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

Willis Hart Lies & Delusions Re Democratic Socialists Desiring Government Confiscation On A Frightening Scale

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart hates the Progressive Left. As far as Democratic Socialism goes, his hatred for it is even greater. Although he did once indicate that he believes that the ENTIRE Left is Communist, so it's possible he makes no distinction between the current Democratic Party and Democratic Socialists (OST #102).

Regardless, it is a fact that, back when Bernie Sanders was a 2016 potus hopeful, Willis went after him more than Hillary Clinton. Below is one example, a commentary in which he lies about what it says on the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) website.

Willis Hart: On the Democratic Socialists of America (Bernie's Fellow Fascist Buddies) Website Stating that "In the Short Term, We Can't Eliminate Private Corporations but We Can Bring Them Under Democratic Control"... The key words here of course being, IN THE SHORT TERM (meaning that in the long term government confiscation on such a frightening scale is exactly what these assholes want). And don't you just love the way that they mask this whole tyrannical use of government force in such flowery jargon as "democratic control", as opposed to what it truly is - theft? Of course, the saddest part of all is the fact that its effective, with the average voter in America being a) dumber than a box of rocks (all too willing to accept the whole "free lunch" narrative) and b) easily bribed ("free stuff for me!!"). Yeah, I'm not very optimistic here. (4/19/2016 AT 4:33pm).

So I Googled on the phrase that Willis puts between quotes in his commentary. The only result Google returned was Willis' own website. Removing the quotes, however, did yield a result. Turns out Willis edited what he found on the DSA website by removing one word (which I cap in red in the REAL quote below).

Question: Private corporations seem to be a permanent fixture in the US, so why work towards socialism? Answer: In the short term we can't eliminate private corporations, but we can bring them under GREATER democratic control. The government could use regulations and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest and outlaw destructive activities such as exporting jobs to low-wage countries and polluting our environment. Public pressure can also have a critical role to play in the struggle to hold corporations accountable. Most of all, socialists look to unions to make private business more accountable. (Democratic Socialists of America website).

The ACTUAL key word here of course being, "encourage". But Willis stops short (with his quote), leaving this out so he can falsely claim their goal is "government confiscation". As for "in the short term", I doubt we'll ever eliminate private corporation. Or publically held corporations ("held" by "the public" in that stock in the company is publically traded). The best we can hope for is to pursue the "encourage" strategy, I think. Via laws that make the creation of cooperatives easier. Or by laws that give tax breaks to owners of privately held companies who sell to their employees.

In either case, passing laws to make it easier for employees to form co-ops (by buying businesses from owners or shareholders WILLING TO SELL) involves absolutely zero "tyrannical use of government force". So, when Willis sez confiscation "is exactly what these assholes want" what he is referring to are his own paranoid delusions. I mean, to see how absolutely full of shit Hart is, all we need to look at the state of corporate enterprise in European democratic socialist countries. Here we have highly profitable corporations that include IKEA and Volvo in Sweden and Siemens in Germany.

Are any of these corporations worried about the possibility of "government confiscation"? Are they expending funds to lobby their respective governments to stop plans to seize their businesses and turn them over to their employees?

Perhaps Willis, if his post pointed to sources that indicated ANY of these fears are in any way possible (via a link to a news source that stated any democratic socialist nation was considering legislation that would enable the seizing of businesses)? Then maybe his fears could be considered real. As opposed to delusional conjecture based on 4 words from the DSA website ("in the short term"). From which he concludes that their long term agenda is "government confiscation on... a frightening scale".

Although, to conclude this it's necessary for him to ignore the word "greater". Use of which would indicate that they're in favor of increasing United States unionization figures (currently 7%) as well as the number employee owned companies (a a short list). Growing these two via regulations (making it easier to unionize and form co-ops) and tax incentives to encourage companies to act in the public interest (making it easier for employees to unionize, buy businesses and form co-ops) falls INCREDIBLY short of Hart's paranoid conspiracy involving "confiscation on such a frightening scale".

Keep in mind that we're talking about DEMOCRATIC Socialism, which would involve the citizens of the United States voting to move us toward a system under which the plutocrats have less control. Via regulations making such processes easier (democratizing businesses) we can achieve greater unionization rates and more co-ops. All possible without the use of "tyrannical government force" (which is never mentioned on the DSA website and is PURELY a product of WTNPH's fevered wealth-worshipping imagination).

I can understand why oligarchy worshippers such as the Hartster feel the need to fear monger/lie on this topic, however. That someone like Bernie Sanders actually won a lot of primaries (he gave the establishment candidate HRC a run for her money) seriously scares Willis. Hence all the commentaries on his blog regarding how the Democratic Party has changed (AKA gone increasingly Commie).

The Sanders movement is proof of how sick of plutocracy the voters are. Which is why the prospect of a Sanders presidency had Willis shitting his pants. And he's likely still shitting his pants thinking of the prospect that these voters might work to push (a likely) president HRC to work for more of what benefits The People (more democratic socialism). As opposed to benefiting the oligarchs (whom Willis loves). Hence all the ridiculous conspiracy theory bullshit from him (such as the post above).

Video: Toward a caring economy. Webinar presented by The Next System (1:24:52).

OST #170

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 the Fact that Willis Hart Is 94 Years Old and Still Believes in Libertarianism

So much for putting childish things aside.

Libertarians believe they're rebels, but they are really political children who scream through tears. Christopher Hitchens, in typical blunt force fashion, undressed Rand and her libertarian followers, exposing their obsequiousness toward the operational standards of a selfish society: "I have always found it quaint, and rather touching, that there is a movement in the US that thinks Americans are not yet selfish enough". The rejection of all rules and regulations, and the belief that everyone should have the ability to do whatever they want, is not rebellion or dissent. It is infantile naïveté. (You're Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham by David Masciotra. AlterNet 6/5/2015).

Also...

Hardcore libertarianism is a fantasy. It's a fantasy where the strongest and most self-reliant folks end up at the top of the heap, and a fair number of men share the fantasy that they are these folks. They believe they've been held back by rules and regulations designed to help the weak, and in a libertarian culture their talents would be obvious and they'd naturally rise to positions of power and influence. (Here's Why Libertarians Are Mostly Men by Kevin Drum. Mother Jones 6/5/2015).

So, despite being 94, Willis is but a childish little boy. Whereas Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders embraces the fact that we're all in this together.

