WTNPH Lies About Left Claiming Voter Fraud. Still Just Trump, Moron

The strategy of Trump with his talk about "rigging" (voter fraud) was deliberate. The intent being to protect him from accusations of rigging from the Left should he win (election fraud). Which is EXACTLY what happened. As I predicted (SWTD #355).

Before the election (10/23/2016) I said "I bet Repubs are smiling about Dems coming out strongly against the idea that rigging is occurring. Now they can continue with their election fraud and Dems won't be able to say or do a damn thing".

And now that is EXACTLY what is happening (re Trump's win and Democrats call for recounts, saying Trump "won" due to voter suppression, etc). I called it. And (although I wasn't sure at the time due to the fact that EVERYONE was saying Trump was going to lose), I am now completely convinced that this was Trump's strategy all along.

As per that strategy, Jerome Corsi of World Net Daily, in a recent article about Jill Stein's request for a recount of the potus votes in WI, MI and PA wrote the following.

...liberals searching for answers to Trump's surprise victory have a new explanation: Hillary did not really lose. They contend an "audit the vote" movement could prove voting machine totals in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania were inaccurate. In the third presidential debate, however, Clinton chastised Trump for his unwillingness to pledge that he would accept the outcome of the election, reserving the right to challenge voter fraud. She called Trump's statement "horrifying". (Green Party's Stein Files For Wisconsin Vote Recount by Jermoe Corsi).

btw, the title of the article (as per the URL) is "Operation Steal Seeks Recount To Declare Hillary Winner". Something I've noticed about WND articles in the past (the URL gives a different title than what is displayed on the page). What's the reason? To appear more reasonable on the page, but give the REAL message via the URL (my hypothesis).

Anyway, the jist of the article is that Democrats are hypocrites for doing now what HRC would be "horrifying" before her supposed loss. Also that this is a Democrat attempt to "steal" the election. A message the Libertarian idiot Willis Hart agress with in a 11/25/2016 post. Sans the "they're trying to steal it" BS, but with the addition of the "consistent moral yardstick" argument he's used in the past. That he has one, while those he criticizes don't (BS the arrogant jackass has spouted on his blog many times previously).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the Left Made a Monstrous Deal Over Trump Saying that He Might Not Accept the Results of the Election but Now that They've Lost They're Protesting, Rioting, and Even Making Claims of Voter Fraud... Would somebody please wrap up a consistent moral yardstick and put it under their Christmas tree, for Christ? A couple of irony stocking stuffers, too. (11/25/2016 AT 10:16pm).

Correction, moron... it was establishment Dems who made the "monstrous deal" out of Trump's "rigging" charges. And it was these Democrats who, in doing so, walked right into the trap laid by Trump. I'll admit that many Democratic voters likely agreed. Because there are people on both side who will agree with whatever they're told. People who don't think for themselves. Or the politically un or ill informed who are either not familiar with how much election fraud the Republicans are engaged in (Kris Kobach's Interstate Crosscheck system) or simply refuse to believe it.

But the Democratic Party as a whole (informed voters and other Leftist organizations) never agreed that the election was going to be "free and fair" and that there wouldn't be any rigging. There are MANY on the Left who know the Republicans are masters at election rigging (voter suppression & voter disenfranchisement).

My point being that Willis can stick his "consistent moral yardstick" right up his arrogant behind. All the way (the full yard). Asshole.

In any case, nobody on the Left is making claims of voter fraud. Apparently Willis doesn't know the difference between voter fraud and election fraud. Election fraud (which is the actual charge some on the Left are making) concerns those running the elections cheating (Kris Kobach's Interstate Crosscheck).

Voter fraud is virtually non-existent and NO Democrats is claiming it happened. If Willis can point to any Democrat who is... they're out of step with the Democratic Party as a whole (both establishment and non-establishment Democrats). Either Willis is uninformed on the subject or he's a liar.

Image: Sorry, Willis, it's still Trump who is crying about "voter fraud" and NOT Democrats. Regarding Trump's "voter fraud" assertions "several Democrats, including Governor Terry McAuliffe, laughed off the accusations, saying they were baseless". In another tweet Trump wrote "in addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally". Bullshit! Also, voter fraud if it happened (which it DID NOT). There was no voter fraud, you idiot, Willis! There was voter suppression, and it absolutely did cost HRC the election (SWTD #358).

