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

Willis Hart Bullshit: "I Tried To Warn The Left" About Debbie Wasserman Schultz

In this commentary we have, I think, strong evidence of brain disease from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart ("brain diseased" being a pejorative term he likes).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that We Now Know for Certain (Through Wikileaks Releases) that Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Rest of Those Goons at the DNC Were Busily Stacking the Deck Against Bernie Sanders in an Effort to Pave the Way for Hillary Clinton... I tried to warn the left about this treacherous rodent but they wouldn't listen. Maybe they'll listen now. (7/25/2016 AT 5:19pm).

Yeah, it's true that the WikiLeaks release shows that (now former) DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was acting as a HRC surrogate in a position in which she was supposed to be acting with neutrality. But the Bernie supporters already knew this. Although I don't know I'd go as far as Willis does. Because what he's saying doesn't quite comport with the facts. As far as I know some staffers discussed (via email) tactics they could use against Bernie (calling him out for suspected atheism) but they never did.

The limiting of the number of debates was (IMO) definitely done to protect HRC. Anyway, my point is that there is agreement between Willis and me in regards to DWS stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders. I don't know why he would give a crap, however, given his intense hate for Bernie Sanders.

Where I take exception to what Willis wrote, however, is in regards to this "warning" bullshit. Unless he's talking about how he and a (former) frequent commenter on his blog "warned" the Left in regards to how ugly they both believe DWS is.

This exchange, for example (comments attached to a post by Hart titled "Democratic Congressional Bimbo Eruptions").

Rusty Shackelford: She may very well be a nice person... but Debbie Wasserman Schultz is one homely woman. (11/14/2012 AT 8:01pm). Willis Hart: You and I are going arm and arm straight to hell, Russ. You do know that, right? (11/14/2012 AT 8:02pm).

Willis Hart (an atheist) doesn't believe in hell. That line is his way of saying he appreciates what Rusty said about DWS being "homely". No, no warnings of treachery here. Only comments from two misogynist assholes concerning the appearance of a female Democratic politician they don't like.

If someone can point me to a WTNPH commentary in which he issues any kind of warning regarding DWS... go ahead, I CHALLENGE you to find one. Me, I can't recall a single conversation in which DWS's name came up where Rusty Shackelford did not immediately refer to her as ugly and Willis Hart did not gleefully agree.

BTW, in regards to DWS stacking the deck against Sanders, this is an issue that Bernie supporters did discuss. The fact is that I "warned" that DWS was "busily stacking the deck against Bernie Sanders in an effort to pave the way for Hillary Clinton" on my blog (and can point to the posts). Whereas the Hartster's warnings DO NOT EXIST! He never warned about squat regarding DWS. Never. Unless you believe his and Rusty's Shackelford's exchanges regarding DWS being a dumb ugly bimbo count as "warnings". Obviously, if we are to elect women to congress, they need to be a lot hotter.

"I tried to warn the left about this treacherous rodent but they wouldn't listen" is a LIE. Or perhaps a self delusion. Completely untrue in any case.

Image: WikiLeaks email release proves that, under chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, there was a distinct pro-Hillary bias. A bias that took the form of discussions of how to harm the Bernie Sanders campaign. Although no action seems to have been taken, the DNC is SUPPOSED to be neutral! (4 Most Damaging Emails From the DNC WikiLeaks Dump).

OST #164

On How The Willis Hart Strawman Construction Went Down

This commentary concerns a recent strawman argument from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart...

Willis Hart: On How the Shit Went Down... a) A bunch of surface-thinking liberals and neoliberals take the South Carolina church shootings and idiotically extrapolate from them that there is this full-scale war on black people in which white racists/rednecks (wearing sheets and carrying the Confederate banner) are going around shooting them en masse. b) I point out that interracial violence is actually very rare but to the degree that it does exist, black on white violent crime is approximately 25 times more likely (per capita) to occur than the opposite (I also pointed out that research is advanced by examining aggregates and not by looking at anecdotes but that apparently went over their noggins, too). c) I get called a racist by these folks... That's it, in a nutshell, people. (8/2/2015 AT 4:24pm).

The "shit" that went down in this commentary is bullshit, in that Willis is bullshitting himself in regards to his racism. Which caused him to construct this strawman in which he lies about what the "surface-thinking" Liberals were "extrapolating" as well as what he was saying about "interracial violence" and "anecdotes".

