... the spread of communism [whereas] The North Vietnamese government and the Viet Cong were fighting to reunify Vietnam [and] viewed the conflict as a colonial war, fought initially against forces from France and then America, and later against South Vietnam".

So, I think Vietnam could be classified as a war were we made "the mistake of trying to impose our system on nations that have neither the traditions nor the institutions to make democracy work". Granted, the war began under Lyndon Johnson, but Nixon prolonged it and escalated it! And, after sabotaging peace talks as a Republican potus hopeful, he then (as president) instituted a policy to end the war "through a program termed Vietnamization to expand, equip, and train South Vietnam's forces" (which failed).

Although this was after "the Cambodian Campaign [which] was a series of military operations conducted in eastern Cambodia during 1970 by the United States and the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) during the Vietnam War". Also note that "these invasions were a result of the policy of President Richard Nixon".

So what Nixon wrote later (the Nixon via WTNPH quote) didn't comport with his actual actions. Still "brilliant", Willis? But me asking that question assumes that Willis is unaware of the Nixon administration policies during the Vietnam War. But I'm sure he IS aware. So... what explains the Hartster's "Nixon brilliant" bullshit?

Damned if I know. I'm going to just guess it has something to do with the fact that the dude is becoming more and more unplugged from reality (OST #141). Also the fact that he often acts as an apologist for Republicans. Here Nixon, but he's done the same regarding gwb (DSD #18).

Video: Newly-released recordings from the Oval Office show President Lyndon Johnson knew Richard Nixon tried derailing peace talks with Vietnam, an act for which he could have been charged with treason. Although (according to Willis Hart) Nixon's later hypocrisy was "brilliant" (1:45).

OST #142

Re Referring To A TV Personality You Dislike As A Smarmy, Hero-Worshiping, Intellectually-Challenged, Nearly Unwatchable, Bonkers, Left-of-Center, Slant-Headed, Buffoonish Wack-Job

The Libertarian Willis Hart does it in the following post.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Trump Allowed Himself to get Punked by the Smarmy, Hero-Worshiping, Intellectually-Challenged, Nearly Unwatchable, and Bonkers Left-of-Center TV Host, Chris Matthews... How embarrassing is that? I mean, if you can't match wits with a slant-headed, buffoonish wack-job like Matthews, what chance do you have amongst world leaders? Maybe the "establishment" is right for a change. P.S. And as far as abortion (the issue that Trump flubbed) goes, I don't doubt that Trump gives a rat's ass about it and that dullard response to Matthews was strictly what he thought that his target audience wanted hear. The dude was pandering, in other words. (4/3/2016 AT 4:11pm).

(Note: Regarding the struck word - I replaced "don't" with "doubt" because I think it's the word Willis intended to use).

My one sentence response? Not enough pejoratives (and yes, I mean that sarcastically).

So my impression is that the Hartster REALLY doesn't like Chris Matthews. But why use this topic to bash him? This is the interview in which Trump said that he thinks abortion is murder and that women should be "punished" if they exercise their right to choose.

And Willis has no problem with the response... because he guesses that Trump is "pandering". So, if elected he'll leave things as they are, I guess. Although Trump did say he thinks it's a states' rights issue. Sure, because we should have different abortion laws in each state.

Makes a lot of sense that Willis would get behind/defend Trump on this, given the fact that Libertarians generally oppose abortion. No, wait. Aside from the Pauls, my impression has been that they're for a woman's right to choose (Libertarian Party Platform: Abortion is a woman's choice and does not concern the state).

BTW, all those pejoratives and Chris Matthews is still only "NEARLY unwatchable"? How many more insults would Willis need to add to the list for the "nearly" to go away, I wonder?

Anyway, apparently "pandering" is OK in Willis the Trump defender's eyes. At least when it's not a Democrat doing it.

OST #128

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OST #121

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OST #119

Willis Hart Molests The Truth Re Contra O'Reilly Post On How It's A "Fact" That Salon Gives Pedophiles A Platform To Explain Themselves

Another commentary from self-identified "Libertarian leaning" blogger Willis Hart in which the pervert molests the truth. A post in which the truth-molester perverts the facts.