OST #186

How Often Does Willis Hart Don His White Robes With The Pointy Hood & Attend Cross Burnings?

Not a picture of the racist Libertarian blogger Willis Hart getting together with a few friends, but an image depicting what such a gathering might look like.

So, while the truth is that Willis probably never dons a white robe and pointy hood, I believe it is possible he does. Although it's more likely he is simply a racist who denies his racism. As most racists do.

Which does not mean he isn't a racist. Further proof of Hart's virulent racism include recent commentaries in which he states that the Congressional Black Caucus is "the tool of white leftists", that crime comitted by Black people is due to their "culture", and that (in regards to Trump's chief strategist Steve Bannon being a White Nationalist and Breitbart News being a platform for the Alt-Right), there is "nuance to the subject".

These are exact quotes/exactly what he wrote. Horribly racist crap. But, as I've discussed on this blog before, Willis is a big consumer of Alt-Right media (OST #176). This was the commentary ("How Much Alt-Right Media Does Willis Hart Consume?") in which I discussed the fact that Willis is a big fan of Colin Flaherty, a fellow virulent racist.

Flaherty's life's work is writing and Youtubing about "black mob violence and black criminality". Willis blogs on this subject frequently (and has cited Flaherty in some of these posts). According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, Flaherty has "allies in all the wrong places - racist cesspools like the hate forum Stormfront".

The racists who hang out on the StormFront site love Flaherty's writings, and I'm sure these racists would also love Willis Hart's blog. What do you think, me-buck?

In any case, there is no nuance to Steve Bannon's hate. I watched the video Willis directs people to watch (fast forward to 3:30, he says). The dude who blabbers on for over an hour (I only watched about a minute), Stefan Molyneux, puts forward a false equivalency argument (an argument the Hartster LOVES). Which is that Black Lives matter and Communists support the Left, and that is proof that BOTH SIDES have their "radical elements".

The WTNPH post in which he CLAIMS (non-existent) nuance is one in which he says Don Lemon of CNN either didn't do his research or had the goal of deceiving his viewers. OF COURSE! It couldn't be because Lemon disagrees with the bogus "both sides do it" argument, right? BTW, the Communist Party in the US is virtually non-existent [1]. They are a non-entity that nobody cares about (due to their being small and having ZERO political influence). Unlike the alt-Right, which is a little larger and now ENERGIZED and EMPOWERED by the Trump win. That's the difference, you racist Hart!!

Oh, and killing people is not a part of the Communist Party USA platform. I mention this because Willis points to all the people Communists killed in the USSR. But those murders were under a totalitarian dictator, not a leader carrying out promises he laid out beforehand as a part of the Communist Party Platform.

My point is that this is another false equivalency. Also, that the Communist Party of the United States has never, and will never, have power. They wouldn't have had any power under a B-S administration and they wouldn't have had any power under a HRC administration. Whereas they absolutely are going to have power under a Trump administration, you f*cking racist Hart!

And, Steve Bannon isn't the only racist Trump is hiring, either. There is also Jeff Sessions as AG and Michael Flynn as national security adviser. (Donald Trump Building Team of Racists, Daily Intelligencer article by Jonathan Chait).

Video: White Supremacists chant "hail Trump" while performing Hitler salutes at Alt-Right conference. Election of Trump a victory for "our people" says president of the Alt-Right National Policy Institute Richard Spencer at a gathering in the Ronald Reagan Building (Washington DC) on 11/19/2016 (2:10).

Footnote
[1] The Communist Party USA estimates it's membership to be 2,000 (Source). The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates that there are 190 active KKK groups with between 5,000 and 8,000 Klan members in the U.S. (Source). The KKK, however, would be the hardcore racists. As for how large the Alt-Right is, Jared Taylor, the editor of American Renaissance (a self-described "race-realist, white advocacy organization"), says it's "absolutely impossible to say" how large the movement is, but that "it is growing very rapidly, no question about that". He added that "I would say that there are millions of Americans who subscribe to the alt-right philosophies" (Source). So... 2k versus "millions". And they (the Alt-Righters) are convinced that Trump is their man, and not for no reason, but because Trump has courted them. As his appointments of Bannon, Sessions and Flynn proves.

