A Misogynist Body Shames Actresses Kathleen Turner And Debra Messing

The Libertarian blogger I've taken to calling Hartbart (due to his consumption of Alt-Right "news" and continued defense of White Nationalist Steve Bannon), but otherwise known as Willis V. Hart, has a habit of insulting women he doesn't like for not being pleasing to his eye (whereas he has no such habit when it comes to men he dislikes).

For example, in regards to Kathleen Turner (a liberal actress who backed Hillary Clinton, is a Planned Parenthood board member, and is not a fan of Donald Trump), Willis wrote the following...

Willis Hart: I haven't seen anything stretched this far since Kathleen Turner tried on one of her "Body Heat" outfits from 1981 in 2007. (2/4/2017 at 3:18pm).

The title of the post was "On the Concept of Referring to Feral Jackals, Criminal Thugs, and Losers as Protesters"... so he was referring to property damage done by so-called "protesters" (Berkeley college students is the allegation, although Rush Limbaugh says they are "professional rent-a-mob focused bought and paid for by leftist organizations and... not students" while Robert Reich says "those people were not Berkeley students [and that] there's rumors that they actually were right-wingers).

But I do AGREE with Willis, in that property damage is criminal and not something protesters should engage in as it only hurts their cause. If protesting Milo was their goal. As opposed to increasing his book sales, which is what actually happened. A fact that suggests to me (among other reasons) that Robert Reich may be right.

But (to my point) WTF does Kathleen Turner being heavier in her older age have to do with the Berkeley protests? Did she say something in support of the "protesters" AKA rioters? I don't know. If she did Willis doesn't cite her words. So why does he go there? "There" being insulting her current physical appearance.

Maybe she's heavier because she is 62 and suffering from rheumatoid arthritis, asshole? Willis has authored posts praising older women for still being "hot". So... HOW DARE Kathleen Turner not be blessed with good genes and (due to her rheumatoid arthritis) not be able to maintain her figure? She's got a lot of nerve showing her fat face in public, right? Sarcasm, of course. But likely the misogynist's view.

As for Debra Messing; what's her crime, you might be wondering. It's that she is a "human ironing board" according to the Hartster (and she apparently tweeted "RESISTANCE WORKS! #Resist #NeverStop" in regards to that asshole Milo speaking at Berkeley being protested. Although the tweet says nothing about approving of property destruction, I'd like to note. Only getting his speech canceled).

In any case, HOW DARE Debra Messing have small boobies that aren't pleasing to Willis' eyes! She should have been born with genes that gave her bigger jugs. Or gotten a boob job. Surely she can afford to have her tits enlarged. But she thinks she can say (or tweet) things that Willis disagrees with WHILE having small breasts? Think again, bitch (sarcasm again). Willis is going to CALL YOU OUT for your insignificant hooters.

BTW, Kathleen Turner's breasts aren't that large (and remember that she got naked in Body Heat). But getting old and fat SURELY is the bigger sin than having small boobs (at least FOR A WOMAN). Although if she still was "hot", Willis might have criticized her for the audacity of daring to get naked in a movie while having tiny titties.

OST #198

Willis Hart Is A Misogynist Hypocrite (Re Samantha Bee Being A Stupid "B")

Even though the election is over and Donald Trump will be our next preznit (baring the Electors voting for the popular vote winner), the Libertarian idiot Willis Hart is still attacking Hillary Clinton and posting mildly critical (at most) comments about the Orange Buffoon. Or fluff like "It's different. I grant you that" (re Trump's tweeting continuing when he is preznit).

This time the hypocrisy and misogyny of the Hart idiot is in regards to former president Bill Clinton and how (back in 2013) Willis was not all that concerned about WJC being a "cheater".

Willis Hart: On Bill Clinton Being a Cheater... Fair enough. But after 13 years of noncheaters, maybe a cheater is exactly what we need again... I'm just sayin'. (9/25/2013 AT 4:26pm).

A cheater, but not the wife of a cheater. That is someone we DEFINITELY do not need as president. Fact is, when a cheating husband cheats, it is the wife's fault. And while not a big deal when Bill Clinton did it, it IS a big deal now and is something Willis uses... to criticize Hillary Clinton! (as well as another woman who DARES to defend/support her).

Willis Hart: Note to Samantha Bee... You stupid bitch. You stupid, stupid bitch. Yes, Trump is a douche-bag and, yes, he's said some sexist things... but your candidate, your goddess, Mrs. Clinton... denigrated the women who her husband has been accused of sexually assaulting and having affairs with (calling them "trailer trash" and other such insults)... [blah, blah, blah] her philandering husband... (11/17/2016 AT 11:26pm).

