Pure Idiocy #2

The Libertarian idiot Willis Hart on the debunked fake news story PizzaGate. Again.

Willis Hart: On the Scurrilous Accusation that I Get All of My News from Fake News Sites (You Know, as Opposed to Legitimate Sources Such as Rachel MadDUH, the Young Jerks, the Clinton News Network, the New York Crimes, the War Street Journal, the Washington Compost Heap, the Weekly Substandard, Snopes, Dan I'd Rather Not, Spittin' Chris Matthews, PolitiCON, etc.) I get my information from a wide variety of sources, NONE OF WHICH I TAKE AT FACE VALUE (as opposed to these leftist degenerate fools who hang on every word that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow say as if it was gospel). So, with this Pizzagate story, for example, yes, I did watch some of the Youtbe videos on it but I also went directly to Wikileaks and examined the emails for myself and, guess what, folks. It appears that these Podesta brothers (along with a small cadre of other perverts) ARE communicating in some sort of pedophilia code. and not only is the mainstream media not covering these cretins, they're giving them cover!! So, ya' still bent out of shape over this fake news, leftists? P.S. And, no, I never said a single time that Mrs. Clinton herself was involved in this. That was a bald-faced lie and the person who said it is a dirty, slimy, low-down slice of shit. Excuse my French. (12/18/2016 AT 5:08pm).

WHO said Willis gets all his news from fake news sites? WHO said it, you idiot?! As usual, zero details. He just goes off on a litany of news sources he doesn't like (via childish name calling). I guess he couldn't come up with a insult-name for Snopes.

Snopes might be on his list because I included a Snopes link in one of my comments in a response to Willis talking about fake news. He said fake news is a "nonsensical talking point". And I said, if that is the case, he must believe that the Pope endorsed Trump.

Then I wrote that Willis "believes fake news stories that have HRC at the heart of a child sex ring". Which is what the conspiracy theory says (Comet Ping Pong Pizzeria Home to Child Abuse Ring Led by Hillary Clinton).

Although during this exchange (which took place on WYD) I never said he gets all his news from fake news sites. I never said that, so if he's talking about me, he's lying. Also, I assumed that, since Willis buys the PizzaGate bullshit, he buys all of it. My mistake. He said he does not believe HRC is involved, and I ACCEPTED his response. What I wrote was "So you don't believe every aspect of it. OK".

So how does that make me a liar? I didn't lie. I assumed he believed the conspiracy theory in it's entirety. He said he did not and I said "OK". That isn't LYING, you moron! Or should I say "that isn't lying, you dirty, slimy, low-down slice of shit" (WTF is a "slice of shit"?).

BTW, the Podesta brothers are NOT communicating in some sort of pedophilia code. They're talking about cheese and pizza, idiot. Also, the MSM is NOT "giving cover" to pedophiles. According to NBC's Tom Costello "we've talked to the DC police. We've talked to the FBI. They have absolutely no reason to believe that any of this is true". (I have no link for this quote, as I copied it down when I heard it on Chris Matthew's show on 12/5/2016).

It must be because they're Democrats. Republicans they arrest. Eventually. I refer to Dennis Hastert, who Willis, in one of his comments calls a "convicted pedophile". Which he isn't. He should be, but the statute of limitations ran out.

I mention this up because the evil blog troll Luke Spencer, when I pointed out that Willis had his facts wrong, replied "no surprise, Dervish and RN support Dennis H. That's exposing their true character".

A lie. Pointing out that Willis has his facts wrong (as he often does) isn't "support". Hastert SHOULD be a convicted pedophile. But he wasn't convicted of child molestation. He plead guilty to "structuring". So he is convicted. And he is a pedophile. But he wasn't convicted for pedophilia (which WTNPH's comment inferred).

Anyway, while I corrected the a-hole Luke, my comment doesn't seem to be showing up. I left another one and the first one reappeared. Now, I just checked and it's gone again (I commented twice after Luke's lie but right now I see neither). Commenting seems to be buggy on WYD (with MANY of my comments vanishing).

OST #189

Pure Idiocy #1

The Libertarian idiot Willis Hart authors another post having to do (tangentially) with PizzaGate.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that if Pervert Podesta Was Really and Truly Concerned About Hacking, He Probably Should Have Come Up with a Better Password than, Say, p@ssw0rd - https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/22335... Too much to ask? (12/19/2016 AT 5:04pm).

Is it just me, or is Willis getting dumber by the day?

Below is the email he is referring to.

It appears to me that eryn.sepp@gmail.com is telling jpodesta that the CAP monkeyed with his computer (it's "good to go") and gave him a TEMPORARY password ("p@ssw0rd"). Which is COMMON. After you sign in the first time you change it. The system MAKES you change it.

Also note yet another reference to the debunked fake news story PizzaGate (referring to John Podesta as a "pervert").

So dumb.

On the other hand, it seems that John Podesta did fall for a phishing email and that's how the hackers got in. An email purporting to be from Google said his account had been compromised and that he should change his password (The phishing email that hacked the account of John Podesta).

