On Willis Hart's Trumpesque Obsession With Bashing Rosie O'Donnell

As most people know, there has been a long standing feud between the actress Rosie O'Donnell and current GOP frontrunner for the 2016 presidential nomination Donald Trump. The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is similarly obsessed with bashing Mrs O'Donnell.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Rosie O'Donnell Played Betty Rubble in that Stupid "Flintstones" Movie... I know that cartoon characters can't sue but can we make an exception JUST THIS ONE TIME? I mean, my God, what an insult. (1/19/2016 AT 11:12am).

Yeah, I think that Willis being so upset about Rosie O'Donnell playing Betty Rubble has something to do with him previously proclaiming that this fictional cartoon woman is his choice for "the world's greatest brunette". Although that was 2 months before the above post. And, all this outrage concerning a movie that came out in 1994, which some people might find more than a little strange.

Anyway, Willis assumes that Betty Rubble (were she not fictional and could say who she would want to portray her in a live action movie) would object to the selection of Rosie O'Donnell. Which is, of course, bullshit. I mean, the holders of the Flintstones copyright were obviously FINE with the selection of Rosie O'Donnell. Not only did they not sue, but they gave their go head/blessing and therefore there was no insult.

By the way, when I say that Willis' obsession with Rosie O'Donnell is Trumpesque, I mean that his hate O'Donnell very often takes the form of commentaries with a misogynist undertone.

As moderator Megyn Kelly (of the 1st Republican debate) pointed out, Trump has referred to women as fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals. As with Trump, many of WTNPH's criticisms of females that express left-leaning opinions are based on what they look like.

For example, here is a particlarly disgusting "commentary" concerning Joy Behar.

Willis Hart: For Erections Lasting More than Four Hours?... [Picture of Joy Behar] Yeah, this ought to do. P.S. And, yes, it even works on blind fellows in that simply after an utterance or two (the voice combined with what she says), boom, gone. (12/14/2015 AT 8:08pm).

No reference to anything substantive in either of these posts, only misogynistic attacks on "Leftist" women the Hartster does not like based on what they look like. It isn't as if Willis criticizes O'Donnell's acting in the Flintstones movie. We all know that his beef is based on her appearance. Also, I think Joy Behar looks pretty damn good given the fact that she's 73 years old!

OST #97

Willis Hart An Expletive Liar Re Bernie Sanders' 18 Trillion In New Spending

An outright lie from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in regards to Bernie Sanders and his proposed "new" spending (if he is elected president).

Willis Hart: On Bernie Sanders Claiming that America Can Pay for His $18,000,000,000,000 in New Spending Partly Through the Savings Made Possible by His Proposed Single-Payer Healthcare System... What the ignorant Mr. Sanders fails to realize is that there has NEVER been a government entitlement program that has ever come in even close to the projected cost... I mean, I understand that the average primary voter is about as dumb as a box of rocks and essentially salivates whenever he or she hears the two words, "free stuff", but you gotta be honest... and... try be logical... as opposed to living in a fantasy world... no? (1/17/2016 AT 8:47pm).

No. The person living in a fantasy world is Willis Hart with his completely imaginary claim of 18 trillion in NEW spending. This is the not the first time Willis has mentioned this totally bogus claim (OST #75). This is a claim, btw, that comes from a dishonest author at Rupert Murdoch's Wall Street Journal. In a 9/14/2015 article by Laura Meckler titled "Price Tag of Bernie Sanders's Proposals: $18 Trillion" Meckler refers to "new spending over a decade".

But the spending is NOT new.

...while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we're already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it's by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. ...the bulk of what Sanders wants to do is in the first category: to have us pay through taxes for things we're already paying for in other ways. ... Depending on your perspective on government, you may think that's a bad idea. But we shouldn't treat his proposals as though they're going to cost us $18 trillion on top of what we're already paying. (No, Bernie Sanders is not going to bankrupt America to the tune of $18 trillion by Paul Waldman. The Washington Post, 9/15/2015).

In other words the 18 trillion the WSJ deceptively portrays as NEW spending is actually money we are ALREADY spending. Bernie simply wants to change HOW we spend it. Instead of individuals spending the money (as they do now), government would spend it. But the lying author of the WSJ article does mention this AT ALL in her hit-piece on Senator Sanders.

Instead the article plays up the "price tag", referring to "new spending", "new taxes" and how "centrist" Democrats think this is a bad idea. Others who think this would be an bad idea are ignorant lying Libertarians like Mr. Hart. I mean, there could be some honest criticisms to levy here.

For example, I know Willis opposes instituting a single payer system in favor of a "free market" (or "market based") system. This "free market" basis for healthcare wouldn't work, but at least if Willis put forward this arguement it would be an actual argumement. As opposed to a flat out lie.

For the record, Willis HAS put forward this argument (see here), but not in conjuction with the lie about Bernie Sanders's 18 trillion in "new" spending.