Gee, what a surprise that the Hartster uses the "B" word to describe a liberal woman pundit/political comedy show host he doesn't like. If she were also Black the insult would almost certainly have been that Samantha Bee is a "minstrel" as well (because, in addition to being a misogynist, WTNPH is quite racist).

BTW, Trump has said "some sexist things". Ya think? But what about his bragging about sexually assaulting women (grabbing them by the pussy)? Willis thinks that was just Billy Bush having "a conversation with Donald Trump about chicks". And, YES, that is an exact quote!

Bragging about sexually assaulting women is "a conversation about chicks". A DOWNGRADE from "locker room talk"! Can there be ANY doubt that the Harster is a misogynist? Seriously?

OST #184

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

A total FAIL from the misogynist Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OST #182

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OST #175

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OST #174

Nope. No Spell Cast Upon Me

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart writes a great many posts in which he objectifies women. Not unusual for a misogynist. But this one had me scratching my head.

Willis Hart: On the Strikingly and Uniquely Beautiful Australian Actress and Model, Lauren Orrell... As she casts her spell upon you. Once more, like cloves on the tip of your tongue. (8/3/2016 AT 4:26pm).

Nope, Lauren Orrell doesn't do it for me. What's strange here, is that this (IMO) is a bad picture. I did a Google search and found better ones.

For example.

This is a recent picture, I believe. I'm guessing it's 2 years old at the most, as the site I found it on was for her series Starting from... Now, which began airing in 2014. So, why she looks so much older in the picture Willis chose, I don't know.

In my opinion, Jennifer Lawrence is better looking. No "meh body" and no "butterface", as he says. Anyway, he clearly likes older women (although ones who look remarkably good for their age), so maybe his opinion on Jennifer Lawrence will be different 15 years from now in 2031 (when she'll be 40). If he's still alive.

A pic of Jennifer Lawrence from pinterest.

This picture fits the bill for "she casts her spell upon you" MUCH more so than the picture Willis selected, I'd say. No disrespect to Lauren Orrell, but I don't care for that picture the Hartster selected. I don't have anything against older women, btw. In fact, many of the pictures Willis has selected in the past have appealed to me. But this is not a good one, IMO.

As for "cloves on the tip of your tongue", that sounds terrible to me. Pass.

OST #167

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 Willis Hart Defending Milo Yiannopoulos, A Misogynist Jackass With A History Of Encouraging His Twitter Followers To Harass Women

Willis Hart defends the "journalist, entrepreneur and technology editor for Breitbart.com" in a recent commentary.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that Twitter Had to Be Sued Before They Took Down the Tens of Thousands of ISIS Related Accounts but Didn't Hesitate One Second to Ban Milo Yiannopoulos Over Some Racist Tweets that His Followers Were Dishing Out. The hypocrisy and double-standards of the left are really starting to reach critical-mass, I think, with this being a perfect example. I mean, we're talking about fucking ISIS here, for Christ. (7/21/2016 AT 3:58pm).

The lawsuit says Twitter knowingly permitted terrorists to use their network. However, according to Fortune magazine, such lawsuits (there have been a few) are likely to fail.

In any case, Hart's criticism involved Twitter not being vigilant enough in policing their membership and taking down such accounts when they find them. That is likely a valid criticism. I wouldn't know, as I haven't been following that story.

But is Twitter part of "the Left"? Willis asserts that Twitter is. A 7/20/2016 Washington Times article describes Twitter as a "progressive-leaning social media company". So, OK, they're part of "the Left". "Proof" they're out to get this Milo Yiannopoulos jackass? Or maybe they just banned him after issuing multiple warnings and suspending him temporarily several times.

The first suspension came in December of 2015 Twitter decided on because of Yiannopoulos' history of encouraging his followers to attack women (via tweet).

[Previously Yiannopoulos] told a female journalist that she "deserved to be harassed" in response to her complaints about threatening messages she had been receiving due to an article Yiannopoulus had written about her. (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos/Social Media).

Clearly his followers got the message after this incident. And, telling someone they "deserved to be harassed" sounds like a violation of Twitter's "speech and harassment codes" to me.

Yiannopoulos was suspended again in (June 2016) after "criticism of Islam [following] the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting". Then came the 3rd strike less than a month later!