On the Fact that Salon Give Pedophiles a Platform to "Explain" Themselves but Doesn't Give Such an Opportunity to Global Warming (err, I Mean, Climate Change) Skeptics, Free-Market Libertarians, Pro-Life Republicans, etc... They must perceive the pedophile as a victim (more so than even the children, I guess). (1/11/2016 AT 3:39pm).

It's quite clear that Willis doesn't care about the victim of his constant perverting and molesting of the facts. Which would be the Truth. I mean, there is no reason for him to guess (Willis sez that Salon "must perceive the pedophile as a victim... more so than even the children, I guess").

Why guess when a quick Google search reveals what actually happened? Which I did, and found that Salon DID publish an article by a self-described pedophile. However, this individual goes on to say that he believes he is a pedophile (attracted sexually to children) because he was molested as a young boy... but that he's never acted on this attraction.

In fact the author says (in a followup article) that he outed himself so we can "all work together to end child sexual abuse [because] children are "legally, morally and psychologically unable to reciprocate my feelings and desires". (I believe him because someone who had actually molested kids would never out himself and DARE people to uncover his crimes).

Anyway, the point is that (given the fact that this admitted pedophile has never acted on his desires) there are no victims... as Willis claims. In the title of his post Willis implies pedopiles are explaining why they molest kids in Salon articles, which is FALSE. And the body of his post Willis says (via guess) that the Salon people who decided to publish the (two) articles do not "perceive the pedophile as a victim", which is also FALSE.

But Willis obviously did not bother to look this up for himself. Clearly Willis read an article from a Rightwing source (according to the author "my pedophilia essay outraged the right. My attempt to humanize a real problem brought out their nastiest rage"). CLEARLY Willis read one of these Rightwing outraged responses

And it was Willis' reading of the Right's 2nd hand take that lead to his molesting of the truth (via vile guesses that have Salon editors seeing pedophiles as victims). Another incorrect guess being WTNPH's assertion that Solon published articles by "pedopiles" (plural). No, it was just the one (two article by ONE person).

But Willis obviously doesn't care enough to find out if his guesses are anywhere near the truth. He makes his guesses (which make the editors of the Liberal Salon out to be horrible people who think molesters of kids are victims), then launches into a non-sequitur that has him making a nonsensical connection to Salon not publishing climate change denying and Libertarian "free market" bullshit.

As if there aren't a plethora of sites where this idiocy is spewed with great frequency and in large volumes. As if Conservative big money interests aren't contributing boatloads of cash to Rightwing and Libertarian think tanks who engage in climate change denying or "free market" proselytizing to get their message into the mainstream in a big way. Right.

BTW, I read both Salon articles (I’m a pedophile, but not a monster from 9/21/2015 and I'm a pedophile, you're the monsters: My week inside the vile right-wing hate machine from 9/30/2015) and agreed with the author when he said "no problem was ever solved by refusing to understand the issue".

He also spoke of encountering a lot of "willful ignorance" which brought to mind Willis Hart. This post of WTNPH (from his blog Contra O'Reilly) being yet another example of how the Hartster elevates willful ignorance to an artform.

(My interpertation of Willis' post: I don't know, I'm just going to guess and my guess is going to make out a Leftwing news/commentary source out to be engaged in despicable behavior because I hate Progressives so much).

Not that I don't do this myself... read a Leftwing criticism of the Right and then not go to a Rightwing source to get their take. But I don't portray myself as someone who distrusts and is critical of both the Left and the Right. Unlike the hypocrite Willis.