Note that in the linked to post Willis says it is an "idiotic assertion that competition won't bring down the cost of healthcare", but it is actually Willis' argument that is idiotic... because the world's 25 wealthiest nations, all provide universal healthcare... except for the United States (and, no, Obamacare is not universal healthcare). (See SWTD #261 for my post refuting WTNPH's assertion that competition WILL bring down health cares costs).

The point is that, while it might be true regarding what Willis says concerning "government entitlement programs" exceeding projected costs (I have not independently verified this, but I know it has happened), the alternative is letting people go without healthcare and letting people die (which costs money in lost productivity).

And don't forget that every other wealthy nation on the planet has figured out how to provide for universal healthcare AT A LOWER COST (US Spends More on Health Care Than Other High-Income Nations But Has Lower Life Expectancy, Worse Health).

So, if Bernie Sanders' proposed single payer system ends up not costing what he's projecting? It would still cost less than what we're spending now. Which makes sense, given the fact that single payer is NOT FOR PROFIT. How could it NOT cost less if the profit is eliminated?.

According to a 9/23/2015 HuffPo article The Truth About Health Insurance Company Profits: They're Excessive "Wall Street investors are delighted with the industry's profits [and that] return on equity - a key measure of profits as a percentage of the amount invested... is a phenomenal 16.1%".

In agreement with the HuffPo article, a 3/5/2010 Economist article notes that "the better measurement is not profit, but return [on equity, or ROE. And that the healthcare industry's ROE is] a good deal higher than the average ROE in most sectors of the economy" (so, YES, healthcare insurer's profits ARE excessive, according to the Economist... if you're the type of person inclined to discount information coming from a source like the Huffington Post).

But the Hartster doesn't want to see "yet another government entitlement program" because he thinks it will cost a lot... even though the world's other wealthy nations all have universal healthcare and their costs are much lower than ours.

Conclusion? Willis Hart is a total moron (a true believing brainwashed/brain diseased "fiscal conservative") as well as a f*cking liar (given the fact that Bernie Sanders is NOT proposing "new" spending).

OST #96

Target Only Hires White People?

Does Target only hire White people? Seems to be that is what the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is saying in the following post (although I could be wrong).

Willis Hart: On Mrs. Obama's Target Story... Let's just say that it's been evolving (the fact that when she initially relayed it to Letterman it was a joke to underscore her height and that when she told it subsequent times it had morphed into some bigoted morality tale of the old white gal thinking that as a black chick Mrs. Obama HAD to be an employee - kind of a slap at Target employees but I digress). (1/13/2016 AT 4:18pm).

Michelle Obama being a Target employee is a "slap" at Target employees? If there was a "slap" wasn't it a slap at Target customers? You know, given the fact that (according to Michelle Obama) it was a CUSTOMER that thought Michelle might be an employee.

Anyway... as for Michelle's "Target story" changing... maybe she just reconsidered and it occurred to her that maybe the woman in question asked her to grab something from a high shelf not because she is tall... but because the woman thought Michelle might be an employee (because she's Black)?

I honestly don't know. Anyway, Michelle might be right, overreacting, wrong, or outright lying. Of course Conservatives believe she lies. Because she's a racist who is falsely accusing Whitey of discriminating against Blacks (for political advantage, I guess).

But back to Willis' alleged "slap"... Michelle implied the White customer might have thought she was an employee because she's Black, and that's an insult to Target employees? Does Willis believe that Target only hires Whites? Is that why suggesting a Target employee might be Black is a "slap"? And, if so, is this yet more evidence of the Hartster's racist proclivities?

Maybe, maybe not. Obviously he's among those who immediately attribute the worst motives to things the Obamas say and do (Michelle is lying and/or insulting Target workers).

OST #95

Willis Hart Moronic Whine Re "Secret" Comments Submitted To His Blog

Idiocy from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in which he whines about his public receiving comments! How dare anyone attempt to disrupt his echo chamber!

Willis Hart: On the Engaging in Behavior (Unsolicited and Unwanted Blog "Commentary") that if it Were Any Other Sphere of Life (Phone Calls, Letters, Showing Up at a Person's House, etc.) Would Probably Get You Arrested, Convicted, and Put in Jail but Because this Shit Can Be Done in Secret it Shamelessly and Moronically Continues Unabated... What's that they say, that you can only judge a person's morals by how they behave when no one is watching? Hey fellas, NO ONE IS WATCHING. (1/14/2016 AT 4:25pm).

WTNPH has referenced other comments that went unpublished in the past.

For example...

Willis Hart: I was obliquely accused by some pompous and marginally literate boob (with multiple handles, no less) of "coming out early tonight." It was an almost passive aggressive comment and, while it clearly wasn't as nasty as some of the other bullshit that's flied of late, I just don't tolerate it anymore and so I've banned his sorry ass. Arrivederci schmuck. (9/26/2015 AT 8:20pm).

Not sure who it might have been that submitted that comment (if anyone. Maybe Willis made it up or imagined it). It was not me, however. Although I have submitted a number of comments to Willis' blog that he decided not to publish. So he might be talking about me. Actually, I think it's quite likely he's talking about me, as I frequently stop by his blog to read and leave a brief comment or two.