The denial of the collective interest and communal bond, as much as libertarians like to pose as trailblazers, is not the road less traveled, but the highway in gridlock. Competitive individualism, and the perversion of personal responsibility to mean social irresponsibility, is what allows for America to limp behind the rest of the developed world in providing for the poor and creating social services for the general population. (You're Not the Boss of Me! Why Libertarianism Is a Childish Sham).

That Willis is 94 is just a guess, btw. Although I do know that he isn't a young man. Also known is that Willis previously considered himself to be a "Moderate Democrat" (Willis: "I like to refer to myself, Lista, as a Rockefeller Republican/Boren Democrat").

His path to Libertarianism has been an evolution. Although I'd call it a devolution, given the fact that most people (males, mainly) abandon Libertarianism when they grow up.

8/9/2016 Update: "I'm 54 years old" WTNPH wrote on 8/29/2011, meaning that he was 59 or 60 when this post was published. (this factoid added 2 months after post publication because I just ran across it).

OST #150

Hillary Clinton Will Be Convicted, Go To Prison Over Her eMail Server, & End Up Campaigning From Behind Bars (All Of This Occurring B4 Voting In November)

I think it's finally happened. The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has completely lost his marbles. By which I mean he's flipped his lid; gone totally bonkers. And who knew that it would be delusions concerning the 2016 potus hopefuls that would push him over the edge?

Willis Hart: On the Fact that, While I'm Not a Huge Trump Supporter (Johnson's My Candidate), I Do Take Some Solace from the Likelihood that at Least the Dude Won't be Forced to Run his Campaign from a Prison Cell or from a Pre-1990 Time-Machine in Which the Old Soviet Union Still Exists... Yep, there is that. (4/16/2016 AT 9:43pm).

My Theory as to WTF Willis is talking about?

Obviously, Hillary Clinton is the one who is going to be forced to run her campaign from behind bars. Because an indictment is coming soon (maybe Willis reads NewsMax?). But she's also going to be convicted and imprisoned - and all of this before voting in November! Because we all know how speedy the justice system operates. At least in the fevered imagination of someone afflicted with (Hillary) Clinton Derangement Syndrome, apparently (SWTD #333).

As for running a campaign from a "pre-1990 time machine in which the old Soviet Union exists", maybe he's referring to Ted Cruz? Or, is this a "Bernie Sanders is a Commie" reference? What Willis is talking about is unclear.

In any case, I guessed that Willis read about the coming Hillary Clinton indictment on NewsMax because they recently ran a story in which Ronald Kessler (an individual who WTNPH praises as "a 2-time winner of the Peabody award and an individual who has consistently criticized presidents from both parties") was reported to have said (on NewsMax TV's The Steve Malzberg Show) that a Hillary Clinton indictment is coming "definitely before November".

Although Kessler thinks Obama will pardon her, but the "damage will have been done". By this I'm guessing what Kessler thinks will happen is that HRC will be indicted, she will lose the election (the damage), she will be convicted, and then Obama will pardon her.

Unless he's with Willis in believing that HRC will receive a trial of UNPRECEDENTED speed, be convicted and campaign from behind bars. I'm unclear as to what Kessler means. He says the pardon will come too late... so does that mean he's saying a pardon can't save her campaign (meaning he thinks an indictment, trial and conviction will ALL occur before voting in november).

If that's the case, then I'd say that CDS has driven him just as insane as it appears Willis is. If not? Then my assessment is that CDS has only resulted in a level of insanity somewhat lesser than the Hartster's.

In any case, note that Willis said he was "not a huge Trump supporter", by which I take it he means he's somewhat the Trump supporter? Does he think Trump would be a good 2nd choice behind Gary Johnson? And perhaps Willis feels this way because Trump's racism, bigotry and misogyny are in line with his own? I'm guessing yes, given the fact that Willis referred to Trump's racism, Islamaphobia and misogyny as "impolitic statements".

Image: Photoshopped image produced by a an individual suffering from CDS (Clinton derangement syndrome).

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

OST #133

On The Fact That Bernie Sanders, In His Capacity As A Recruiter For Vermont U, Hasn't Signed Many African American Players (A Fact That Suggests Racism By Mr. Sanders)

Except that this is not a fact. Bernie Sanders actually has absolutely nothing to do with who gets recruited to play basketball at Vermont U because he does NOT work or consult for the university. Although the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart seems confused on this matter.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that the University of Vermont's Basketball Teams (Men and Women) Are Comprised Mostly of White Players... What's the matter, Bernie? You don't like black people up there? (3/28/2016 AT 8:32pm).

As you can see from the images below (which show the teams Willis is referring to) there are Black players. If they didn't like Black people "up there" maybe they'd all be white? In any case WTF does Bernie Sanders have to do with which players the University of Vermont choses? Yeah, absolutely nothing.

Anyway, that Willis Hart, an individual who has demonstrated strong racial prejudices with numerous commentaries on his blog, is completely full of shit to suggest that Bernie Sanders is racist. Especially given the fact that Bernie Sanders' record of standing up for equality.

...Sanders has a 50-year history of standing up for civil and minority rights... As a student at the University of Chicago, Sanders was active in both the Congress on Racial Equality (CORE) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). In 1962, he was arrested for protesting segregation in public schools in Chicago; the police came to call him an outside agitator, as he went around putting up flyers around the city detailing police brutality. While President Bill Clinton and most Democrats in Congress supported so-called welfare reform politics, Sanders not only voted against this policy change, but wrote eloquently against the dog whistle politics used to sell it, saying, "The crown jewel of the Republican agenda is their so-called welfare reform proposal. The bill, which combines an assault on the poor, women and children, minorities, and immigrants is the grand slam of scapegoating legislation, and appeals to the frustrations and ignorance of the American people along a wide spectrum of prejudices". A frequent critique of Sanders is that he is from a very white state. While this is true, he certainly has not ignored issues that matter to people of color. In 2002, he achieved a 93% rating from the ACLU and a 97% rating by the NAACP in 2006. (19 Examples of Bernie Sanders' Powerful Record on Civil and Human Rights Since the 1950s by Zaid Jilani. AlterNet 7/20/2015).

The facts show that Bernie Sanders has been fighting for equality for his whole life, so when Willis Hart says Bernie Sanders doesn't like Black people - the facts say he's full of shit.