OST #185

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

WTNPH Gary Johnson LOL

Looks like the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has finally figured out that Gary Johnson (the Libertarian nominee for president) isn't actually a Libertarian (DSD #26).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Even Gary Johnson Is an Off-the Rails, Piece-of-Shit Candidate Now (Still Voting for Him, Though, 'Cause, Well, You Know)... And, no, it has nothing to do with the fact that he didn't know about Alepo or that he couldn't name any world leaders (a lot of the more decent ones; Park Geon-hye of South Korea, Tony Tan Keng Yam of Singapore, and Leung Chun-Ying of Hong Kong, just to name three, having names that are too damned difficult to pronounce anyway). It has to do with the fact that he's almost running like a frigging Democrat and doing things like praising "Black Lives Matter", arguing that Christian bakers should be forced at gunpoint to bake cakes for gay weddings (here he puts on full display his absolute lack of understanding of the nonaggression principle), and advocating for a carbon tax, A CARBON TAX!!! Yeah, I'll probably still vote for the guy in that the options are exponentially worse but I was SO hoping to not have to use a clothespin this year. Oh well, maybe in 2020. (10/26/2016 AT 5:24pm).

Regarding Willis saying he's STILL voting for Gary because "well, you know". Actually, no, I don't know. Although I can guess. My guess is that it's because he hates HRC SO MUCH. He also dislike DJT; but his many defenses of the deplorable, while attacking HRC much more, shows (I think) he'll be more disappointed if HRC becomes prez than if it is Trump.

Also because he's a huge fan of oligarchy... and Gary is still VERY much onboard for increasing it. Even if he is adopted some SANE positions (all the positions Willis criticizes him for taking in his commentary).

With the exception of the "gunpoint" idiocy. Pressure can be brought to bear against business owners who discriminate far short of pointing guns at them to force them to SERVE THE PUBLIC. All of the public. NOBODY (Gary Johnson included) is for pointing guns at Christian bakers so they'll set their homophobia aside and not discriminate.

But the pro-discrimination Hartster is so stupid he might actually think this has occurred (police holding guns on "Christian" bakers while they mix up and stick a wedding cake in the oven for a gay couple). As opposed to how this is ALWAYS settled (via the court system).

Anyway, back to the hilarity... Gary Johnson, the guy Willis previously adored, is now a "off-the rails, piece-of-shit candidate". Ha ha ha. I doubt Willis is EVER going to be able to vote sans clothespin.

Also, regarding "it has nothing to do with the fact that he didn't know about Alepo" AKA Aleppo, check this out.

Willis Hart: On Questioning Gary Johnson's Intelligence... I'll bet that he knew the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. (3/12/2016 AT 4:23pm).

That's a reference to gwb, who didn't know the difference. But did Gary? The Aleppo gafe calls the assertion that he would know into question, I think. (FYI, it isn't Park Geon-hye, it's Park Geun-hye).

OST #183

Willis Hart (A Misogynist) Incredibly Eager To Believe Any & All BS He Reads About Hillary Clinton & "Flunkies"

A total FAIL from the misogynist Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On Clinton Flunky, Bill Ivey, Articulating to Fellow Clinton Flunky, John Podesta, that the Best Way for the Democrats to Garner and Maintain Power Is for Them to Take Advantage of an "Unaware and Compliant Citizenry"... But he didn't use the word, pussy, and so the media ignores it. (10/14/2016 AT 6:06pm).

So, it's only the WORD "pussy" and NOT the fact that Trump was bragging about sexually assaulting women that explains why the media is covering this Trump hot mic conversation? Of course not. That Willis suggests this is totally absurd. Everyone who isn't of a certain persuasion knows what Trump said was wrong. And it had little to do with a specific word, crude and offensive as it is.

That persuasion is a man who thinks it's OK to joke about sexual assault (or a woman, unbelievably). Willis Hart has proven himself to be such a man. Someone who would brush off what Trump said as "locker room talk". Which is why I wonder how many women he has sexually assaulted (OST #136).

As for Clinton "flunkies" writing that they (The HRC campaign/Democratic "ruling elites") will benefit from an "unaware and compliant citizenry", I plugged the phrase into Google and the following debunking by Snopes came up. Snopes says FALSE.