OST #93

Montel Williams Is Black, Therefore His Views On The BLM Versus Rancher Showdown In Oregon Are Race-Based & Montel Is A Racist

Another example of hyper racial consciousness from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart (a subject I first addressed with OST #91).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Out of Work Talk-Show Host, Montel Williams, Recently Advocated that the Government Show a "Massive Use of Force" and Institute "Shoot to Kill" Orders as a Means to Settle the BLM Versus Rancher Showdown in Oregon... Yeah, I don't seem to recall him advocating shit like this when black people were destroying a large section of Ferguson, Missouri (including a senior center and a CVS pharmacy) over what ultimately proved to be one of the most virulent lies of recent memory (the hands up, don't shoot narrative). It must have been an oversight (you know, as opposed to him being a fucking racist and hypocrite whose only goal is to denigrate white people and glorify the state). (1/6/2016 AT 9:56pm).

First of all, what a freaking surprise that Willis finds an angle to write about this story which doesn't have him criticising the law breaking ranchers while going after African American protestors. No, wait, that the racist Hart would refuse to criticise the White ranchers isn't a surprise at all.

Another non surprise is the fact that a Conservative opinion site had the exact same thought... while Googling for some more info, I found a story on the "Independent Sentinel" titled "To Be Fair, Montel Williams Must Want Shoot to Kill Orders in Ferguson and Baltimore Too" (the author of this article, Sarah Noble, describes herself as an "ex-liberal").

By the way, "protest leader Ryan Bundy told Oregonian politics reporter Ian Kullgren that he was willing to kill and be killed if necessary to sustain the occupation" (Extremist Group Calls for Oregon Militants to Be Willing to Die). My guess is that this statement is what Montel was referring to and that he did not mean what he said literally.

If he did mean it literally? I don't agree. Unless the militants start going through with Ryan Bundy's call for them to be "willing to kill", the law should seek to end this peacefully.

In any case, it's obviously because Montel Williams is Black that the hyper racially conscious Willis concludes he is a "fucking racist". I mean, what if a White guy had said this? I was watching the Stephanie Miller show yesterday and Stephanie read a news story about Bundy saying they were willing to die... and the Mooks (her co-hosts) all said "OK". I did not take this "OK" literally. Nor did I think they said it due to them being racist (against Whites).

As for Willis not seeming to recall what Montel said when "black people were destroying a large section of Ferguson, Missouri"... I did not recall either. So I Googled and found what he said.

Ferguson‬ – is this really how you think your going to raise the LEGITIMATE issue of the disconnect between law enforcement and the black community? By burning down a pizza restaurant and looting a beauty shop IN YOUR OWN NEIGHBORHOOD! ... THIS IS NOT HOW TO DO THIS – you've badly damaged the chances of making progress on the issue you so badly want to raise. ... This is insane. There is NO JUSTIFICATION. (Montel Williams blasts Ferguson riots by Jennifer Brett. The Atlanta Journal Constitution‎'s Buzz Blog 11/25/2015).

OK, so he didn't call for the use of lethal force to stop the protesters, but neither was he defending what they did. But Willis probably doesn't recall that. Why? IMO it's because Montel is not someone expressing his opinion as someone who is a part of the "we're all fucking humans" group. He's a "fucking racist" because he's a BLACK MAN expressing his opinion (via tweet) on (presumably all) White law breaking ranchers illegally occupying a bird sanctuary (and threatening to kill federal officials/other representatives of the law).

Finally, how the hell does Willis come to the conclusion that Montel's call for the ranchers to be dealt with using lethal force (if serious) means Montel wants this done to "glorify the state"? Also, so the eff what if Montel is "out of work"? As far as I know Montel has plenty of money (not on welfare), so what business or concern is it of Willis Hart's whether or not Montel Williams is currently employed?

By the way, I don't consider myself a Montel Williams fan. I don't care for the fact that he's "a paid spokesperson for MoneyMutual, a lead generator for a payday lending service" (Wikipedia/Montel Williams/Payday loan controversy). I also have no idea what his politics are. I'm not defending Williams, only pointing out that I think the evidence shows that it's Willis Hart who is a "fucking racist and hypocrite". And that the Willis post I'm responding to is yet another example of the Hartster's hyper racial consciousness.