And, as the AlterNet article points out, Sanders is from a state that is 77.4% White and 13.2% Black, so, that Vermont's basketball teams only have a few Black players is obviously due to demographics and not racism. Yet more proof that Willis Hart is a total moron!

Images 1+2: The 2015-2016 Vermont Catamounts Men's and Women's basketball rosters.

OST #124

They're All Neocons Now

So now even the Republicans who some say are "seemingly sensible fellows" (John Kasich and Chris Christie) are spouting all sorts of crazy buffoonery about arming this group and shooting down planes from that group. I mean, it's almost as if the Republican party as a whole is under this spell and with the biggest case of amnesia ever (the fact that Iraq was one of the top two or three foreign policy blunders in U.S. history with these bozos seemingly not learning a thing).

Even Donald Trump, who is correct that going into Iraq was a huge strategic blunder says he's going to "bomb the shit" out of ISIS. As if that isn't what Obama HAS been doing. In any case - what to do? The blogger Willis Hart suggests voting Libertarian. I say no.

First of all, the Libertarian running for president, Gary Johnson, has ZERO chance of getting elected president. If you want to prevent the most hawkish candidate from getting elected, then I say there is ONLY one choice, and that choice is Bernie Sanders (SWTD #323).

The following is an excerpt from Senator Sanders' campaign website...

Bernie Sanders: I opposed the first Gulf War... because I believed that there was a way to achieve our goals without bloodshed, through sanctions and concerted diplomatic action. ...in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001, I supported the use of force in Afghanistan to hunt down the terrorists who attacked us. I regret that President Bush did not use that authority properly, and that American combat troops remained there too long. I voted against the war in Iraq, and knew it was the right vote then, and most people recognize it was the right vote today. The only mission President Bush and his neo-conservative friends accomplished was to destabilize an entire region, and create the environment for al-Qaeda and ISIS to flourish. While we must be relentless in combating terrorists who would do us harm, we cannot and should not be policeman of the world, nor bear the burden of fighting terrorism alone. The United States should be part of an international coalition, led and sustained by nations in the region that have the means to protect themselves. That is the only way to defeat ISIS and to begin the process of creating the conditions for a lasting peace in the region. (Issues: War & Peace. Excerpted from the Bernie 2016 website).

Sounds reasonable to me. I don't know what Gary Johnson would do differently, if by some miracle he was elected president (God forbid). And, while Sanders has a real chance of getting elected to the presidency, there is actually no chance at all of a president Johnson. I know I sure as hell would never consider voting for him, given the fact that Libertarians don't believe the government should be doing shit to provide for the General Welfare.

And they're solidly on the side of the wealthy and corporations. Because, if you shrink government, you diminish the power of The People, leaving an opening for the wealthy and corporations to step in and fill the power vacuum (Exposing Libertarianism: The Belief That We Should Give More Power to Those Who Are Corrupting Government).

Yes, we currently have a huge problem with the wealthy bribing our elected officials to do their bidding. But the solution is to reform the system, not jettison it! Our elected officials are supposed to do our bidding, not the will of the donors and special interests. Yet folks like Willis think the solution is to shrink government so it can't do anyone's bidding. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater!

That Libertarians profess not to believe this would be the result leads me to think they're either incredibly naive or lying. As for Willis Hart? It appears to me that he's a genuinely duped true believing ignoramus.

As for the Harster and Senator Sanders, Willis has said on more than one occasion that ALL politicians are "mixed bags" (quote: "basically every politician who's ever frigging lived... are quintessentially of a mixed nature"), so given the fact that "by far, the biggest category of [federal government] discretionary spending is spending on the Pentagon and related military programs" you'd think that Willis wouldn't be as hostile to the idea of Sanders winning the democratic nomination as he has been (quote: why can't "Hillary... put this guy... away?").

"This guy" being Senator Sanders and "put away" meaning end his presidential campaign easily). This "wish" (or expectation) that Hillary Clinton should be beating Sanders even though she is clearly considerably more hawkish (Hillary Clinton's Hawkish Record).

Yet there have been ZERO commentaries from Willis lauding or acknowledging Senator Sanders for his anti-war (or at least considerably less hawkish) voting record/positions (President Bernie Sanders Will Save America From Endless Counterinsurgency Wars and Protect Our Nation's Veterans).

Whereas the Harster HAS praised Trump for saying going into Iraq was a strategic mistake and for not being a neocon (or listening to them).

So, while the Hartster does signal Trump out for praise as compared to the rest of the Republican field (in regards to his claims of being against the Iraq war and being less neocon), he has authored no commentaries even acknowledging that Bernie Sanders is considerably less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Proof that Hart's claims of being "moderate" and "centrist" are similar to Fox Nooz's assertion that it's "fair and balanced".

OST #123

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OST #121

On The Fact That Blogging Hacks Like Willis Hart Constantly State Politicians He Dislikes Hold Positions They Don't Actually Hold (Bernie Sanders Is Opposed To Civil Asset Forfeiture & Eminent Domain Abuses)

The Libertarian blogging hack Willis Hart frequently lies about politicians he doesn't like. (He lies or simply doesn't bother to check if what he's saying is accurate, but I say what's the difference).

BTW, when I say Willis is a blogging hack, I mean he attempts "to damage or injure by crude, harsh, or insensitive treatment; mutilate; mangle" (verb used with object #4) the truth. He often REALLY mangles it.

Willis, in a 10/17/2015 blog post, harshly damages the truth when he uses the word "hack" to mean "a professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence, integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal commitment: a political hack" (noun #2).

On the Fact that Political Hacks Like Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, and Elizabeth Warren Never Seem to Get All that Exorcised Over Things Such as Civil Asset Forfeiture or Eminent Domain Abuses... Not surprising in that if you look at the fine-print of their progressive mission-statement it reads, "except when the oppressor is the state". (10/17/2015 AT 9:45pm).

Willis hacks away at the truth, mangles and mutilates it with his false claims about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (as for him throwing Barney Frank into the mix, I say WTF... given the fact that Barney Frank isn't in politics any longer).

First up, the truth about Bernie Sanders and civil asset forfeiture.

Bernie Sanders: So-called civil asset forfeiture laws allow police to take property from people even before they are charged with a crime, much less convicted of one. Even worse, the system works in a way that makes it very difficult and expensive for an innocent person to get his or her property back. We must end programs that actually reward officials for seizing assets without a criminal conviction or other lawful mandate. Departments and officers should not profit off of such seizures. (Bernie Sanders Official 2016 POTUS Campaign Website).