Looks like there was a link in the email, and he clicked and "changed" his password through Google (i.e. gave his password to the hackers when he clicked on a link to a fake Google site). Which is pretty dumb (whoever did it. The article notes that someone might have done it for Podesta).

Although, according to the article "Charles Delevan at the HFA help desk wrote to Podesta's chief of staff, Sara Latham [and said] this is a legitimate email... John needs to change his password immediately".

OK, but navigate to Google yourself to change your password. Don't click a link in the email! Pretty basic stuff, IMO. I have received such phishing emails myself and I've never fallen for them.

"All of these hacks were executed using these shortened URLs... created with a Bitly account linked to a domain under the control of Fancy Bear" (Fancy Bear being the name of a Russian hacking group)... the article reveals.

Here I was thinking they used sophisticated methods beyond my understanding, but it was the age old reliance on the stupidity of the end user.

But the DNC was never hacked according to Willis. He thinks the info was downloaded onto a thumb drive by Seth Rich, the DNC staffer that HRC had murdered (presumably).

Apparently the Hartster is BIG into conspiracy theories these days. He talks about brain disease a LOT. Might that be the explanation?

Update 1/9/2016: Charles Delavan, the individual who wrote to John Podesta that the phishing email was "legitimate" says he intended to type "illegitimate". It was a typo. (see below).

OST #188

100% Clueless

The Libertarian idiot Willis Hart is convinced that the reason Hillary Clinton lost the election because the electorate agrees with him. Every one of his personal grievances against HRC were the VERY reasons why HRC "lost" to Donald Trump.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Over the Last Four Weeks or so Democrats and the Media Elites Have Blamed Everything from Voter Fraud to Racism to Russian Hacking to Internalized Misogyny for Hillary's Defeat and it Has Never Once Dawned on Them that the Real Reason for this Calamitous Event Was the Fact that They Had a Shit-Show Candidate Who's Wrecked and Destabilized Numerous Countries, Taken Money from Dirt-Bag Governments Like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, Threatened to Nuke Iran, Armed Terrorists in Syria, Lied to the Families of the Benghazi Victims, and Screwed the Dirt-Poor Haitians... There comes a point in one's life when you have to look inward and, yes, that would be my advice to these people. Big time. (12/13/2016 AT 10:14pm. Also posted to WYD, 12/15/2016 at 4:40pm).

These are all reasons why Willis Hart voted against Hillary Clinton (and there is some truth in the grievances as he lays them out) but NONE of these reasons explain why ANY voter pulled the lever for Trump (OK possibly a few, but their numbers were surely insignificant).

And he mentions "voter fraud" again, which (as I pointed out in OST #186) is total bullshit. The Left points to election fraud (which is when the people running the election cheat, as opposed to individual voters). And YES, I believe that election fraud cost HRC the election (DSD #54).

There were, however, a number of (I don't know how many) blue-collar Whites who voted for Trump. And the reason they voted for Trump was because he ran an anti-globalization/anti-TPP campaign. While HRC ran as a 3rd term for Obama. Obama supports the TPP. HRC said she didn't, but clearly the blue-collar Whites who voted for Trump didn't buy it. And HRC never said she would do anything to bring any jobs back (to my recollection). While Trump did (even if he is lying).

Willis Hart's list of personal grievances? NOT a factor. He SUPPORTS globalization/free trade, which is why he voted for Gary "what's Aleppo" Johnson. Johnson did better this time, but it was because he got the votes of Republicans who support free trade. The White blue-collar workers whose jobs have (and are) being outsourced voted for Trump because he said he'd bring those jobs back.

They did NOT vote for Trump as a HRC protest vote because of what she did as Secretary of State. Sorry Willis, but you're TOTALLY clueless on this. BTW, there were voters who voted Trump because of racism. Although these were (for the most part, I'd bet) not White blue-collar workers whose jobs are being outsourced, they are White racists who don't ordinarily vote.

Anyway, Willis lecturing the HRC campaign and saying the reason HRC lost is 100% due to her foreign policy, when the reason is that they didn't reach out to the White blue-collar workers who globalization has hurt is ironic. Given his support for free trade.

For the record, I did have a big problem with HRC in that she is a hawk. I actually agree, although not 100% with Willis (HRC did not lie to the Benghazi families. That's bullplop). But that is absolutely NOT why she lost. She lost due because of election fraud, firstly. And secondly it was because Obama supports the TPP. And HRC supported the TPP. And HRC didn't reach out to the White blue-collar workers who are losing their jobs because of globalization.

Willis THINKS he gets it. But he is 100% clueless, as his post demonstrates.

OST #187

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

Who's Forcing Willis Hart To Listen To The Music Of Kanye West?

According to a 9/13/2016 commentary someone is forcing the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart to listen to music he doesn't like.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Both of These Performers Are Considered Musical Geniuses but as Anybody with Even a Scintilla of Gray-Matter Can Tell You, Only One of Them Is and it Isn't the Pecker-Head on the [Right]. And what a sad trajectory it's been, hey, folks (the fact that black music has gone from Miles Davis and Thelonious Monk to the cavalcade of miscreant hip-hop stars that we're presently forced to listen to)? (9/13/2016 AT 11:08pm).