OST #92

Willis Hart Extreme Hypocrisy Re Him Daring Someone To Call Black Conservatives "Uncle Toms" To Their Faces While He Refers To Black Liberals As "Minstrels"

Another example of screaming hypocrisy from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he DARES (Progressives, presumably) to refer to two specific Black Conservatives (people I've never heard of) using a derogatory term.

On Angry Black Conservatives and Youtube Sensations, David Carroll and the Honorable Akwesi 100... I dare anybody to call these two, an "Uncle Tom", TO THEIR FACES (you know, as opposed to sitting anonymously behind some computer screen). (11/9/2015 AT 4:22pm).

I dare you, Willis, to walk up to each of the Black Progressives you've called "Minstrels" (from behind your computer screen) and call them minstrels TO THEIR FACES. I also dare you (in regards to the the Black Progressives you've referred to as "demagogues" from behind your computer screen) to use this term when in their presence... you fu*king hypocrite!

The Black "Minstrels" being Jesse Jackson, Touré Neblett, Marc Lamont Hill, Tariq Nasheed and Al Sharpton (who he also wanted to urinate on), and the Black demagogues being Charles Blow, Melissa Harris-Perry, and Marc Lamont Hill. (Yes, some of these people are on both lists).

The takeaway here is that the screaming hypocrite Willis Hart thinks it's just fine for him to refer to African American Progressives as minstrels and demagogues. That's just him telling it like it is, I guess. But if a Liberal refers to a Black Conservative as an "Uncle Tom"? Well, that's completely unacceptable.

Not that I would ever do this, mind you. Mostly because I have absolutely no idea who either of these creators of videos on YouTube are. Or care who they are. I looked them up and found their videos. Problem is, aside from me not giving a crap, the videos I found are all too long. My high speed satellite internet connection has a data cap that requires I be careful lest I go over it.

I did watch a part of one, but stopped it after the dude spoke for several minutes about his creating videos and videos he would create in the future (meta stuff) and wasn't getting to what he actually was going to say. I said "enough of this" and navigated away. I'll take Willis' word for it that these are two Black dudes who are Conservative. To which I say, SO WHAT? Yes, there are Black Conservatives... even though the majority of African Americans vote Democratic, SOME are Conservative Republicans.

I don't understand why they would be, but it is THEIR RIGHT to believe whatever the hell they want. I'm not going to use any (racially tinged) pejoratives to describe them. That is what the demagoguing hypocrite blogger Willis V. Hart does!

BTW, if someone were to call these two Black Conservatives "Uncle Tom" to their faces, what does he think would happen? That they'd get punched? Because Conservatives like the Harster (someone who claims he's anti-war) are actually inclined to resort to acts of physical violence to settle disputes?

Or does Willis think these two Conservative men would immediately get violent because they're Black? Because this is how the racially biased Hartster views Black people? That they're all violent animals who want to kill/assault White men and rape White women?

When they aren't killing each other, that is. In Willis' imagination African Americans (when they aren't perpertrating violent acts against Whitey) are either killing and maiming each other over "over foolishness [such as] half-eaten 3 Musketeer bars, a pair of Air Jordans, some big butted heifer, etc" or they [the mothers] are murdering their children (stuffing their dead bodies in freezers or throwing them off balconies).

OST #80

Willis Hart Joins Anti-Choice Radicals Lying About Planned Parenthood

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, while not being opposed to a woman's right to choose per se, has, in the past, argued positions that align with the Right's War On Women. Misogynist posts denying the fact that we live in a White male dominated patriarchal society, in addition to posts that would make it harder for women to obtain birth control as well as harder to obtain the health care they need.

At least for lower middle class and working class women. As a Libertarian of course Willis does not give a shit about them. Middle and upper middle class (and rich) women can obviously afford to pay for whatever medical services they need.

In regards to these recent attacks on Planned Parenthood with James O'Keefe style deceptively edited videos, the Hartster has shamefully come out on the side of the liars.

Willis Hart: Note to Planned Parenthood... I need about a dozen spleens and eight small intestines. Can you hook me up here? Volume discount maybe? (7/29/2015 AT 4:14pm).