Secondly, in regards to "eminent domain abuses", when Libertarians whine about this issue what they frequently point to is the 2005 SCOTUS case Kelo v. City of New London in which the court decided that eminent domain could be used to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development.

But many on the Right and Left agree that this was a bad decision.

National Review columnist and prominent political commentator Charles C.W. Cooke argues that a constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's widely despised 2005 ruling in Kelo v. City of New London might attract broad bipartisan support. Unlike most amendments proposed in recent years, its appeal would not be limited to just one side of the political spectrum. Conservatives and libertarians opposed the ruling because it endangers private property rights, while many on the left did so because economic development takings often victimize the poor and racial minorities. (A constitutional amendment to overrule Kelo v. City of New London and protect property rights against abusive takings by Ilya Somin. WP 10/16/2015).

Bernie Sanders, while in the House of Representatives, voted YEA on a bill "that would prohibit expenditure of any federal housing, transportation or treasury funds to enforce the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kelo v. City of New London" (Congress uses its domain to fight court's home-seizure rules).

So Bernie Sanders *is* exorcised over civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain abuses, in that he's opposed to them. There is no fine-print in his "progressive mission-statement" that reads "except when the oppressor is the state". This claim from Willis is pure BS and proof of the Hartster's disgusting hackery.

OST #114

Surprise! Libertarian Blogger Buys Rightwing Spin Re Mitch McConnell Vow To Not Consider Obama Scalia Replacement

The blogger Willis Hart claims to be a Libertarian-leaning Moderate, but (as is so often the case) he allows the Rightwing media to inform his views.

Willis Hart: On Mitch McConnell's Threat to Block Any Potential Obama Supreme Court Appointment... It's unfortunate but being that Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing at the end of W's second term it's hard to be surprised by it. Welcome to D.C. in the 21st Century, folks. (2/17/2016 AT 7:50pm).

Not really, according to Media Matters... and yes, Media Matters is Leftwing. A source Willis would dismiss out-of-hand, most likely with a pejorative like labeling them part of the "Regressive media".

Media Matters: Media are making false comparisons between current Republican rhetoric and past Democratic actions and comments to undermine the president's pledge to nominate a replacement for the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Unlike Democrats in the past, Republicans are indicating they will refuse to even engage in the nomination process at all, an abdication of their basic constitutional responsibilities that is unprecedented. [quoting CBS, 2/15/2016] Schumer's argument was not one of timing and the closeness of the presidential election. He just didn't think much of either of President Bush's picks. Schumer's recommendation stemmed from his feeling that the Senate had insufficient information when it confirmed his two picks, John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to the court. "It appears we were not given the most accurate picture of the nominees we confirmed", Schumer said. "We were presented a misleading portrait". He accused both justices of making decisions that "flouted precedent" and, essentially, legislating from the bench. He argued that Senate had to "engage in conjecture" to understand the nominees' way of thinking and method of reasoning because their records were thin. (Media Use False Comparisons To Undermine Obama's Supreme Court Nomination).

Of course we don't know if Congressional Republicans will follow through with their threat yet, but Schumer objected to the nominees... he was NOT refusing to consider ANYONE... making the Willis' claim that "the Democrats did it too" bullshit.

In fact, the Democrats were never even given an opportunity to follow through with Schumer's "threat", because there were no further SCOTUS vacancies after Roberts and Alito were confirmed WITH DEMOCRATIC VOTES. Which, I would say, is the biggest difference between the McConnell and Schumer statements... Schumer was talking about hypothetical appointments, while McConnell is speaking of an ACTUAL appointment. A fact that makes this McConnell/Schumer statement equating such a f*cking brain-diseased narrative.

BTW, the reason behind the Schumer statement? He made it because the Democrats felt snookered by both "balls and strikes" Roberts and "elections should be for sale to the highest bidder" Alito.

Senate Democrats regret supporting Roberts, Alito (excerpt from a 7/23/10 The Hill article by J. Taylor Rushing) Twenty-two Democrats backed Roberts in 2005, while four supported Alito four months later. From the rank and file to senior members, Democrats widely said they were particularly frustrated that Roberts, during his confirmation hearings, portrayed himself as an umpire merely calling balls and strikes. Instead, they say, he has joined the far-right wing of the court and been a leading voice in recent controversial 5-4 rulings. Some of the regrets have been caused by two recent 5-4 decisions with which Democrats have disagreed. Most notably, the Roberts court voted 5-4 in June 2008 to strike down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, a decision that broadened gun rights and was a severe blow to gun-control efforts. Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Anthony Kennedy signed the majority ruling.

Another ruling that had Dems regretting their support for Roberts and Alito? (this is the one that I alluded to above by pointing out that Alito believes that our elections should be available for purchase).

Feingold Slams Supreme Court over "Citizens United", Implies Roberts and Alito Lied Under Oath (excerpt from a 9/17/2010 Common Dreams article by Matthew Rothschild) Sen. Russ Feingold recently slammed the Supreme Court and strongly implied that Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito lied, under oath, to the Senate during their confirmation hearings. In a speech on 9/10/2010, Feingold, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, denounced the "Citizens United" decision that the Court handed down earlier this year. Feingold called it "a lawless decision".

There was a lot of disatification with Roberts and Alito on the Democratic side, with MANY Dems saying they were mislead (Roberts and Alito Misled Us by Edward Kennedy, 7/30/2006). This is QUITE different than the reasoning the Congressional Repubs are currently putting forward regarding why they won't even consider an Obama nominee, which includes such nonsensical reasons as it being the last year of Obama's term. The Constitution doesn't say a potus can't nominate a SCOTUS judge in the last year of his presidency, Mitch! (Mitch McConnell's Arguments Against An Obama Supreme Court Nomination Debunked...)

"Chuck Schumer said essentially the same thing at the end of W's second term"??! No, sorry Willis, he did not. But that Willis says this (in agreement with the BS Rightwing spin on their unprecedented obstruction) isn't surprising. Seems the Hartster LOVES these false narratives that paint both sides as equally horrible (because The "Both Sides Do It" Mentality Favors Republicans).