Miles Davis (1926–1991) and Kanye West (dob 1977).

I don't listen to the music of either of these individuals. Nobody has ever attempted to force me to listen to either Miles Davis or Kanye West. For the record, I used to like Kanye West - due to his truth-telling concerning former preznit bush re Katrina.

...the rapper's first large-scale controversy came just days following Late Registration's release, during a benefit concert for Hurricane Katrina victims. In September 2005, NBC broadcast A Concert for Hurricane Relief, and West was a featured speaker. When West was presenting alongside actor Mike Myers, he deviated from the prepared script. Myers spoke next and continued to read the script. Once it was West's turn to speak again, he said, "George Bush doesn't care about black people". West's comment reached much of the United States, leading to mixed reactions; President Bush would later call it one of the most "disgusting moments" of his presidency.

Since then, however, he's done/said things that have changed my opinion of him. I believe I've heard some of his music - by way of him performing on Saturday Night Live. Although (as with almost every musical act that performs on SNL) I press the fast forward button on my DVR.

But Willis Hart not liking the music of Kanye West is (IMO) a typical case of someone who isn't young generally not liking newer music. But instead of admitting such is the case, the 60 year-old Hartster makes his dislike of Kanye's music a Black thing. Because he's a pecker-headed racist.

BTW, while I'm not familiar with Miles Davis, I suspect I'd prefer his music to that of Kanye West. But I wouldn't attribute this to Black music going from being good to a "cavalcade of miscreant hip-hop stars". First of all, there are White hip hop stars (something WTNPH is apparently unaware of), and secondly (and as I areadly pointed out), older generations generally don't like the music of younger generations.

Anyway, who is "forcing" him to listen to it? Black Lives Matter? Black coworkers or neighbors that Willis curses under his breath (possibly using the N-word)?

Video1: Terence Blanchard's "Levees". A cut from the 2008 album A Tale of God's Will (A Requiem for Katrina). A work by Blanchard (a BLACK artist) that came about when film director Spike Lee commissioned New Orleans native Blanchard to compose the score for his 2006 four-hour award-winning HBO documentary When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (8:09).

Video2: A track from my favorite Terence Blanchard film score, 2001's The Caveman's Valentine (3:32).

OST #179

On Willis Hart (A Racist Piece Of Human Debris) Equating Killer Mike To David Duke

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is on a tear re the rapper Killer Mike (Michael Render) with the following two posts.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Killer Mike's Video in Which He Asks, "When You Niggas' Gon' Unite and Kill Those Police Mother-Fuckers?", Is Still Up on Youtube... I guess that it meets their "community standards". (9/15/2016 AT 9:46pm). Willis Hart: And Bernie Sanders Doesn't Have to Theorize as Why this Piece of Human Debris (the a Fore Mentioned Killer Mike) Is Supporting His Presidential Run. Why exactly? I mean, there couldn't possibly be a double-standard (Trump having to explain David Duke but Bernie and Hillary get a free-pass when it comes to some of their unsavory minions), could there? (9/16/2016 AT 3:04pm).

Killer Mike's father was a police officer. Wikipedia notes that "he has been vocal on the subject of police misconduct, his father being a former police officer". As for the rap song that Willis objects to, someone else brought this up to Killer Mike, and he replied (on Instagram).

Question: I just heard you on HBO talking about respecting police who deserve it and building community relations while condemning police brutality. Great to hear a public voice that understands what a complex situation, since extreme positions get the most play. So I decide to check out your catalog a little deeper and the first song is "let's unite and kill those police motherfuckers". Which message of yours do think will reach the most people? Which message is yours? Killer Mike: the song U heard was a story of a prison rebellion in which guards and an evil warden are being sought out by inmates to exact revenge. The line is actually to Crips, Bloods and other street Orgs and it said "when u Niggas gone Unite and kill the police mutha fuckers". So like any movie it's just fantasy. Deniro never killed anyone in Taxi Driver for real. love and respect. (Source).

He's not calling for the murder of police. Although it's likely Willis wouldn't believe it. But in his actual life (not song lyrics) Killer Mike calls people in marginalized communities to use their vote to enact change. To peacefully protest and to boycott businesses that aren't on the right side. He has never called for murdering police officers. (An Emotional Killer Mike Preaches Economic And Political Empowerment In The Face Of Police Brutality).

Oh, and that Killer Mike supported Bernie Sanders for president (a White Jew) kinda suggests an absence of racism. Unlike with David Duke. We all know he's a racist. That's why Bernie got a "pass", you idiot. So no "double standard".

BTW, Killer Mike is NOT supporting Bernie Sanders' presidential run. He supported it (past tense). Bernie Sanders isn't running any longer. Willis must have forgotten. Possibly due to an anoxic brain injury. Given the fact that Bernie Sanders dropping out is something NOBODY could possibly forget (also, "aforementioned" is one word, not three).