Snopes: A more objective reading suggests that Ivey was actually stating the opposite... that a lack of awareness and a tendency toward compliance on the part of the citizenry in recent years was the result of the conflation of entertainment and the electoral process (as exemplified by the rise of Donald Trump), and these phenomena present a problem for democracy which must be countered. (Wacky Leaks).

This more objective reading makes a hell of a lot more sense, BTW. The rubes supporting Trump are the ones who are "unaware and compliant". Proof of this is that they think a inexperienced and politically stupid reality TV star is a good choice for president of the most powerful nation in the world.

In my strong opinion - when people are aware (politically informed) they tend to vote Democrat. An opinion that studies tend to bear out. For example, Pew reports that "Republicans have leads among whites – particularly white men, those with less education" (A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation, 4/7/2015).

Also, according to political analyst Larry Sabato, "the higher the education level, the more likely they are to vote Democratic". PoltiFact ruled that this statement is "mostly true" (Is education level tied to voting tendencies? 11/5/2012).

So why the HELL would Bill Ivey (a Democrat) write that we need more stupidity (unawareness) when that is EXACTLY what is benefiting Trump? Which is why I knew this story was BS before I found the Snopes article. Willis, on the other hand, believes it because he thinks everyone who isn't for Gary Johnson is "unaware" (stupid or misinformed). Something that points to this country being in VERY bad shape, if it were true, given the fact that less than 1% of voters selected Johnson the last time he ran.

Me, I think it's a sign that we aren't in that bad shape. People not being dumb enough to vote for Johnson, that is. There is still the issue of so many people being dumb enough to support Trump. And dumb enough to believe idiocy like HRC and "flunkies" thinking an uninformed and compliant citizenry will benefit - instead of hurt - Democrats.

But the Hartster is clearly THAT dumb. I mean "dumb" politically, not intelligence-wise. Willis Hart is not uninformed. I'd say he is misinformed. VERY misinformed.

OST #182

Re A Misogynist Moron's Post On Hypothetical Hypocrisy

Another commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart that gets filed in the WTF category. To be clear, the "hypocrisy" Hart refers to in his post never actually occurred. He's just guessing and getting offended by what he guesses would happen (which is something he LOVES to do. Get offended by hypocrisy, that is. But the dope usually posts about actual/perceived hypocrisy. As opposed to hypothetical. AKA it didn't happen).

Willis Hart: On Billy Bush Getting Suspended by NBC Because He Once Had a Conversation with Donald Trump About Chicks 11 Years Ago... And I suppose that if Trump and Bush had been two gay guys talking suggestively about a handsome man the punishment would have been exactly the same. Yeah, right. (10/11/2016 AT 4:16pm).

A conversation about chicks? During which they (Trump and Bush) spoke "suggestively". You see my issue here? This is worse than getting offended by something that didn't happen. Donald Trump referred to what was said as "locker room banter", but Hart downplays it even more! Anderson Cooper was correct when he pointed out (during the 2nd potus debate) that what Trump and Bush were talking about was sexual assault.

SEXUAL ASSAULT! As opposed to "talking suggestively", you piece of shit! Oh, and YES, I think anyone talking about sexually assaulting someone should be treated the same. Although that person was Donald Trump, not Billy Bush. So it's (I'd say) at least debatable if Billy Bush should be punished. Perhaps. Wikipedia says he laughed (and more... see video below). Maybe a suspension is in order for laughing? Although Wikipedia says that he's now fired.

But, in regards to Billy Bush being fired... (1) I don't know why he was hired to begin with. I suspect his last name might have something to do with him getting a well paid but easy job. (2) Actual hypocrisy that Willis does not point out would be that nothing was done AT THE TIME. I mean, the exchange exists on video, so obviously other people were aware of what happened. I presume.

Yet nothing came of it until now. Now that it's out and causing bad publicity for NBC. They caved re "criticism online and calls for his resignation". Not that I care. But if there is any hypocrisy (REAL hypocrisy, not hypothetical) this would be it, you idiot Hart.

An idiot as well as a misogynist. I mean, "talking suggestively" about a woman and sexually assaulting her (grabbing a woman by the genitals) are two very, VERY different things. Also (in another context) referring to a woman as a "chick" is OK (I guess). But remember, we're discussing sexual assault. So, to refer to the victims of such an assault as "chicks"... I find that offensive as well.