This "both sides do it" narrative is one the the Repubs play up, btw, because they realize NOBODY would buy it if they said they weren't terrible. So they TRY to make it seem like the Dems are equally horrible. This narrative also "gives advocacy to mealy-mouthed, middle-of-the-road third way types. But, more noticeably, it feeds into the idea of government is the problem" (WTNPH: "I have consistently praised bipartisan efforts... the Concord Coalition, Simpson-Bowles, Rivlin-Domenici, No Labels, The Third Way, the Wyden-Ryan compromise on Medicare, etc").

But the Democrats simply are NOT as bad as the Repubs. I mean, as a Democrat, I acknowledge there are a lot of problems on the Democratic side, but Democrats are still way better than Republicans. Just take a look at the respective potus hopefuls on both sides, for Christ! On the Republican side the candidates are arguing over cutting taxes, who will go to war faster with ISIS and Russia, which one will torture more, who's going to restrict a woman's right to choose harder, etc. And they're all going to take healthcare AWAY from people, of course.

Image: A political cartoon representing the reality of the "choice" between the GOP and the DLC. First there was Bill Clinton, then there was Barack Obama. Now we've got a REAL choice with the 2016 potus primaries. We can choose a genuine Progressive (Bernie Sanders), or go with the establishment's choice again, another DLC corporate Dem in Progressive clothing (Hillary Clinton).

OST #111

On The Fact That Willis Hart Apparently Does Not Give A Shit What The Truth Is Anymore (Re Him Falsely Asserting That It's A "Fact" That Bernie Sanders Has Never Had A Private Sector Job)

I'm not saying that the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart has EVER cared that much what the truth is, given the fact that he frequently sticks with information gleened from Conservative or Libertarian souces (information that is frequently wrong). That doesn't stop him from writing commentaries where he refers to "facts" (in the titles) that are often not facts.

But I found the following WTNPH post to be especially egregious. I mean, info concerning Bernie's employment could have been easily found. Willis- didn't have to guess. Or, I'm guessing he guessed. Because he's wrong - and the facts that prove this could have been easily located. So... he didn't look? (Or maybe he's lying).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Bernie Sanders Has Apparently Never Had a Private Sector Job... Well that explains a lot (his lack of respect private property, free markets, entrepreneurs, etc.), hey, folks? (2/7/2016 AT 8:28pm).

False. Bernie Sanders has held private sector jobs.

[After] Sanders [graduated from] the University of Chicago [he was married and purchased some property with] some inheritance money from his father, who had died in 1963. [Following his divorce in] 1966... He bounced around for a few years, working stints in New York as an aide at a psychiatric hospital and teaching preschoolers for Head Start, and in Vermont researching property taxation for the Vermont Department of Taxes and registering people for food stamps for a nonprofit called the Bread and Law Task Force. [After moving to Burlington Vermont] He worked some as a carpenter, although [a friend said] His carpentry... was not going to support him [because it was not good]. He worked as a freelance writer, putting intermittent pieces in the low-budget Vermont Freeman, a Burlington alternative weekly called the Vanguard Press and a glossy, state-supported magazine called Vermont Life. "He was always poor", [said] another old friend... Sanders... was on unemployment for a few months in 1971. In 1977... he started a business... making low-budget films about people, places and events in Vermont and New England history that he felt were getting short shrift in the region's schools... His biggest project was "a 30-minute color documentary videotape"... about Eugene Debs... He priced it at $200 or offered it for rent for $35. It was March of 1981 [that he became an] elected official, now making $33,800 a year [as mayor of Burlington], more than he ever had... (Bernie Sanders Has A Secret by Michael Kruse. Politico 7/9/2015).

What's the "secret"? According to a friend interviewed for the article I quote above, it's his person life. One source said "It's none of your f—-ing business" when asked a question about Sanders' personal life. Although, if he is the nominee, you can be assured that the Republicans will be all over this. Apparently Sanders did not do well in the public sector.

However, as the article notes, he DID have numerous jobs where his salary wasn't paid for with tax dollars. Sanders worked in the private sector until he was elected mayor of Burlington at the age of 39. Although he never did manage a Walmart, which Willis apparently believes is something the voters should require of a candidate before electing them president. Management in the private sector being a necessary qualification in the eyes of Conservatives.

But Bernie Sanders isn't running for president of the public sector, he's running for president of government. And Sanders ABSOLUTELY has proven to be successful in politics and doing the job he was elected to do. Whether it be mayor, member of the House of Representatives, or Senator. Which, not being a Conservative, makes him HIGHLY qualified in my opinion.

Anyway, my point is that Willis apparently simply does not give a shit anymore what the truth is. He just makes it up, apparently. Or gets it secondhand from some Libertarian or Conservative source (that's lying). Or maybe he heard it from Anthony Crispino.

Also, what's up with Willis' non sequitur (of him falsely believing Bernie Sanders never held a private sector job) meaning he has a "lack of respect [for] private property, free markets, [and] entrepreneurs"? Progressives respect these things very much. Although (as a Progressive myself), I'd say the "free market" Willis refers to doesn't exist. Markets are the creation of government (which sets and enforces the rules). Progressives believe in regulated markets.

Other than that caveat, I agree with the things WTNPH lists. Willis lies with his constant bashing of Progressives (Bernie Sanders, while he describes himself as a Democratic Socialist, is one of the founders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus). Progressives (and Bernie Sanders) believe in private property, REGULATED markets and entrepreneurs. However, as Willis revealed earlier this month, he thinks the ENTIRE Left is Communist. So that might (partially) explain this idiocy (the WTNPH post referenced above).

Seriously, I REALLY think the Hartster might be suffering from some kind of brain disease. Given his recent reliance on Black & White generalizations (a la 1970s wrestling analogies) that have him characterizing the (wholly Communist) Left as purely venal and Libertarians as purely virtuous... I wouldn't rule it out.

OST #106

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

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

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

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

But the spending is NOT new.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OST #96

Willis Hart A Bald-Faced Liar & Ignoramus Re The Non-Fact Of Bernie Sanders Blaming ISIS On AGW

Bernie Sanders, due to him being a Democratic Socialist who is running for POTUS, has inspired the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart to author a number of commentaries. Most of them focusing on how much of a dumbass Sanders is for not being a Libertarian.

In this case Willis is outraged that Senator Sanders correctly links ISIS in Syria to AGW (man-caused climate change).