Anyway (for the record), I don't know Willis Hart in real life, so it's possible that referring to him as "human debris" is a bit harsh. On the other hand (given the racist nature of much of what he writes on his blog), using these two words to describe the Harster could be spot-on.

Image: Killer Mike cited Sanders' stance on the Voting Rights Act, health care, education and ending the war on drugs as reasons to vote for Bernie Sanders (excerpted from an 11/25/2015 HuffPo article by H.A. Goodman).

OST #178

On WTNPH's Concern For HRC Health Truther Drew Pinsky Getting Canned

Makes sense that the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart would defend him, given that Pinsky is a fellow Libertarian (Pinsky "has increasingly spoken of the tyranny of governmental overreach").

On the other hand, when Willis wrote about an incident that took place on Dr. Drew's program back on 8/4/2016, he seemed to think Pinsky was a Leftist (Willis authored an outraged post in which he complained about "some transgender" grabbing Conservative Pundit, Ben Shapiro, on Pinsky's show. Part of the outraged seemed to have something to do with Pinsky allowing "some transgender" get away with it. See OST #140).

But perhaps Willis, since authoring that post, has discovered that Pinsky is actually a Libertarian? Whatever the case may be, Hart's current outrage concerns Dr. Drew's HLN program being cancelled. Possibly because he's jumped on the lunatic "Health Truther" train (and Willis approves of this line of attack).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that HLN Cancelled Dr. Drew's Program Only Several Days After He Questioned Not Just Mrs. Clinton's Health but Her Healthcare (the Fact that She's on Coumadin, for Example, an Old Drug that Is Rarely Used These Days) [Link]... It could be a coincidence (I guess that they're also deep-sixing Nancy Grace - THANK GOD!). But how many more coincidences are the Clintons allowed before we start to get a wee-bit suspicious? I mean, they are beginning to stockpile (Bill Clinton's "chance" meeting with the AG, Seth Rich and four or five others ending up dead, Bernie Sanders getting butt-fucked, etc.). (9/6/2016 AT 4:15pm).

OK, so IMO it's far more likely that DJT is suffering from a serious health problem that could affect him being commander-in-chief. What with that bogus doctor's note he put out. It's cause to think, what's he hiding? Whereas HRC has released an actual doctor's report on her health.

As for why HLN cancelled Dr. Drew's program, I frankly do not give a shit. I've never watched any of his programs, nor watched HLN. Except when Joy Behar had a program on that channel (The Joy Behar Show, which ran on HLN from 2009 to 2011).

But maybe Pinsky was fired for spouting off on this Right-imagined conspiracy theory? If so I say "good for them" (whoever at HLN cancelled him). If he's going to go out of his way to say "hey, I'm a nut who buys into Right-wing conspiracy theories", I say he should be cancelled.

BTW, in regards to Coumadin (a brand name for the drug Warfarin), it "is still very commonly prescribed by doctors" (according to Snopes). So, while it may be an old drug ("it was approved for use as a medication in 1954"), that it is "rarely used these days" is a false assertion.

But this is part of the Health Truther spiel. Which Dr. Drew is apparently on board with, given the fact that (as the Daily Beast notes), the "page-and-a-half letter from Dr. Lisa Bardack, Clinton's physician at Mount Kisco Medical Group, [addresses] all of Pinsky's grave concerns [re HRC's health]" (Dr. Drew Leads the Hillary Clinton Health Truthers).

So he's ignoring the evidence right in front of him and just going with the narrative/conspiracy theory, in other words. The one that says HRC is at death's door (and thus not fit to lead the country). And Willis buys it, apparently. Whereas the Hartster has not once mentioned the BS letter from Manhattan gastroenterologist Harold Bornstein (Trump's doc) and the bizarre letter he wrote. The one that said Trump (if he "wins") would "be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency".

As for "coincidences", I fail to see how this qualifies. The only reason this could qualify as a "coincidence" is if you thought Dr. Drew getting fired was somehow of benefit to HRC, which I don't see. I mean, the conspiracy theory lives on. It isn't as if Dr. Drew continuing to add his voice to the chorus (and using his show as a platform to do so) would make a difference in the election.

The more logical explanation is that Pinsky's ratings slipped. Or that his bosses heard his rant and said "get rid of this quack" (which would be what my reaction would've been, were I an HLN bigwig).

FYI, Willis mentions Seth Rich, which is a reference to another conspiracy theory that says Rich (an HRC for potus campaign staffer) was the source of the DNC WikiLeaks dump, and that HRC had him murdered for his betrayal. To which I say (WTNPH mentioning the conspiracy theory, not the conspiracy theory itself)... figures. He's down with ALL the HRC conspiracy theories. All the while totally ignoring all the Trump ones.

Image: HRC "health truther" Drew Pinsky, a Libertarian nut who (like Willis Hart) thinks democracy is tyranny and who has said that "ObamaCare will fail" and that he is sick of the government.

OST #177

How Much Alt-Right Media Does Willis Hart Consume?

First of all, what is the "alt Right"? The following via Wikipeida.