Yiannopoulos was permanently suspended from Twitter on 7/19/2016, after he and other users of the site participated in abuse towards Ghostbusters actress Leslie Jones. Yiannopoulos had published a critical review of the film the day prior to being banned. Shortly before the ban, he directly attacked Jones, calling her "barely literate" and describing her as a man. It was also alleged that he was orchestrating abuse. ...Twitter stated that "no one deserves to be subjected to targeted abuse online, and our rules prohibit inciting or engaging in the targeted abuse or harassment of others. ... We know many people believe we have not done enough to curb this type of behavior on Twitter. We agree". (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos/Social Media).

Yiannopoulos' response to the lifetime ban was to cry about bias against Conservatives, claiming that "Twitter has confirmed itself as a safe space for Muslim terrorists and Black Lives Matter extremists, but a no-go zone for conservatives".

Right. Even though this misogynist jackass had been warned twice previously. This, btw, is a common Conservative tactic. It's called working the refs. This tactic involves "complaining constantly about liberal media bias in an attempt to bully reporters and obtain more favorable coverage for their side".

But Yiannopoulos was banned because he deserved to be banned. According to a 7/20/2016 TIME story his "reputation as a troll on Twitter has long eclipsed his journalism" and [re his trolling] he calls himself the "most fabulous supervillain on the Internet".

Although that Willis Hart would take his side is not surprising, given how Yiannopoulos describes himself ideologically and politically.

He rose to notability that year when he began to provide media coverage and commentary surrounding the Gamergate controversy (a controversy that concerned issues of sexism and progressivism in video game culture, stemming from a harassment campaign conducted primarily through the use of the Twitter hashtag #GamerGate). As a self-identified homosexual, "cultural libertarian" and "free speech fundamentalist", he is a vocal critic of third wave feminism, Islam, social justice theory, political correctness and other movements and ideologies he perceives to be authoritarian and regressive. (Wikipedia/Milo Yiannopoulos).

So he's a hater of Black Lives Matter, Radical Marxist Feminists and SJWs just like the Hartster. There is no "double standard" at play here. All that happened was that a jerk and ACKNOWLEDGED troll who had been warned twice before, broke the rules again (making it clear that he had no intention of behaving himself), and was banned for life. As he should have been. End of story.

The only double standard here is that Willis wouldn't be complaining if it were a Leftist who was banned. Although, IMO, Conservatives are more likely to run into these kind of problems because they're so much more intolerant than Liberals. Most of their whines re "Liberal intolerance" concerning Liberal "intolerance" of Conservative bigotry and hate.

Proof that this is the truth are these "religious liberty" laws that Conservative legislatures have been trying to pass. Anti-gay, anti-transgender laws/sentiments that Willis Hart has defended by the way (with commentaries such as "On Making the Planet Safe from Christian Bakers"). This from a guy who claims that he's "socially tolerant". Bullshit!

Supporting Document
[DSD #30] Fanboy Outrage Re Milo Yiannopoulos (A Hard Right Jackass) Being Banned From Twitter (catalouge of WTNPH commentaries in which he defends a misogynist ass because he agrees with this far right views).

Image: Ben Garrison hearts Milo Yiannopoulos. Because they're both misogynist assholes (would be my guess). In this cartoon Ben depicts knight Milo battling the evil SJW hydra.

OST #162

Men Have Better Brains Than Chicks & Larry Summers, As Prez Of Harvard, Was Fired For Pointing Out This Fact (Misogynist Blogger Sez)

STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Math. Women are not as good as men in these fields. That's just genetics. Or so says the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that (According to Numerous Researchers; Voyer, Voyer, Bryden, Lytton, Romney, Pinker, etc.) A) Men Appear to Have Better 3-D Mental Transformations (i.e., Spatial Abilities) and Mathematics Problem-Solving Skills than Women Do and B) These Differences Are at Least Partially Genetic. So Larry Summers got shit-canned from Harvard back in 2006 for telling the truth, in other words. Gotta love it. P.S. And yes, these of course are averages. A lot of girls do well in math and the physical sciences and we should appreciate them as well (they also score better than men on many verbal indices and perhaps that's the reason why they gravitate more toward social work and education than the STEM fields). (5/31/2016 AT 5:13pm).

First of all, former Secretary of the Treasury (under Bill Clinton) Larry Summers was NOT fired from Harvard for "telling the truth".

According to the following Wikipedia excerpt, the speech (the one in which he "told the truth") was only one factor (and may actually not been a factor at all).

Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part from: Summers's conflict with Cornel West; financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer; and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the underrepresentation of women in science and engineering could be due to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end", and less to patterns of discrimination and socialization (Wikipedia/Lawrence Summers).

I say "may not have been a factor at all" because nobody knows why each individual Harvard faculty member voted the way they did. IMO it was the "conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer" that probably lead to the "no confidence" more than any other factor.

Some people still think Larry Summers got fired from being the president of Harvard because of the ridiculous comments he made about women in math... or because of the comments he made about Cornel West. Actually, the truth is something worse, and for which he should actually be in jail. Summers was directly involved with defrauding the U.S. Government... and Russia. He admitted to not understand conflict of interest issues. ... So why did Summers lose his job at Harvard? It was because of his protecting a buddy, a fellow economist at Harvard named Andrei Shleifer. Shleifer got in trouble, and the US Government sued and won against Harvard and Shleifer... Harvard was required to pay $26.5 million to the U.S. government, Shleifer $2 million... (Why Larry Summers lost the presidency of Harvard by Cathy O'Neil. Mathbabe 3/11/2012).

You can read the article for the details (my excerpt would have to be a LOT longer to fully explain what happened). The important thing to note is that "Summers was good friends with this criminal [Andrei Shleifer], and used his position to protect him".

Summers was "shit-canned" (resigned after a no confidence vote) for protecting the job of his friend, a friend who had cost Harvard "$26.5 million and legal fees estimated at between $10 million and $15 million for legal violations".

I don't know about you, but I think a 36.5 to 41 million dollar loss is more likely the reason than the speech, regardless of whether or not it was the "truth".

Secondly, as far as the underrepresentation of Women in the STEM fields being due to genetics or not, my judgement is... it could be a factor. But there are other factors. Wikipedia notes that "scholars are exploring the various reasons for the existence of this gender gap in STEM fields. [There are a] number of biological, structural, and social-psychological explanations".

But Willis (in a number of posts on his blog) points only to research from academics who look at the possible biological reasons. "Men have better brains" seems (to me) to be the point he's trying to make. A point that would be in line with the many other misogynistic commentaries he's authored on his blog.

Supporting Document
[DSD #27] Men's Brains Are Better Than Women's Brains (catalouge of WTNPH commentaries in which he makes this implicit argument).

OST #161

Another Example Of Willis Hart "Coming Out Early Tonight" (Transphobia, Trumpesque Bigotry, White Supremacistish Racism)

The Libertarian blogger Willis Hart getting bent out of shape because "social justice warriors" fight back when racist Rightwingers spout off.

Willis Hart: Like with this Garrison fellow who did the Michelle Obama looking like a power-forward cartoon (which, yes, was somewhat distasteful but then a great amount of satire tends to be - HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!!). The SJWs [Social Justice Warriors] went after him full-bore (he even got death-threats which makes SJWs no better than al Qaeda) and now he's more popular than ever. Oops, OOOOOOOOPS. (5/31/2016 AT 5:13pm).

The quote above is just a portion of his rant, which mostly concerns his outrage over racists on the Right being boycotted when they spew their racism. Though he ends with cheers because this Ben Garrison asshole supposedly is "more popular than ever". (Note: RationalWiki page for Garrison says he isn't an "overt racist", and I agree. His racism, like WTNPH's, is not overt).

The cartoon that Willis refers to (see below) depicts a butch Michelle Obama next to an image of Melancholia Trump (what a First Lady should look like according to the cartoon). Notice that there is a bulge in an area suggesting Michelle is a transexual. A "joke" Willis previously indicated that he found hilarious (wondering in a blog post which bathroom Michelle uses). You know, because she used to be a dude and due to new discriminatory laws should be using the men's room (OST #144).

The Left getting offended by the depiction of Michelle Obama as a transexual is very funny according to Willis. Even if it is "somewhat distasteful". Although some have disagreed wit the "somewhat" part.

A cartoonist has been accused of racism after he portrayed Michelle Obama as masculine and butch next to a pageant-ready Melania Trump in a controversial drawing. The cartoon – which has been branded "racist and misogynistic" – shows a muscular Mrs Obama wearing a green dress with a bulge in the groin area. (Make The First Lady Great Again?!? Racist Cartoon Compares A Butch Michelle Obama To Melania Trump).