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Bernie Sanders Is Attempting to Blame ISIS on (Man-Made) Climate Change... This man is either a bald-faced liar or an ignoramus beyond belief. (12/8/2015 AT 3:57pm).

The existence of ISIS cannot be blamed on man-caused climate change (Anthropogenic global warming or AGW) and Senator Sanders has made no such argument. Willis lies about this. Or he's an ignoramus and his take on Senator Sanders' actual argument is based on 2nd hand criticisms (from Conservative/Libertarian sources that are lying).

Either way there is lying involved, because, as we know (and perhaps Willis would agree with this) it was events put into action by former preznit gwb that lead to an environment where the formation of a group like ISIS was inevitable (the power vacuum created by the Iraq war/removal of Saddam and the dissolution of the Iraqi military).

Senator Sanders agrees with this read of the facts (as does the Libertarian-Republican Rand Paul).

Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on [10/12/2014] told CNN host Candy Crowley that it was easy to criticize President Barack Obama's fight against ISIS in Iraq, but he reminded her that it was President George Bush's "disastrous blunder" that allowed the extremists group to get a foothold in the first place. [According to Sanders] "...We are here today because of the disastrous blunder of the Bush-Cheney era, which got us into this war in Iraq in the first place, which then developed the can of worms that we're trying to deal with right now" (Bernie Sanders reminds CNN host: You can slam Obama, but Bush's blunder created ISIS by David Edwards. RawStory 10/12/2014).

This claim that "Bernie Sanders Is Attempting to Blame ISIS on Man-Made Climate Change" is just another of the Hartster's infamous strawmen. Bernie Sanders blames ISIS on george bush's Iraq invasion.

As for the ACTUAL statements Senator Sanders has made in regards to the link between climate change and terrorism (and YES, he has made such statements)...

Bernie Sanders appearing on the 11/15/2015 edition of Face the Nation: ...we are going to see an increase in drought and flood and extreme weather disturbances as a result of climate change, what that means is that peoples all over the world are going to be fighting over limited natural resources... what happens in, say, Syria... is that when you have drought, when people can't grow their crops, they're going to migrate into cities... And when people migrate into cities and they don't have jobs, there's going to be a lot more instability, a lot more unemployment, and people will be subject to the types of propaganda that al Qaeda and ISIS are using right now... So where you have discontent, where you have instability, that's where problems arise, and certainly, without a doubt, climate change will lead to that. (Sanders doubles down: Climate change causes terrorism by Bradford Richardson. The Hill 11/15/2015).

ISIS can't be blamed on man made climate change. There is a link, however.

U.S. military officials refer to climate change as a "threat multiplier" that takes issues like terrorism that would pose a threat to national security and exacerbates the damage they can cause. A 2014 Department of Defense report identifies climate change as the root of government instability that leads to widespread migration [and] can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism"... ...a paper published in the academic journal PNAS earlier this year argues that climate change helped create instability and fighting in Syria. The Islamic State, commonly known as ISIS, arose in the country in large part due to that instability. (Why Climate Change and Terrorism Are Connected by Justin Worland. Time 11/15/2015).

Senator Sanders did not, by the way, "double down" and say "climate change causes terrorism". What Senator Sanders is saying is the SAME THING the Department of Defense and PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences is "one of the world's most-cited and comprehensive multidisciplinary scientific journals") reports say... that climate change will (and has) made terrorism worse.

But the fact that Sanders is 100 percent correct on this did not prevent him being ridiculed in the media. By climate change deniers on the Right (like Willis) as well as others such as PolitiFact... which says Sanders' statements on the link between terrorism and climate change is "mostly false". But (in this case) PolitiFact is as full of shit as Willis.

But even PolitiFact didn't lie about Sanders saying climate change is TO BLAME for ISIS. PolitiFact reports that Sanders said "climate change is directly related to the growth of terrorism". Climate change contributes to the growth (not creation) of situations that lead to more people becoming radicalized.

One such situation (as Senator Sanders points out) is the Syrian drought which has lead to the the refugee crisis. Refugees that US Republican politicos are demonizing by suggesting some might be ISIS infiltrators. These are people who are fleeing the conflict (between the Assad government, the so-called moderate rebels and ISIS).

For the record, the Syrians that joined ISIS (due to the instability caused by the conflict and made worse by the drought) could find easier methods to infiltrate over a multi-year vetting process (which the refugees are going through) [1]... such as via a tourist visa [2].

The bottom line is that climate change does act as a "threat multiplier" as the Department of Defense (in agreement with Senator Sanders) acknowledges. Sanders tells tells the truth in regards to this matter and Willis Hart is the ignorant liar. Although the Hartster's perfidiousness in regards to the very real link between climate change and terrorism isn't "beyond belief" given his long history of AGW denialism and hate for democratic socialism (his preference being for economic policies that favor the oligarchs).

Footnotes
[1] ...refugee applicants are subject to the highest level of security checks of any type of traveler to the U.S. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees initially chooses which refugees to refer to the U.S. after doing its own check. U.S. officials then conduct multiple in-person interviews and verify a refugee's story with intelligence agencies and by running background checks through several government databases, including DHS and the National Counterterrorism Center. (Can Terrorists Really Infiltrate the Syrian Refugee Program? by Russell Berman. The Atlantic 11/18/2015).
[2] It's much easier for a would-be terrorist to fly to the U.S. on a tourist visa. ...it makes little sense for an aspiring terrorist to apply to enter the United States as a refugee. Passing through the process often takes at least 18 months, and sometimes much longer. ... Overall, refugees are unlikely to be resettled at all - the UN Refugee Agency says that only about 1 percent of the world's refugees end up being taken in permanently elsewhere. Stephen Legomsky, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis and former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said... "No competent terrorist would choose the U.S. refugee process as a preferred strategy for gaining entry into the US". (Here's Why You Should Stop Worrying About Terrorists Entering The U.S. As Refugees by Roque Planas. HuffPo 11/18/2015).

OST #87

On The Fact That Willis Hart Considers Something A "Fact" If: A) He Reads It On A Conservative Website & B) It Confirms His Biases

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart's supposed facts (in this case) leading to a conclusion that supports his bias against "Black activists".