The alt-right is a segment of right-wing ideologies presented as an alternative to mainstream conservatism in the United States. It has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, as well as by opposition to multiculturalism and immigration. The alt-right has no official ideology, although various sources have said that it is associated with white nationalism, white supremacism, antisemitism, right-wing populism, nativism, and the neoreactionary movement.

So, I do know that the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a Colin Flaherty fan (both Colin and Willis are members of the "some of us" who are standing up to the tyranny of the Social Justice Warriors).

And Flaherty, as an author who has written a lot of books pumping base racism (fear of violent Black people), is a hardcore alt-Righter. Heidi Beirich, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center, points out that Flaherty has "allies in all the wrong places - racist cesspools like the hate forum Stormfront" (where they love his books and American Thinker articles). Add to that the blog "Contra O'Reilly" (the author of which has praised Flaherty more than once).

But, aside from the Flaherty posts, I (until recently) wasn't aware of just how much alt-Right media WTNPH consumes. By recently, I mean since Trump began running for president, hired the anti-semitic and racist Steve Bannon of Breitbart News as the "Chief Executive Officer" of the Trump campaign, and REALLY fired up the hardcore racists (David Duke: Trump's attacks on Muslims and illegal immigration have brought his own beliefs into the mainstream).

Re Bartbart, late night talk show host Stephen Colbert has said "if you haven't heard of Breitbart News, that means you do not have a racist uncle on Facebook". Racists being fans of Breitbart because, as Media Matters points out, it's the "leading outlet" for alt-Right news. The alt-Right being "a rebranding of classic white nationalism for the 21st century".

And Willis Hart believes it is "interesting".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Breitbart.com Has Gone From an Interesting (Albeit Partisan) Alternative News-Site to What Is Now Essentially a Propaganda Mouthpiece for the Trump Campaign Well, being that their daily traffic has gone up 6-7 fold, I guess that it was a good decision, business-wise at least (and isn't that what it's all about these days; making big money while still being partisan?). (8/24/2016 AT 9:24am).

So Willis is disappointed that Breitbart has become "essentially a propaganda mouthpiece for the Trump campaign", but he was a fan previously. Because he found their take on the news "interesting". Breitbart's take being articles that appeal to White Nationalists.

But Breitbart isn't the only alt-right media that Willis consumes, apparently. As he reveals in this next post.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Alt-Right Radio Host, Kyle Hunt, Constantly Makes a Massive Deal Over the Fact that Five of the Past Six Fed Chairpersons Have Been Jewish (G. William Miller Being the Only Christian)... Well, being that all of the Presidents who've nominated them and 99% of the Congresspersons who've approved them HAVEN'T been Jews, methinks that Hunt might be riding some paranoia here (not surprising in that these clowns are always serving up one conspiracy or another with the term, Jewish bankers, always peppered throughout). (9/5/2016 AT 9:23pm).

OK, so it's criticism of an alt-Right radio host that is the subject of this post. But in said post Willis does reveal that he listens to alt-radio. Or I'm guessing he listens. Me, I've never heard of Kyle Hunt. Nor have I heard this incident mentioned on the news. So, that Willis heard Kyle say this while listening to alt-radio? It's a reasonable assumption to make, I think. Especially given the fact that he previously revealed that he is (or was) a Breitbart fan.

All of which caused me to wonder, just how much alt-media does WTNPH consume? My conclusion is that it's likely quite a bit. And I think he seeks it out because he agrees with the racist POV presented by alt-media outlets. Because he's a racist himself.

Video: Steven Bannon, while "Executive Chairman" of Breitbart News, said "we are the platform for the alt-right" (3:05).

9/7/2016 Update: I just noticed that WNTPH authored another commentary defending the horribly racist (but very like-minded) Colin Flaherty. Apparently YouTube suspended his account. Willis sez "Surprised? I'm not... the fact that Youtube is run by the same people who run Google and we all know how biased that those leftists are". "Biased", yeah, that's it. Biased against hardcore "alt-Right" racists. Which is a good thing, IMO.

OST #176

Willis Hart (A Racist Misogynist) Slams Al Gore For Suggesting African Women Should Be Empowered

Clearly the idea of empowering women seriously pisses off the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart, as when Al Gore suggested that women should be empowered via education so that they can decide when and how many children they have, the creep's response was to fling lies at the former president.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Al Gore's Recent Calls for Population Control in Africa Sound Creepily Similar to the Lingo of Early 20th Century Eugenicists... [video: Al Gore on African population] As his segregationist father smiles down upon him, this creep. (8/26/2016 AT 11:10pm).

The video in which Al Gore calls for "population control" according to Willis Hart (0:50).

In the 50 second clip Al Gore says "I think that, the wonderful work that Bill and Melinda Gates are doing, for example, illustrates how crucial it is... because, depressing the rate of child mortality, educating girls, empowering women, and making fertility management ubiquitously available - so women can choose how many women, and the spacing of children. Is crucial to the future state of human civilization. Africa is projected to have more people than China or India by mid century. More than China and India combined by the end of the century. And this is one of the causal factors that must be addressed".