Does Willis Hart work in the medical research field? No, I think not. He's simply denigrating PP and (in the process) dismissing the benefit to society this kind of research brings. For no stated reason - which is why I assume his idiotic commentary is simply his way of jumping on the "lie about PP by playing up the factually incorrect narrative that PP is doing something wrong" bandwagon. For which I say - shame on you Hart.

Did PP do something wrong? Did they break any laws? Willis does not address this question. He simply implies they are, by going along with this LIE. Which it is. Factcheck.org, in an article titled "Unspinning the Planned Parenthood Video", refutes the lie that that "selling body parts" is a profit center for PP.

FactCheck.org: Jim Vaught, president of the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories and formerly the deputy director of the National Cancer Institute's Office of Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research, told us in an email that "$30 to $100 per sample is a reasonable charge for clinical operations to recover their costs for providing tissue". In fact, he said, the costs to a clinic are often much higher, but most operations that provide this kind of tissue have "no intention of fully recovering [their] costs, much less making a profit". (article from 7/21/2015).

So, ZERO profit. In fact they're losing money. PP is a non-profit organization. Fact is, the reason they do this (in addition to the research being beneficial to society), is to recoup some of their costs. As the person who was videoed without her knowledge, Deborah Nucatola (the senior director of medical services at Planned Parenthood) notes... "really their bottom line is, they want to break even. Every penny they save is just pennies they give to another patient. To provide a service the patient wouldn't get".

Yet Willis (a Libertarian who isn't even anti-choice per se) participates in this aspect of the War On Women with commentaries perpetrating lies (and the sicko frames his lie-assist as a frigging joke). Why? It's because he simply does not give a shit about poor women. And because he HATES Progressives. I mean, check out his blog if you don't believe me.

And this dumbass actually used to consider himself (or present himself, at least) as a "liberal". YES, you read that right! Eight years ago on the Media Matters site, Willis, (posting under the ID wvhart6757) wrote "I'm a liberal and that offends ME!" (he was referring to Keith Olbermann).

BTW, this is the same Willis Hart who, in regards to political 180s, sez "never been a big fan of them and tend to view those who engage in such actions suspiciously". Now he's a fiscally conservative Libertarian. Does Willis view himself with suspicion?

Although here (on the PP deceptively edited video issue) he sides with the SoCons (Social Conservatives). Similar to how he sides with the pro-discrimination side when it comes to businesses OPEN TO THE PUBLIC discriminating against patrons who are gay. In one commentary (for example) titled On "Bake Me a Cake with a Statue of Two Little Dudes on it or You're Going to Jail", Willis says YES, bigot business owner SHOULD be able to discriminate. Not because he approves (OF COURSE he does not), but because he's against government force.

Whatever. The end result is the same. Gay people get discriminated against (with the blessing of Willis). And with this PP case, Willis gives his blessing to the War On Women. This aspect of the war being making it next to impossible for a woman to not be able to access LEGAL medical care if they choose (or need) to access it.

Which is what the effect this War is having on women. Although abortion services represents a very small portion of PP does (3 percent). MOST of what they do involves offering other NEEDED medical services to lower income women (and men). And, given the fact that the radical anti-choicers goal (with these deceptively edited videos) is to defund PP, the Willis hypocrite (this is the a-hole who has the balls to scold me re Libertarians being "mostly pro-choice on abortion") is contributing to the effort to take away that choice.

And, yes, Willis did come out explicitly in favor of defunding PP.

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).

PP is non-profit and provides needed medical services to lower-income women (as well as men), you MORON! Yet, with his post implying PP makes a profit from selling fetal tissue for medical research (and denigrating them for this "fact"), Willis sez they need to go from nonprofit to making enough profit to replace their federal funding (40 percent of their budget). Or get the money from "private donations" (which they already accept).

"The old fashioned way" he sez... as if PP is a business, as opposed to a charitable nonprofit. Although by "old fashioned" I think the misogynist is really referring to the old fashioned idea that women are inferior to men.

OST #62