Racist? Yeah, I think so. Misogynist? Absolutely. Transphobic as well. That's who Willis is cheering on (a sleaze who'd draw such a cartoon). But Willis, a Libertarian who SAYS he's "socially tolerant", has displayed bigotry for transexuals on several occasions; referring to a trans-woman as "some transgender" and assuming she's a Leftist (obviously all transgender people are Leftists, OST #140); thinks Garrison's bigotry is only "somewhat distasteful". As opposed to being highly offensive. In fact that is actually the super funny part. Leftists being offended. Or "triggered", as he puts it.

Here, it isn't a victory for the assholes, racists, transphobics, misogynists and bigots that Willis is offended by, but the "Social Justice Warriors" who take offense. Scumbags who, with Trump as the gop potus nominee (whom Garrison is a supporter of), have been GREATLY emboldened. And Willis too, apparently. The post above being another example of him "coming out early tonight". That phrase being code for displaying his racism, I'm guessing (from a comment Willis says a "marginally literate boob" submitted to his blog).

Ugh. Can there really be ANY doubt any more that this guy is a hardcore bigot? Frankly, I'm wondering if the Hartster is a White Supremacist given his recent comments re Black people being "the real racists".

I refer you to a Willis comment in which he says "there's racism in America alright; blacks hating whites being the bulk of it" (his conclusion after posting about black-on-white violent crime). Versus White Supremacists who "issued a statement saying that Dylann Roof had some legitimate grievances against Black people and that the group's website accurately and honestly reports black-on-white violent crime".

Image: Racist misogynistic transphobic "satirical" cartoon by Rightwing Trump-supporting slimeball Ben Garrison. Given that satire is "the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc"... is this satire? I mean, I see the ridicule, but what vice or folly is being exposed? My guess is that (in the view of Rightwing racists like Garrison) it was "folly" to elect a Black man POTUS.

OST #148

Is A Move Or Trip To Oklahoma In Willis Hart's Future?

After hearing about a recent ruling by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, it occurred to me that the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart might want to either move or vacation there to take advantage of the unanimous decision that says oral sex with an unconscious person is not rape.

In Oklahoma, it's legal to have oral sex with someone who's completely unconscious, the state's highest criminal court has ruled. ...the Court... found that a teenage boy was not guilty of forcible sodomy after having oral sex with a teenage girl who was so intoxicated after a night of drinking that she had to be carried to his car. "Forcible Sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation", the judges ruled on March 24. ...some legal experts note that Oklahoma's forcible sodomy law only prohibits oral sex with someone who's unable to provide consent because of mental illness or mental disability, not because of intoxication or unconsciousness. Therefore... the court's ruling was appropriate. The state has a separate rape law that protects victims who are too drunk to consent, but only in cases of vaginal or anal penetration, not oral sex. (Here's Why Oral Rape is Not Rape in Oklahoma by Samantha Michaels. Mother Jones 4/28/2016).

So the judges DID NOT say that intoxication equals consent. If they had I'd definitely not be surprised if Willis hopped on a plane ASAP to get to OK for some "consensual sex". But getting to orally rape a woman after getting her liquored up doesn't sound bad (if you're a raper).

Willis, if he doesn't move to OK, may be scheduling an OK vacation very soon, I think. I say this due to many many commentaries Willis has authored for his blog in which he laments the fact that the man sometimes gets charged with rape when two drunk people have sex and the woman "has second thoughts" the next day (OST #136).

BTW, given Willis' constant and long-lasting hand-wringing over a problem (false rape charges) that represents 2-8 percent of accusations, while not seemingly caring much (or at all) about the fact that that less than half of incidents of rape are even reported and only three percent of rapists actually receive prison time, it's no surprise he's "racking his brain" regarding drunken sex possibly being "non-forcible rape".

Willis Hart: Non-Forcible Rape? I'm really racking my head on this one, folks. The ONLY thing that I could come up with is a 20 year-old having consensual sex with a 17 1/2 year old, some borderline statutory rape type of situation. I really think that Mr.s Ryan and Akin need to take a minute and flush this bad boy out a little. Agreed? (9/4/2012 AT 7:29 PM).

Yeah, if a man gets a woman drunk and has sex with her, might that be "non-forcible rape"? Because highly inebriated or unconscious women don't resist (at least not much). But that likely didn't occur to the Hartster because, in his mind, if a woman is too drunk to say NO, that's the same as saying YES... provided the man is drunk as well, I'm gathering (from his many posts on the subject).

See also: Rape-publicans will soon be descending on Oklahoma to sexually assault underage girls (4/30/2016 commentary from the blog Disaffected And It Feel So Good).