So, you hear any "calls for population control" or any language "creepily similar to the lingo of early 20th century eugenicists"? I know I sure as hell don't. I hear Mr. Gore calling for women to be educated and empowered so they can decide how many children they have and when they have them (not "eugenicists").

And, given that is ALL Mr. Gore says; that (educating and empowering women) MUST be what the racist misogynist Willis Hart is objecting to. According to an article by Brigid Fitzgerald Reading, a staff researcher at the Earth Policy Institute, "Education leads to lower fertility and increased prosperity. A growing world population will undoubtedly contribute exponentially to "spreading hunger and poverty, along with the conflict and disease".

And Willis Hart slams Al Gore for suggesting there is something that can be done to empower women so they can make better choices? Is he such a hater of women that he wants them to stay uneducated, barefoot and pregnant rather than see them empowered? Or is it just that we're talking about African women? I mean, what's influencing him here more - his hatred for women or hatred for Black people?

I'm going to guess both. I would also add that his hatred for Al Gore is surely another factor. But whatever the reason for this idiotic post, the Hartster is surely a racist misogynist creep in my book.

As for eugenicist-type thinking, Herbert Spencer (a popular author during the 19th century who was one of the foundational thinkers in the development of the Libertarian economic philosophy) "supported strict limits on the government and even opposed many forms of charity towards the poor [and] also believed that neither government nor private charity should interfere with this process of natural selection" (SWTD #280).

This kind of thinking is clearly Objectivist. Ayn Rand believed the poor should die as well, advocating that what should be done (re poor starving people) is nothing. So "nature will take its course" (SWTD #343). Which is, I'm thinking, at the root of Willis Hart's objections.

Poor Africans growing their populations and thus "spreading hunger and poverty, along with the conflict and disease" being the outcome he WANTS. Because it's the "natural selection" (poor die/rich prosper) that Ayn Rand believed in. BTW, I should note that Africans don't need some White man (Al Gore) to tell them what to do here. I'm sure what Gore is saying is being said by intelligent Africans. But Al Gore talking about empowering women surely can't be harmful. Unless you WANT people to die. Poor people, specifically. In this case poor Black people.

Poor people dying in large numbers (via widespread famine) being a likely wet-dream for classist racists like Willis Hart, an anarcho-capitalist Libertarian Ayn Rand worshipper (OST #135).

Image: An image that might cause Willis Hart to chuckle with delight? Although these kids aren't dead yet (at least when the pic was taken), so perhaps he'll only be happy when richer nations stop trying to help. Cutting off aid being something WTNPH has advocated, quoting Libertarian economist James Shikwati (SWTD #165).

OST #175

Willis Hart (A Misogynist) Sez That If You're Female & In The Public Eye, You've Got To Be A "Babe" (Regardless Of Age)

In a 8/24/2016 commentary, the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart criticizes Hillary Clinton not for Benghazi or her email server (as he has in the past) but for not being a "babe". And he does this via an exceptionally stupid observation regarding HRC aide Huma Abedin.

Willis Hart: America's Next First Lady? [3X pics of Huma Abedin] Well, she is an improvement over the previous few (Mrs. Clinton herself, especially - SO not a babe). That's for certain (her ties to that radical Islamist publication, notwithstanding). (8/24/2016 AT 7:53pm).

If/when HRC is elected president, Huma Abedin will NOT be the First Lady, you moron! First Lady isn't a position that has to be filled. If we elect a woman president, obviously there won't be a First Lady. Or someone else will perform the duties of White House hostess. But won't be called "First Lady", as that could feed the HRC lesbian rumors. Which is foolishness an HRC administration wouldn't need to be distracted with (Pam Geller is Convinced That Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin Are Definitely Lesbians).

As for Huma's "ties to that radical Islamist publication", an 8/21/2016 NYP article notes that Huma worked (for 10 years) as the "assistant editor of the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs working under her mother [Saleha Mahmood Abedin], who remains editor-in-chief". And then the article goes on to talk about objectionable articles authored by her mother (anti-woman's rights, US brought 9/11 on itself). And the assistant editor position is one Huma held while "she was also working in the White House as an intern for then-first lady Clinton".

Is this cause for concern? Perhaps. Wikipedia notes that "experts on Islam and the members of the journal's advisory board called [the NYP article] ridiculous [because the article] cherry-picked quotes and mischaracterized articles". Additionally, "CNN reported that those familiar with the journal described it as "scholarly, academic and nonpartisan [and that its content] does not raise red flags". NOT a "radical Islamist publication", in other words.

In any case, just because Huma Abedin worked for her mother doesn't mean she shares her mother's views*. Or that she STILL shares them*. And HRC obviously disagrees with Saleha Mahmood Abedin's views* (*if Saleha Mahmood Abedin views are what Rupert Murdoch's NYP says they are). Also remember that Huma Abedin does not set policy. And, while the HRC campaign may not be addressing this presently, I'd be surprised if it doesn't come up before the election. Possibly in a HRC/DJT debate (if he doesn't chicken out).