The strawman is that Liberals (Octopus, I'm guessing) and Neoliberals (rAtional nAtion, I presume) ever said there was a "full-scale war on black people in which White racists/rednecks are going around shooting them en masse". Or that this racist redneck army is "wearing sheets and carrying the Confederate banner". This is an utterly over-the-top and completely ridiculous characterization of what was actually said... which is that the current situation that involves police shooting unarmed Black people and racially motivated shootings are cause for concern.

And that the Confederate flag represents racism, in that it was the banner of the Southern seceding states which wanted to leave the union because they were worried about Abe Lincoln getting elected and the Republican Party being opposed to slavery. Lincoln told the South "you think slavery is right and should be extended, while we think it is wrong and should be limited. That, I suppose, is the trouble. It surely is the only important difference between us". But the Southern states disagreed, thinking the difference was important enough for them to worry about Lincoln seeking to end slavery. Or cause them trouble, at least.

Although the neoliberal would disagree on this point; the neoliberal being in agreement with Willis that the Civil War being fought because of tariffs (although they are wrong).

But I'm pretty sure he agrees that most African Americans view the flag in a negative light and would prefer it would be removed from the grounds of government buildings... due to the fact that Southern State governments are now supposed to be representing everyone (including Black folks who view the flag as a sign that perhaps Southern State governments aren't working for them equally).

But the primary issue would be the police shootings, you know, because there is no "full-scale war on black people in which white racists/rednecks are going around shooting them en masse". And ZERO liberals and neoliberals ever said there was. At least in the discussion Willis refers to... there MIGHT be some morons out there who have said such a thing.

The police shootings, no, do not stack up against the number of African Americans who are killed by other African Americans.... HOWEVER, there is an important point that Willis seems to overlook, which is that the police are supposed to "serve and protect", while criminals (whatever their race) do violence. Police are supposed to only do violence to criminals, and then only if necessary. They are NOT supposed to be gunning down (or choking) unarmed people! Even if they are committing crimes.

The proliferation of "I think he had a gun, I feared for my life and so I shot the suspect dead" excuse points to... panicky cops, panicky racist cops, or racist cops... IMO. And NONE of these possibilities are good. Nor should the cops be using excessive force... like (for example) choking a Black man to death for selling loosies, kneeling on the back of a young teen at a pool party, arresting someone and throwing them in jail (where they later die) for not signaling a lane change.

It is ridiculous and has to stop! Yeah, and we think that racism is probably a factor in many (perhaps not all) of these cases. That is all the "surface-thinking liberals and neoliberals" are saying. That these cops obviously need to be better trained. And screened for racists or people who get off on exerting power over others. We don't want those types as police officers. We are NOT saying what the strawman-constructing Willis sez we are saying. What Willis is saying is total BS. Which is why he sez it! (it's an easy strawman to refute).

Willis' "nutshell", is a racist one, I believe. One reason being everything I just mentioned apparently going over his noggin. Because "black on white violent crime is approximately 25 times more likely (per capita) to occur than the opposite"... that makes the fact that cops are killing Black people OK in his mind... I guess (it's "anecdotal" in comparison).

Yes, I have noticed on his blog that he has (not one time that I'm aware of) said, "OK, it's obvious this time that the cop was in the wrong to kill that Black person". Not once. A cop shoots a Black man in the back as he flees, then plants his taser on him... and crickets from Willis. Although he often writes multiple posts (per "anecdotal" incident) of a Black person getting killed... when he thinks they deserved it.

Image: Slow motion GIF shows former cop Michael Slager allegedly planting his taser near the body of Walter Scott. (Image attached to a 4/9/2015 "Opposing Views" article by Dominic Kelly).

OST #66

On The Stupid Fathead Willis Hart Denigrating Blue Collar Americans & Oinking For Economic Policies To Drive More $ To The Plutocrats

I can't even look at this a$$hole any more (metaphorically speaking). He's continually running down blue collar workers and suggesting the kind of jobs they do should be outsourced to 3rd world wage slaves (SWTD #165). It makes me sick. But this is the worldview of Libertarians. Libertarians like those who hang out at the Contra O'Reilly blog.

People like Contra O'Reilly regular dmarks (real name Dennis Marks).

Dennis Marks: It's like the McDonald's workers doing work worth about $8 an hour and oinking for a handout of $15 an hour without doing a single thing to earn this amount. Other than oink for more money. (1/6/2015 AT 3:58pm).

This would be in stark contrast to those who believe that there is dignity in ALL work. People like Martin Luther King Jr. (SWTD #276).