OST #139

How Many Women Has Willis Hart Raped?

Which is the bigger problem, fabricated rape charges resulting from a woman having drunken sex and regretting it later (or simply regretting having sex, drunk or not), or actual rapists getting away with their crimes sans punishment?

Me, I'm going with the latter, given the fact that less than half of incidents of rape are reported, only three percent of rapists actually receive prison time, and Republican politicians think that women can't get pregnant from rape (even though there are 32k rape pregnancies in the US per year)!

Yes, it is true that 2-8 percent of rape charges may be false, but on college campuses across the nation, surveys show that students think 50 percent of the charges are fabricated! Almost certainly explaining why less than half of rapes are reported (because women fear not being believed).

Yet, despite these facts, the misogynist blogger Willis Hart has authored literally dozens of commentaries lamenting the huge problem that exists of women lying about getting raped. And, no, that it's a "huge problem" isn't something he's actually written, but given the huge number of commentaries he's written on the subject, I think it's fair to assume he thinks it is.

Commentaries such as the following.

Willis Hart: On the Assertion that Women Should Be Believed Absolutely... It's ludicrous and it's patronizing. Of course women lie and they probably do it as often as men do [Link]. That and do we really and truly want to put men away for 20 years just 'cause the woman had some second thoughts the next day? Come on! (4/21/2016 AT 8:31pm).

Willis' link is to a Science Direct article titled "Gender differences in lying". According to the abstract "aversion to lying has been consistently observed in sender–receiver games [and] women have demonstrated greater aversion to lying for a small monetary benefit" (what the actual article says I don't know because there is a $35.95 price attached).

Note the article (at least according to the abstract) concerns lying when there is a monetary benefit to be gained. The article has NOTHING to do with rape. Yet Willis (king of strawmen and non sequiturs) makes such a connection.

Frankly Willis' obsession/fixation on the topic of women lying about being rape (which is very rare and very outside the norm) is something I find disturbing. And it makes me wonder, has Willis Hart been "falsely" accused of rape? I would not be surprised if he had, given commentaries such as the following.

Willis Hart: On the Notion that Whenever Two Consenting Albeit Impaired Adults Have Drunken Sex Only the Fellow Is Considered a Rapist... How is THAT not sexist; a) to the man in terms of unfairness and b) to the woman for treating her like an infant, or at the bare minimum a double-standard? It sure as hell seems like those things to me. (3/24/2016 AT 10:26pm).

Add to this the fact that this obvious misgonyist also frequently blogs about how people who believe that patriarchy is a real thing are "conspiracy nutcases", gender pay inequality is a "discredited meme" and that "radical feminists" are the source of these "thoroughly discredited concepts"... and I've got to wonder.

Wonder, because Willis seems really pissed at all the lying bitches. So, while Willis Hart may have raped zero women, the number could also be one or more. Surely this would explain why he hates women so much. Although the reason could simply be that he's a typical Libertarian female-hating asshole.

The Libertarian "goddess" Ayn Rand authored fictional novels in which the male "hero" raped and the women liked it. Perhaps Willis, as a Libertarian who "worships Ayn Rand" (a paraphrase of his words) thinks that is how sex should work. That if a man wants a woman he gets her liquored up and when she "consents" he takes her.

I could be wrong, but I think that it's quite likely that Willis has raped and that his victim regretted getting raped... and that explains all these commentaries about something that (while it does happen) is rare. Much more frequently a woman who was raped is disbelieved, even though she's telling the truth. And that Willis suggests otherwise? IMO that makes him a rape-enabler. Not that his blog specifically enabled any rapes, but his mindset (that this is a HUGE problem) surely isn't conducive to creating an environment where the real problem (that women are disbelieved when they are telling the truth) gets addressed and dealt with.

And, btw, who the hell does Willis think is asserting that Women should be believed ABSOLUTELY? I mean, is legislation about to be passed that would lock men up immediately (without a trial) if they are accused of rape? No. All I've heard some people say is that we should act as if women are telling the truth when the say they're raped (but investigate/have a trial). Absolutely nobody is saying what Willis suggests some (unnamed) people are (absent sourcing). This is another of the Harster's fucking strawmen, in other words.

Supporting Document
[DSD #22] Drunkenness Equals Consent, Women Lying About Being Raped When They Had Drunken Sex And Regretted It Later Is A Big Problem, Rape Culture Is A False Meme (A catalog of numerous commentaries by WTNPH in which he argues that women lying about being raped is a HUGE problem).