This, btw, is a subject on which I'd have thought that Willis might go after HRC for. Given how much he hates HRC and Islam (being an Islamophobe). Instead he authors a post that has Huma as First Lady (a title I seriously doubt she'd want) and in which he ogles Huma while dissing Hillary. For their looks. As if that has ANYTHING to do with Huma as HRC's advisor or what HRC did as First Lady.

I'm surprised he didn't bring up the a-hole cartoonist Ben Garrison (a fellow misogynist) and his cartoon that says Melina Trump will make the First Lady position "great again" (this would be the drawing in which he depicts Michelle Obama as a frowning muscled tranny with a bulge). Given how much Willis seems to like this Garrison douche (OST #148).

BTW, I don't know if WTNPH is referring to HRC not being a "babe" now (at 69), or when she was First Lady (ages 46 to 52). Huma Abedin, in the pics Willis used, does look good at 40, while HRC (as FLOTUS) entered the White House at age 46 (1993-2001). But I think she looked pretty good then. Not many women get to the "elderly" age range and are still considered "babes" (Jane Fonda, Sophia Loren, Dolly Parton, Raquel Welch). But not women who age normally (don't get procedures).

But LOOKS are how the misogynist Hartster judges all women. Or most women (perhaps he gives women who share his political views some leniency). I mean, he's written many posts about how he watches Fox Nooz for the hottie anchor babes. Babes he has ranked based on hotness.

In any case, as for HRC not being a "babe", that certainly is not a requirement for First Lady that I have. Although I'd say Michelle Obama is a babe (despite what WTNPH's mancrush Ben Garrison thinks). Although I think HRC definitely (at least) started out as a babe (see image of 18YO HRC below, a picture I found attached to an article titled "Did you know Hillary used to be this hot?").

Images: [1] An 18 year-old Hillary Rodham is shown in her 1965 senior class portrait from East High School in Park Ridge IL. [2] HRC was 1st Lady from 1994 to 2001; this image is from 1995 when she was 48. Perhaps (at this point in her life) she isn't a babe any longer, but I think she looks pretty hot in this particular picture.

OST #174

Willis Hart (A Racist) Believes A Majority Of Black People Are Stupid Dimwits Who Are Easily Fooled

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart can't, for the life of him understand why more Black people aren't conservative. It's because he thinks Democrats win Black votes by fooling them.

For example, he believes that Lyndon Baines Johnson said, in regards to signing the 1964 Civil Rights Act, "we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference". The goal being to "have them ni**ers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years". Black people would be fooled into voting for Democrats, in other words.

This, despite the FACT that LBJ, after he signed the CRA, told his Press Secretary (Bill Moyers) "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican party for a long time to come". So, instead of helping the party by tricking Black people into voting Democratic, he was actually concerned that he had hurt the Democratic party (by losing the South) (SWTD #228).

Another example of how Willis believes Black people have been tricked, is in regards to them giving up their babies for slaughter (by Planned Planethood). In order to "exterminate" the Black race. (That abortion is "Black Genocide" is a conspiracy theory Mother Jones awards a kookiness rating of "5 tinfoil hats" and which Ebony magazine says is a myth).

Willis Hart: From a 1939 Letter by Margaret Sanger to Dr. Charles Gamble, Subject - "The Negro Project"... "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members". And Mrs. Clinton relishes her recent Margaret Sanger Award. why exactly? (8/24/2016 AT 7:53pm).

Margaret Sanger "was an American birth control activist, sex educator, writer, and nurse [who] popularized the term "birth control", opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America" (Source: Wikipedia).

She is also a person who, today, is the subject of the RW conspiracy theory (the one Willis cites), concerning a plan to "exterminate" Black people via the convincing of Black women to abort their babies. Even babies they wanted, apparently, as most babies are. Wanted, that is. How can an entire race be exterminated unless every (or at least most) Black babies are aborted? Certainly you'd have to be consistently aborting more Black babies each year than are born. And for generations (which isn't happening).

In any case, what Sanger was actually talking about was her not wanting the word to go out that they (choice advocates) wanted to exterminate the negro population... BECAUSE IT WAS A LIE!

New York University's Margaret Sanger Papers Project, argues that in writing that letter, "Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South... (Wikipedia/Margaret Sanger/Race).

Wikipedia follows that sentence by citing the "opposing view", which is the one Willis believes. As if either view could be true. But the conspiracy theory that Sanger wanted to exterminate the entire Black race is clearly absurd. Because it relies on the belief that Black mothers could be talked into aborting babies they wanted! Because Black people are so stupid they'd given up wanted babies. And nobody would notice the African American population was decreasing (to the point of being exterminated) until it was too late.

And there is also the fact that "Sanger did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects [and] Sanger's work with minorities earned praise from MLK Jr [and] W.E.B. Du Bois, a civil rights legend [who] co-founded the NAACP".

So, MLK Jr and Du Bois were both fooled by Sanger, a virulent racist who wanted to exterminate the entire Black race? That's what we're supposed to believe? Because Black people have been totally fooled by the Left. For the life of them, racist Conservatives like the Hartster can't comprehend why African Americans vote Democratic in overwhelming majorities (LBJ getting 94% of the Black vote in 1964). Because the majority of Black people are dumb and easily fooled.