MLK: So often we overlook the work and the significance of those who are not in professional jobs, of those who are not in the so-called big jobs. But let me say to you tonight that whenever you are engaged in work that serves humanity and is for the building of humanity, it has dignity and it has worth. (AFSCME Memphis Sanitation Strike 4/3/1968).

So, fast food workers are "oinking" for an increase in the minimum wage? But we used to pay a lot more (when inflation is taken into account). According to Wikipedia, the minimum wage "peaked at about $10 in 1968" (in 2014 dollars).

MLK lead a march on Washington that same year demanding $2 an hour, which would be $15.27 an hour adjusted for inflation.

Yeah, MLK (according to the likes of Willis and Dennis) was one of the worst "oinkers" ever. Or perhaps it is people like Willis and Dennis who are the real oinkers. They're oinking for more money to go to the plutocrats while running down Blue collar workers by referring to the work they do as "chimpanzee jobs" and they're reading books by authors who believe those who protest against inequality (caused by the plutocrats stealing from us) are talentless losers ("talentless" according to "The True Believer" by Eric Hoffer and "losers" according to a recent WTNPH post about yours truly).

God, how pathetic and unAmerican.

OST #35

Consistent bush Apologist Despicable Defense of Torture

I refer to Willis Hart, of course... an individual who has been VERY consistent in his defense of former preznit George W bush in regards to war criminality.

Willis Hart: "On What to Do When You Accuse George W. Bush of Being a War Criminal and Then Ultimately Discover that Your Progressive Icon, FDR, Perpetrated Some of the Most Despicable War Crimes in All of Human History (the Targeting and Murder of Hundreds of Thousands of Civilians and in a Manner that Had No Strategic Value Whatsoever)"... Hm, let's see, a sane and responsible person would probably either modify the charges against Bush or have the power of his or her convictions and hold Mr. Roosevelt to the same standards... Of course I'm obviously not referring to a sane individual here (12/16/2014 AT 7:23pm).

So the argument Willis is making is that since FDR was never charged with war crimes, presidents can do whatever they damn well please. Treaties, international law, US law, and societal norms concerning right and wrong be damned.

Of course Willis jumping to the defense of GWb when it comes to the war crimes he approved is nothing new. He's done it many many times previously. Usually by bringing up FDR and WWII.

By the way, it is impossible to charge someone with a crime after they die, which FDR did... quite awhile ago. GWb is still alive and still chargeable for his war crimes, which CLEARLY Willis does not want to see happen.

And, for the record, I have not discovered that my progressive icon, FDR, perpetrated some of the most despicable war crimes in all of human history (the targeting and murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians and in a manner that had no strategic value whatsoever).

Regarding "strategic value", John Keegan, author of an October 2005 Telegraph article titled "Necessary or Not, Dresden Remains a Topic of Anguish", writes...

In the circumstances of early 1945 there were pressing reasons for persisting in the bombing. The Germans were still hitting London with pilotless weapons, the prospect of victory, apparently so close at hand in the autumn of 1944, had sharply receded after Hitler's great December offensive in the Ardennes, the Battle of the Bulge, which had caused more American casualties than any other battle in the west. Moreover, it was strongly believed - and not only by the bomber barons - that bombing severely damaged and might soon break German morale (source).

Whether this course of action was a war crime is not an opinion I am offering, as, admittedly I am not extremely well read when it comes to this subject. It may very well have been. I do know, however, that we were at war. A war Germany started.

Unlike the war we were engaged in when GWb authorized torture. Not only did GWb start that war, he started it by lying to the American people about WMD he KNEW Iraq did not have (SWTD #154). And, as we all know, torture does not work. It only gets those tortured to admit to whatever the torturer wants them to admit to (to get the torturer to stop).

This argument, IMO, has more to do with Willis hating FDR... which he does. A LOT. Willis, in opposition to what a sane and responsible person would do, allows his hatred of Progressives to excuse and defend a president who approved torture.

Frankly I find his defense of torture especially repugnant given recent BS from the arrogant Willis regarding him perhaps being "TOO anti-war" and that possibly being his "ultimate downfall".

Yeah... RIGHT... if by "anti-war" the Hartster means too anti-progressive and too much having his head up his ass when it comes to his belief in lies peddled by Libertarian "luminaries".

OST #32

Willis Hart LOL-able Narcissism & Oligarchy Worship

Another dig at a blogger the small "L" Libertarian Willis Hart does not like.