I'd like to point out, however, that Willis Hart's blog is open to the public and by designating his blog as PUBLIC he is soliciting comments. Secondly, the ONLY reason these comments are "secret" is because Willis does not publish them! (Obviously if he published them they wouldn't be secret).

If he only wants agreeable comments he could change his blog settings so that only approved people could comment. Or he could make it so that only approved people could even SEE his blog. He is choosing to not adjust these settings and thus leaving his blog open for PUBLIC view and PUBLIC comment (and soliciting comments with these settings that he selected!).

In regards to his assertion of phoning, sending letters to and showing up at the home of someone being analogous to submitting comments to a PUBLIC blog - I say bullshit. His home is private, his blog is not (by HIS CHOICE!).

IMO him selecting these settings (making his blog PUBLIC) is analogous to him placing a sign outside his home inviting people in to look around. And, if he did that (invite anyone in with a sign), the police would tell him to take a hike if he attempted to have people who took him up on his offer arrested. The cops would tell him to take down the sign and lock his door.

BTW, I hereby declare to the world that I submit comments to Willis Hart's blog... thereby making me commenting on his blog not a "secret". And, while nobody may be watching this blog (OST), it too is open to the PUBLIC - so that invalidates his judging of morals by how someone behaves when no one is watching (since anyone can view this admission, thereby making it a public admission).

OST #94

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

On The Hyper Racial Consciousness Of Willis Hart

Another example of obliviousness from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, an oblivious White guy who simply does not get it. "It" being the fact that racism is still very much a problem in our country. According to this demagoguing blogger, "we're all f*cking humans, people". While this absolutely is true, what he means is that Black people should stop "bellyaching" about things that (according to Willis) don't exist.

Things like White privilege, institutional racism and microaggressions. But the reason that (for Willis Hart) these things don't exist is because HE doesn't have to deal with them. Or, he doesn't have to deal with the negatives. Being White, he only has to deal with the positives.

BTW, we all may be human and we all may have been created equal, but obviously some of us are more equal than others. White men being the most equal, given the fact that our society is a patriarchy (something else Willis argues against with many misogynist commentaries on his blog) with a long history of racism (slavery, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights era, the fact that African Americans are more than 300 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a White person today, etc).

But the oblivious Hartster doesn't see it. In fact he argues against reality constantly on his blog. Like with this recent comment in which he says it's OTHER people who hyper conscious when it comes to race. When the reality is that it's Willis Hart who is hyper conscious about race. This fact PROVEN by his own blog posts. Commentaries where he focuses in on the race of whomever he has decided to complain about.

For example, here is a recent one where I fail to see what the race of the individual has to do with anything except Willis' own prejudices.

On the Fact that a Black Mother from Detroit Murdered Two of Her Children (the Other Two She Just Tortured) and Stuffed Their Carcasses in a Freezer... Yeah, I'm gonna go with, four black lives totally NOT mattering [Link]. (11/6/2015 AT 4:53pm).

And another one from 3 days earlier.

On the Fact that Not One but Two Black Women Threw Their Babies Off of Balconies in the Fordham Heights Section of the Bronx in Just the Past Six Weeks... So these stories get completely ignored by pro-blacks and the white liberal media but that image of the school-safety officer strong-arming a disruptive 16 year-old black chick gets wall-to-wall coverage (one CNN segment showed the visual 20-something times)? Unreal. (11/3/2015 AT 4:12pm).

What the hell does the mothers being Black have to do with anything? If "we're all f*cking humans, people" as Willis says, WHY does he pick out 2 stories in which two Black mothers kill their children... and make a POINT of them being Black. The original stories don't laser focus in on this fact, yet Willis does. Apparently because he thinks that stories like these somehow discredit the Black Lives Matter Movement (BLM).

Because he thinks that the BLM movement, a movement whose concern is institutional racism, should deal with issues that have nothing to do with institutional racism (in these two cases I'd say the issue is mental illness).

It's because the dude is hyper focused on race that he's making these bizarre arguments in an effort to discredit a movement he hates. Initially he argued that the BLM movement's concern over the police killing unarmed African Americans was hypocritical... because they are not equally concerned with criminals (BLACK criminals) killing Black people.

But that is a SEPARATE issue that the BLM movement was not started to address! Yet, Willis lies (OST #90), insisting over and over that BLM should be concerned about ALL the ways that African Americans die unnatural/premature deaths... Although (who knows), perhaps next he'll complain that BLM isn't addressing the fact that "black men have a 40% higher cancer death rate than white men [and] African-American women have a 20% higher cancer death rate than white women").

But being more prone to some diseases isn't something African Americans can be blamed for. While, with death by inner city violence can be. Yes, only on a small minority of them, but Willis believes ALL African Americans are responsible for the violence committed by African American criminals (as well as mentally ill Black mothers). Because he's quite clearly racist.

Or, at least he absolutely does NOT believe "we're all f*cking humans, people". In the Hartster's hyper-racially-conscious mind we're a species clearly divided by race.

OST #91