Or "dim-witted", as per the Wikipedia entry for "Minstrel show". "Minstrel" being a racist term WTNPH likes to apply to African American Liberals.

Image: 94% of African Americans voted for LBJ after he signed the 1964 CRA. Proof that Black people were totally fooled by the CRA, which was only a "little something". It quieted the stupid Blacks down, even though it was "not enough to make a difference"... according to racist Conservatives.

See Also: Wikipedia/Black Genocide Conspiracy Theory/Abortion.

OST #173

Willis Hart Is An Anti-Gay Bigot

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart professes to be opposed to discrimination against gay people, but he's deluding himself.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a California Judge Recently Ruled that the Internet Dating-Site, Christian Mingle, Must Allow LGBT Applicants. How ludicrous is that? a) The proprietors of that site apparently don't feel comfortable serving gays, lesbians, transgenders, etc. and it shouldn't be the role of the government in a free society to force them to do it at gunpoint. b) It's a huge slippery-slope (what's next, forcing a Jewish dating-site to allow the al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade to sign up with them?). And c) There are more than enough alternative dating-sites (some of them actually meant for gay Christians - HELLO!!) that would be more than willing to take the money and so why in the hell would someone want to give their hard-earned cash (20 something dollars a month) to someone who apparently doesn't want it and where you probably wouldn't get any dates? It makes zero sense and enough already with this virtue-signalling and coercion cocktail. (8/22/2016 AT 3:56pm).

First I'd like to point to a possible tiny point of agreement. This concerns an internet business, so, unlike with a brick-and-mortar establishment, it's A LOT easier for someone to take their business elsewhere. Unlike say, in a small town where there may be any one florist or baker, and the gay customer the "Christian" business doesn't want to serve CAN'T take their business elsewhere.

But Willis is in favor of allowing these "Christian" businesses to discriminate in ALL cases. But I ask, why should a gay customer think first, before entering a business intending to purchase goods and services, "is my business wanted"? And, how are they supposed to know the business owner in question doesn't want their business? A "gays not served" sign in the window?

And, if you saw such a sign, would you not think "this business discriminates". So, I've got to wonder, why are some varieties of discrimination acceptable to Libertarians like Willis Hart, whereas others are not. Would he be OK with a sign in the window that said "Blacks not served"? Or "disabled people not served"?

Which is why the tiny point of agreement I previously identified as "possible" isn't. Even if it's easy for the gay customer to take their business elsewhere - especially when we're talking about an online business - WHY should any kind of discrimination be OK? I think most of us know the answer. Which is that it is not OK.

So, while Willis CLAIMS that his concern is "coercion" of the anti-gay business owner (and why don't they just take their business elsewhere), the FACT is that - the way he thinks things should work - that "Christian" business owners should be able to discriminate (against only gay people?)... it enables bigotry.

And what's the difference between actual bigots and bigotry enablers? Not much from the point of view of the person being discriminated against. Which is why I say Willis Hart is an anti-gay bigot. I mean, he fully and vociferously supports this kind of bigotry (with MANY commentaries on his blog).

You're either ant-discrimination, or you're pro-discrimination. And Willis Hart has made it VERY clear which side of the issue he comes down on. He's pro-discrimination. VERY pro-discrimination. He frames it as an opposition to "coercion", but I say, "what's the difference". People get discriminated against whatever the argument is.

And yes, I absolutely view ALL Libertarians who use the ridiculous "anti-coercion" argument to enable discrimination as bigots and possibly racist. Depending on whether or not they think placing that "no Blacks served" or similar sign in a store window is "coercion".

BTW, "virtue signaling" is another of the Hartster's favorite terms. Along with "SJW" (Social Justice Warrior). But he knows the judge was doing this, how? Much more likely the judge was simply following California law? According to what I read the "Unruh Civil Rights Act [is] an anti-discrimination law in California that requires businesses to provide full and equal accommodations regardless of sexual orientation".

Perhaps the judge was even a Conservative that was personally opposed to "coercing" Christian Mingle into accepting gay customers, but had no choice? Because of THE LAW? What a dope. Also, I read two article, and neither identified the judge by name. Might it be hard to virtual signal when people don't know who you are?

I mean, given that virtue signaling is done "primarily to enhance the social standing of the speaker". So HOW can the social standing of a speaker be enhanced if the identity of said person is unknown? OK, so obviously some people know who the judge is. So maybe whoever the judge is, they were "virtue signaling". But I doubt it very much. More likely is that the judge was simply IMPARTIALLY following CA law.

Image: Should signs such as this one be allowed? Or should the law "coerce" business owners into removing such signs? Note that the article the image (below) is attached to is "1 in 10 still support discrimination against African-Americans on religious grounds" (6/4/2014 MSNBC article by Morgan Whitaker). Religious grounds, or the EXACT SAME reason WTNPH strongly argues that business owners should be allowed to cite in defense of them discriminating against gay people.

OST #172