Willis Hart: If Obama Ever Came Out For a Flat-Tax and a Doubling of the Pentagon Budget... [blogger I don't like and view as an extreme partisan] would still support him, Hannity would still oppose him, and I'd still be banging my head against the wall... Rise above it, people. (10/14/2014 AT 4:37pm).

Note that I removed the name of the blogger Willis believes he has "risen above" (follow the link if you want to know who Willis refers to). This isn't a commentary about that blogger (who is not me in this instance). It's a commentary about the narcissism of Willis. He's beating his head against the wall because (in his mind) he "gets it", while many others do not.

This despite the fact that Libertarianism is a fringe ideology that most people recognize for the hogwash it is. It's purpose, in economic terms, is to funnel money upwards. Case in point, another commentary from Willis in which he praises the extreme tax cutting that directly lead to the Great Depression.

Willis Hart: More Unimpeachable Evidence that Lower Top Marginal Tax Rates Actually INCREASE the Amount of Taxes that are Paid By these Individuals... As you can plainly see from these charts... the amount of revenue that was collected at the 24% rate was significantly greater than the amount which was secured at the 73% rate (a 122% increase; $321 million versus $714 million) AND the share of the income tax burden for those making over $100,000 a year also soared, from 29.9% to 61.3%; a 105% increase! Yes, it took a year or two for the tax cuts to kick in but once in fact they did, tax revenues skyrocketed... (10/8/2014 AT 2:56pm).

Here the foolish Hartster presents a bubble as AWESOME and desirable. This particular bubble he points to (The Roaring Twenties) being the one the preceded the Great Depression. Seeing stupidity like this is enough to cause halfway intelligent people to bang their heads against the wall, you dope Willis!

And the Flat Tax is a Conservative/Libertarian idea. If adopted by Obama he might as well switch parties. The blogger who he thinks would still support him - would not. I know I would not. And a DOUBLING of the military budget? That's something not even the most neo-connish Republican would propose. It's outside the realm of possibility and reality.

Although Willis does add that this might be "a bit hyperbolic... But not a lot, I fear".

No, it is a LOT hyperbolic. And delusional as well... the thinking that Willis has risen above it but "people" have not. I assume he's talking about a majority of people (non-Libertarians) he thinks he's better than. Better than because he buys into economic policies that enrich the already wealthy while wreaking the economy.

LOL.

OST #31

On History Books Always Agreeing With Willis Hart & People Who Disagree With Him Not Reading Them

History books always seem to agree with Willis Hart, or at least he thinks they always do...

Willis Hart: I really think that Mr. Obama needs to open a history book and study what President Hoover did in response to the depression and hopefully garner a lesson or two from it... (7/8/2014 AT 3:14pm).

To everyone who disagrees with Willis he gives the advice that they should "open a history book". Even a highly educated man like our president is a dumb-dumb in the eyes of Willis the egomaniac.

Don't believe me? Here's an example of Willis denying the root cause of the Civil War was slavery. And calling me a "total moron" for not agreeing with him that the history books say this is the case.

Willis Hart: He's a total moron... Anybody who's taken as little as an introductory history course knows that slavery wasn't the predominant reason for Lincoln's actions or even the South's... (3/22/2014 AT 2:44pm).

Wrong. Lincoln was motivated by his desire to keep the union intact, but the South absolutely did cite slavery as THE motivating factor. African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession according to Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens.

And, by the way, the history books disagree with Willis.

Willis is wrong on slavery not being the root cause of the civil war, and also wrong on the minimum wage being economically bad (the subject of the minimum wage is what Willis is ranting ranting against in the 1st quote from his blog).

The Center For American Progress: Raising the minimum wage would be good for our economy. A higher minimum wage not only increases workers' incomes - which is sorely needed to boost demand and get the economy going - but it also reduces turnover, cuts the costs that low-road employers impose on taxpayers, and pushes businesses toward a high-road, high-human-capital model. (Excerpt from a 9/13/2013 article, "Raising the Minimum Wage Would Help, Not Hurt, Our Economy").

Putting more money into the hands of workers would increase demand because workers would spend that money back into the economy. This argument that businesses would have to fire people is false. The increased demand would pay for the wage increase.

Instead Willis wants to keep workers poor just so those at the top can get a bigger piece of the pie. And Willis' fellow stooges over at his echo chamber actually have the audacity to call those desiring a living wage "greedy"!

It is quite shameful in my opinion. And this nonsense about history books always agreeing with Willis is idiotic. I am sure our president is well read when it comes to the history of America. He probably just does not read whatever Libertarian-authored history-revising tomes that the gullible Hartster reads.

OST #22