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a Shitload of Black Activists Are Presently Burning Up Twitter with Beefs Pertaining to the Level of Press Coverage that the Paris Terror Attacks Have Been Receiving and Are Alleging this Attention Is Somehow Taking Away Coverage from Their Grievances at the University of Missouri... So, a poop Swastika (that not one person thought to take a picture of) and some yahoo who may or may not have been affiliated with the University shouting out the n-word from a moving vehicle deserves the same level of coverage as 129 people being slaughtered (with hundreds more wounded)? Damn, huh? P.S. Whatever else that these spoiled brats (probably a lot of the same morons who booed Bernie Sanders) have learned at the "academy", perspective surely isn't one of them. (11/18/2015 AT 4:04pm).

My reaction to reading this is that YES, it does sound rather ridiculous if true. So I did a Google search and, as it turns out, a "shitload" of Conservative websites are reporting on this "story". Fox Nooz, The Daily Mail, The Washington Times, Breitbart and The Daily Caller (the first 5 results, all of which link to Conservervative sites) all claim that upset Mizzou protestors have tweeted about the attacks in Paris taking the focus away from their issue.

Mizzou, however, disputes that these tweets came from anyone associated with the University. (This story was the 6th result displayed when I did my Google search).

False Social Media Posts Regarding Attacks in Paris (11/14/2015) Social media posts expressing dismay that the tragedy in Paris is diverting media attention from events at the University of Missouri are being made by individuals from outside the Mizzou community in an attempt to create conflict. Our hearts go out to the citizens of Paris and all those affected by the tragic events of last night. While our community has faced difficulties over the past week, we express our sincere sympathy to those who have been affected by the events in Paris and remain committed to making Mizzou stronger and more inclusive.

Also, the Columbia Missourian, "a daily morning newspaper published in Columbia MO" that looked at the accounts behind these tweets and tried to find out who these people are, found that NONE of the tweeters could be linked to Mizzou.

Fact Check: No proof tweets about Paris attacks came from MU protesters (excerpt from a 11/19/2015 article by Katherine Knott) Our finding [is that] It's true that some people did tweet their dissatisfaction with the change in coverage. However, the tweets and commenters cited by the bloggers show no evidence of a connection to MU or the Concerned Student 1950 movement. Using the hashtag #Mizzou doesn't mean those people were camping on Carnahan Quadrangle or even present on campus. Meanwhile, leaders of the Concerned Student 1950 demonstrations and the Legion of Black Collegians have posted statements of sympathy and support for the victims of the Paris attacks, not statements of hate or anger. While it's impossible to prove beyond a doubt that those who complained about the redirected coverage have no connection to MU, we could find no evidence allowing us to independently verify that these individuals are, in fact, "Mizzou protesters".

There you have it. This makes much more sense than thinking any Mizzou protestor would tweet something in such incredibly bad taste... tweets that would absolutely guarantee their cause would get bad press. Which was obviously the goal of the fake tweeters.

Could it be that perspective, or "the faculty of seeing all the relevant data in a meaningful relationship", is something that Willis lacks? I say yes, given the relevant data, which is [1] tweets, and ONLY tweets, supposedly tweeted by Mizzou protestors which would obviously cause people to view them as HUGE a-holes, [2] statements of sympathy and support for the victims of the Paris attacks and not statements of hate or anger from confirmed Mizzou protestors and [3] the fact that only Conservative sources are reporting this.

Given these facts, perspective tells me that these tweets are probably not genuine and are from outsiders trying to create bad press for the Mizzou protesters. Find some of the actual protesters and get them on record saying that they're upset over the Paris attacks taking the focus off their cause and then I'll believe this story.

Unless that happens I'm not buying it. Unlike the Hartster, who clearly eagerly bought what he read from the Conservative websites that reported on these tweets... because it confirms his biases.

By the way, what's up with Willis' guess that the tweeters included "a lot of the same morons who booed Bernie Sanders" when he JUST referred to Senator Sanders (along with Senator Elizabeth Warren) as "two fucking imbeciles"? Why the hell would it offend him if anyone disrespected Sanders?

Image: This open space is located South of Jesse Hall. The Mel Carnahan Quadrangle was dedicated on 9/12/2003 to a former governor of Missouri and Honors his leadership in Public Service. The Carnahan Quad has emerged as the University's most significant new open space.

OST #82

On Willis Hart's Racist Hate For The "Black Lives Matter" Movement Being So Intense He Uses (& Caps) The F Word To Denounce It

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a racially biased individual who often speaks about how Black people are quite violent, lazy and dumb. Dumb, because they they have been duped into voting Democratic because they want free stuff.

It is therefore no surprise that Willis dislikes the Black Lives Matter movement.

Willis Hart: On the "Black Lives Matter" Movement... Maybe it's just my crowd but I don't know a single white person who doesn't think that black lives matter just as much as Caucasian ones do. The folks who HAVEN'T gotten the message are young, black gang-bangers; Mookie, Ray Ray, Dre, Dog, etc. who continue to kill and maim each other over foolishness; half-eaten 3 Musketeer bars, a pair of Air Jordans, some big butted heifer, etc.. Those are the people who we most need to convince. (10/7/2015 AT 8:36pm).

See what Willis is doing here? It isn't the fault of White people that a Black person is 300 percent more likely to be killed by a police officer than a White person. In the world of oblivious Whites like Willis institutional racism does not exist, racism is a minor issue (which amounts to nothing more than an anecdote) and members of the Black Lives Matter movement are bellyachers who whine about problems they're creating themselves.

This is the typical Conservative "solution" when confronted with this kind of problem - first deny it exists, then blame the victims for the harms visited upon them by their victimizers. In this instance, the "problem" in the eyes of White men like Willis isn't racism or poverty, but the fact that these things existing make people like Willis uncomfortable. Not just uncomfortable, but angry that the actual solution might involve them giving up some of their White privilege.

I mean, God forbid, we increase the minimum wage to a living wage and pay poor people (including Blacks/especially Black male youths) decent wages. This is why Willis frequently advocates for abolishing the minimum wage. In the minds of Libertarian racists like Willis, the labor of Black people is worth less than that of White people. Some people simply don't deserve to earn a wage they can live on.

Of course he frames it as "cruel" because it "freezes out of the job force those with the fewest skills". But that is just a transparent excuse to pay people super low wages. Specifically young Black males. What I think he really means is that it's "cruel" to force employers to pay fair wages.