Image: The "minstrel" Marc Lamont Hill tweets fact about rape that the misogynist Willis Hart rails against frequently on his Libertarian blog.

OST #136

Willis Hart Racist WTF: Objecting To Getting Raped Is Racist (A Great Many Leftist Feminists In Europe Don't Say)

White European feminist women want Brown Muslim men to rape them. Or they're actively refusing help from White males (if available) in preventing/stopping these rapes... because that would be racist. That this is the case is a "fact" according to the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart. Although he makes this claim sans attribution/sourcing.

Willis Hart: On the Fact that a Great Many Leftist Feminists in Europe Would Seemingly Rather Get Raped by an Illiterate, Violent, and Egregiously Medieval Piece of Shit Scumbag Savage than Have One of Their White European Male Counterparts Defend Them in that that Would Be Racist... And the slow-bleed European suicide continues. (4/9/2016 AT 2:57pm).

WTF? And this is a "fact"? If it is, then where is the attribution or source that proves a "great many" "European feminists" hold this opinion?

Yeah, I do not FOR ONE SECOND buy this load of horse manure. Sounds to me like something Willis likely read on World Net Daily.

And, wanna bet that "egregiously medieval piece of shit scumbag savage" is code for (a brown) Muslim man? I mean, how the hell else could a WHITE WOMAN objecting to getting raped be "racist" otherwise?

The only thing truthful/accurate here IMO is that this is yet another of Willis Hart's racist rants. Misogynist too, in that Willis (yet again) expresses his disdain for feminism. And Leftists. Apparently the collision of the 2 (feminism and Leftism) can NOT result in anything but incomprehensible stupidity.

BTW, this sounds familiar, doesn't it? I refer to the "they're raping our women" mindset.

The Deadly History of "They're Raping Our Women" (Slate article excerpt) Racists have long used rape to defend their worst racist violence. Amid his [6/17/2015] rampage at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston SC - killing 9 people - 21yo Dylann Storm Roof reportedly told churchgoers, "You rape our women, and you're taking over our country, and you have to go". Of the assertions in that statement, it's the first that has a long, deadly history. In the late 19th century, rape was a frequent justification for racist violence. "To palliate this record ... and excuse some of the most heinous crimes that ever stained the history of a country", wrote journalist Ida B. Wells-Barnett on lynchings in her pamphlet Southern Horrors, "the South is shielding itself behind the plausible screen of defending the honor of its women". Indeed, Wells points to a host of Southern newspapers that defended "lynch's law" with reference to an alleged epidemic of black-on-white rape. In one editorial, published by the Memphis Daily Commercial, editors declared, "The commission of this crime grows more frequent every year", and, "There is no longer a restraint upon the brute passion of the Negro". As Wells-Barnett would show, however, there was no substance to the charge. "The world knows that the crime of rape was unknown during 4 years of civil war, when the white women of the South were at the mercy of the race which is all at once charged with being a bestial one"... (6/18/2015 commentary by Jamelle Bouie).

African Americans are members of a "race [that was] once charged with being a bestial one". Sound similar to the Willis tirade of pejoratives? A (brown) Muslim man is a "egregiously medieval piece of shit scumbag savage".

BTW, remember when I said that Willis' post sounded like his response was to something he read on WND? I was guessing. But after inputting "Muslim men raping European women", I found the TOP result to be a WND article titled "Europe's Muslim Rape Epidemic".

OK, so do I need to do any more Googling to see if there is any validity to Willis' claims, or can I assume that he's full of shit without doing any more research? I'm going with the later and NOT the former. Sorry, but I think the fact that WND is fear mongering on this issue tells me all I need to know about what's going on here (it's flat out racist demagoguery).

OST #131

On Donald Trump Defender Willis Hart Lying About "What The Video Clearly Shows" Re Trump Lackey Roughing Up A Reporter

The Libertarian blogger, and frequent Trump defender/apologist, Willis Hart spins a bald-faced lie in defense of Donald Trump.

Willis Hart: On Breitbart's Michelle Fields Claiming that She Was Roughed Up by a Trump Lackey When the Video Clearly Shows that She Wasn't... How many more of these ludicrous incidents do we have to endure before we can finally conclude that women are just as capable of lying as men are and that we should probably be a tad more skeptical when these accusations (and worse; the Duke lacrosse case, for example) are thrown around? Me, I'm already there. (3/27/2016 AT 5:03pm).