And, yes, I think Trump has groped. In fact, there is a victim who alleges he did exactly what he says in the video.

Jill Harth, a pageant owner who dealt with Trump in the mid-1990s, sued the businessman in federal court in Manhattan in 1997, alleging "relentless" sexual harassment and assault by Trump, Newsweek reported. In her lawsuit, Harth described a 1992 business meeting she and Trump had at a New York restaurant in which he allegedly reached under the table, touched her thighs and grabbed my intimate private parts. (These Women Say They Know First-Hand Trump Lied When He Denied Really Groping Women Against Their Will by Tierney McAffe. People Politics 10/10/2016).

So he was telling Billy Bush the truth. Looks like it to me, anyway. But, according to the Harster, when Donald Trump recounted his exploits to Billy Bush, it was just "two gay straight guys talking suggestively about a handsome man beautiful woman". NOT sexually assaulting women.

But this is not at all surprising coming from a blogger who has written multiple posts in which he suggests that drunkenness equals consent (if the man and the woman are drunk and have sex and the woman later aserts she was raped... she's lying and the truth is that she changed her mind. Also rape culture is a "thoroughly discredited concept").

Yeah, right. (Note that this a-hole Hart has a history of defending Donald Trump. Although he says he's voting for the liar Gary "what's Aleppo" Johnson).

Video: Donald Trump brags to Billy Bush on how he cheats on Melania and sexually assaults women. Access Hollywood video recorded sometime in 2005 (3:19). Billy Bush was fired after the release of the video on 10/7/2016 while Trump went on to be predisent.

OST #181

AGW 97% Consensus Figure Based On 4 Sources... According To The Voices In Willis Hart's Head

File this commentary by the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart in the WTF category. I mean, if you can make sense of what he writes (re his severe climate change denialism)? I say you're guessing. Because that's all anyone can do re the following nonsense.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that One of the Sources that NASA Used to Substantiate its Fully Discredited 97% Consensus Figure Was an Op-Ed Piece by Some Socialist, Feed-the-Leviathan Historian (Naomi Oreskes) that No One Has Been Able to Replicate Yet (the Others Being Two College Papers and a Cartoonish Hit-Piece by that Delusional and Impudent Nonscientist/Jerk Who Founded "Skeptical Science")... Well, being that these are the same "scientists" who've constantly "adjusted" their statistics to make them fit their theory, we probably shouldn't be shocked. I sure as hell don't give it much credence. (10/4/2016 AT 4:34pm).

The key phrase in WTNPH's commentary is "the others being". Meaning he's wrapping it up as far as the "sources" go. NASA used just 4 sources to substantiate it's "discredited" 97% consensus figure is what this idiot is saying.

This is a "fact", even though Willis cites zero sources. And, get this, the very next day Willis Hart criticized "Alex Jones's multiple unnamed sources", and asked "do the voices in his head qualify?". Good question, I say.

I've really got to wonder if Willis isn't getting these facts concerning the AGW consensus via the voices in HIS head. Given the FACT (a real/sourced fact) that the 97% consensus figure was arrived at after looking at 12 THOUSAND "peer-reviewed climate science papers" (as per Skeptical Science).

Note the use of the term "peer reviewed". A historian is not a peer of a scientist. Neither are college students. Obviously a non-scientist is not a "peer" of an actual scientist. Although, maybe you could say all these unnamed (3 of 4) authors could be classified as "academics", and therefore academic peers. But I seriously doubt any papers from college students were included in that survey (of 12 THOUSAND papers). But I can't say for sure, given the fact that Willis doesn't source his claims.

So, given that he often declines to cite a source AND I can't comment on his blog (and ask him), I'm going to guess. And my guess is that "the voices in his head" are very likely his source. But even if there is a source (and he simply forgot to say what it is), I'm still not going to give what he says much credence. In fact, I say HELL NO, I absolutely don't buy his ludicrous claim of 4 sources, and give his claims ZERO credence.

BTW, if NASA looked at 4 sources to arrive at a 97% consensus figure, then at least 1 of those sources must have disagreed that global climate change is occurring and is human-driven. But 3 out of 4 is 75%, not 97%... so his numbers don't even add up.

Am I shocked? No, not really... given the fact that the Hartster is a total moron.

OST #180