Willis' racism explains why, when during the 10/13/2015 Democratic presidential debate, a question was posed concerning "Black Lives Matter" versus "All Lives Matter" and a majority of the candidate answered "Black Lives Matter", Willis got really PO'd.

Willis Hart: On Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, and Lincoln Chafee Not Having the Courage to Say that ALL FUCKING LIVES MATTER!!... The Democratic party of Ed Koch, John F. Kennedy, [and others] - What happened to it, folks? I mean, I understand that the Republicans have gone a little batty, too, but for those Democrats (save for Jim Webb) to have reduced themselves to that level of pandering was sad, nauseating, and disturbing. Flat out. (10/15/2015 AT 10:37pm).

According to a 10/13/2015 HuffPo article, "the future Democratic presidential nominee thinks Black Lives Matter... unless it's Jim Webb". Yeah, all the candidates said Black Lives Matter, except Webb, who said "every life in this country matters".

OK, so while I think it absolutely is true that "all lives matter", this answer misses the point of the slogan... which is to point out that Black lives matter as much as White lives. Or that they should, but that society obviously does not acknowledge this. To say "all lives matter" is to dismiss the reality of Black lives not mattering as much as White lives. Which, as I already pointed out, is exactly what Willis does. There is no problem, only "bellyaching" (i.e. victim blaming).

But the Democratic potus hopefuls didn't do this, which is why I applaud their courage... excepting Jim Webb, who is a former Republican (so it makes sense that Willis supports him). It is NOT "pandering" to acknowledge we've got a problem in this country of Black lives obviously not mattering as much as White lives.

Yeah, Willis is in complete denial regarding this problem, due to his "crowd" being a bunch of oblivious White people. But the problem DOES exist. The problem being the 300 percent greater likelihood for a Black person to be killed by a police officer, as well as the high incarceration rate for minor drug crimes.

A denial of reality that easily rises to the level of being racist, IMO. I mean, the Hartster is CLEARLY a part of the problem with his reality denying rhetoric. Rhetoric (in this case including an ugly profanity aimed at the Democrats who gave the correct answer) that I find sad, nauseating, and flat out disturbing.

See Also: A Self Described Moderate Weblog. Blogger rAtional nAtion comments on the post by Willis in which he angrily chastizes the Democratic potus hopefuls for not having the "courage" to say "all f*cking lives matter"... and concludes that Mr. Hart "has morphed from moderate and reasonable to a strident right wing leaning mouthpiece".

OST #76

Gullible Wealth Worshipping Stooge Willis Hart Buys WSJ Lies Re Bernie Sanders' Invest In America Strategy

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is a wealth-worshipping stooge who believes in keeping taxes low on rich people and corporations and is strongly opposed to government investments that will grow our economy and pay big dividends.

This explains why he hates Bernie Sanders so much. Bernie, as a Democratic Socialist, knows that investing in America will pay off big time, in that it will result in prosperity for all, instead of just the incredibly wealthy individuals at the top that (the atheist) Hartster worships as if they were gods.

This is why, when one of his blog's few approved commenters passed on some lies from the Wall Street Journal concerning the cost of the investments Bernie Sanders is championing, Willis agreed with those lies... and slammed Bernie with a bogus insult.

The exchange between Shackelford and Hart as follows.

Rusty Shackelford: The WSJ did a story two weeks ago breaking down the cost of Sanders wish list. The cost would be 18 trillion dollars over ten years. (10/14/2015 AT 6:01pm). Willis Hart: Computation obviously isn't the dude's strong suit. (10/15/2015 AT 3:57pm).

Actually, Willis, intellectually honesty is not YOUR strong suit, as the WSJ lied about the cost of the investments Bernie Sanders would push as president.

...while Sanders does want to spend significant amounts of money, almost all of it is on things we're already paying for; he just wants to change how we pay for them. In some ways it's by spreading out a cost currently borne by a limited number of people to all taxpayers. His plan for free public college would do this: right now, it's paid for by students and their families, while under Sanders' plan we'd all pay for it in the same way we all pay for parks or the military or food safety. ...the bulk of what Sanders wants to do is in the first category: to have us pay through taxes for things we're already paying for in other ways. (No, Bernie Sanders is not going to bankrupt America to the tune of $18 trillion by Paul Waldman. The Washington Post, 9/15/2015).

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

Instead the article plays up the "price tag", referring to "new spending", "new taxes" and how "centrist" Democrats think this is a bad idea.

"We are not a country that has limitless resources. You need to tamp on the brakes somewhere, but he doesn't", said Jim Kessler, senior vice president for policy at the Democratic think tank Third Way. (Price Tag of Bernie Sanders’s Proposals: $18 Trillion by Laura Meckler. WSJ 9/14/2015).

"Limitless resources"? WTF is this dumbass talking about? As I already noted, this is money we are ALREADY spending. Some people (the poorest among us) aren't spending it, of course... and they'd be covered under any social program a Sanders' administration was able to put into place. THAT must be what Jim Kessler objects to... covering poor people at the expense of wealthy people. Both wealthy individuals who would pay more in taxes and wealthy corporations... specifically health care insurance corporations, who would be cut out of their massive profits gained via denying coverage and gouging customers (the horror!).

And that too would be my guess as to why Sanders' bid for the White House offends the wealth-worshipping stooge Willis so much (dude's a frigging socialist, for Christ sakes!).

Yes, under a Sanders' administration everyone would pay slightly higher taxes, with the rates for wealthy likely going up to the pre-Reagan rates, which would be an extraordinarily good thing, as high taxes on the wealthy act as an economic stabilizer, as Lefty Talker Thom Hartmann points out in his book Rebooting the American Dream.

High top marginal tax rates - generally well above 60 percent - on rich people actually stabilize the economy, prevent economic bubbles from forming, prevent the subsequent economic crashes, and lead to steady and sustained economic growth as well as steady and sustained wage growth for working people (Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts by Thom Hartmann. Truthout).

Low taxes on the wealthy have the opposite effect. Tax cuts, such as those instituted under preznit gwb, lead to bubbles and economic destabilization. That, however, is another topic (read the Thom Hartmann article for the full argument).

My point with this post is that that the WSJ lied... and Willis, as a libertarian stooge, claims that Sanders is bad at math. However, the opposite is obviously the case. You can't take spending that is already occurring, change how we spend it, and call it "new" spending. No wait, if you're a dishonest surface-thinking twit like Willis Hart, you can.

OST #75