When Willis says he's "already there", I assume by "there" he means a place where facts don't matter and he believes what he wants to believe. Because Fields is a liar and the video "clearly shows" she wasn't roughed up MUST be why the "Trump lackey" Corey Lewandowski was charged and arrested for misdemeanor battery by the Jupiter FL police.

This must also be why The Daily Beast has reported that "Video shows Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski grabbing reporter Michelle Fields".

Despite the Trump camp's outright denial that any such altercation occurred, viewers can see at the 10-second mark that Lewandowski reached with his left arm for Fields's left arm, briefly grabbing her. Lewandowski's grasp then broke before he reached again, this time on her left arm, which is where Fields showed she was bruised the day after. (3/11/2016 Daily Beast article by Andrew Kirell & Justin Miller).

And, because the video shows Fields lies must explain why Washington Post reporter Ben Terris said "I had been a witness to the incident between Fields and Lewandowski".

Ben Terris: As security parted the masses to give him passage out of the chandelier-lit ballroom, Michelle Fields, a young reporter for Trump-friendly Breitbart News, pressed forward to ask the Republican front-runner a question. I watched as a man with short-cropped hair and a suit grabbed her arm and yanked her out of the way. He was Corey Lewandowski, Trump's 41-year-old campaign manager. Fields stumbled. Finger-shaped bruises formed on her arm. "I'm just a little spooked", she said, a tear streaming down her face. "No one has grabbed me like that before". She took my arm and squeezed it hard. "I don't even want to do it as hard as he did", she said, "because it would hurt". (Inside Trump's inner circle, his staffers are willing to fight for him. Literally by Ben Terris. 3/10/2016 The Washington Post).

Ben Terris is obviously lying as well. And how stupid to do so when the video "clearly shows" they are! Although it doesn't. And the video showing that Lewandowski does grab Fields, and that there was a witness likely explains why Lewandowski was arrested. In my opinion. Fields being female having NOTHING to do with why she should be believed or not. Although the misogynist Hart apparently thinks Fields is getting the benefit of the doubt simply for being female (despite the fact that there is a male witness).

And, YES, I'm correctly labeling this as misogyny... because Willis is bringing up the Duke LaCrosse case due to his strongly held belief that women FREQUENTLY lie about being raped. When what he thinks actually happened (90 percent of the time) is that two drunk people had sex and the lying slut regretted it (OST #81).

Anyway, that Willis ludicrously says the video shows Fields is being dishonest (when it shows she is being honest) is proof (IMO) that the Hartster is a man that is VERY capable of lying.

Video: Jupiter police release video showing Corey Lewandowski grab Michelle Fields (0:11).

Supporting Document
[DSD #19] The Libertarian Trump Defender. (A catalog of MANY commentaries by WTNPH in which he defends Trump, acts as an apologist for Trump, downplays Trump comments, or goes after Trump protestors).

OST #126

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 Willis Hart's Trumpesque Misogynist Bashing Of Hillary Clinton For An Alleged Sex Crime Allegedly Committed By Her Husband

Clearly the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart is no fan of Hillary Clinton, but IMO the following commentary crosses a line.

Willis Hart: On Mrs. Clinton's Claim that All Women Should be Believed When it Comes to Accusations of Sexual Assault... [Picture of Juanita Broaddrick]. Alrighty then. (1/19/2016 AT 1:13pm).

Note: Juanita Broaddrick is a former nursing home administrator from Arkansas who alleged in 1999 that United States President Bill Clinton raped her two decades earlier (copied from Wikipedia).

Not that you'd know any of this if you read Willis' post, which does not identify the person in the picture nor contain any information regarding the incident in question.

During a campaign event, one audience-member asked Clinton "You say that all rape victims should be believed, but would you say that about [Bill Clinton's accusers] Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey and, or Paula Jones? Should we believe them as well?" "Well, I would say that everybody should be believed at first until they are disbelieved on evidence", responded Clinton. (Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Says Hillary Should Answer for Husband's History).

I guess Hillary believes that these accusers are now to be "disbelieved on evidence". Frankly I don't know what happened, and the truth is nobody can say for certain. Point is, Hillary answered Willis' "alrighty then".

But my question is - is Hillary Clinton responsible for crimes her husband might have committed? Should allegations against Bill Clinton harm Hillary's campaign for the presidency? You know, given the fact that, even if the allegations are true (which they have never been proven to be), Bill likely lied to Hillary as well (I do not believe HRC knew of the rape and thanked Broaddrick for her silence).

In any case, note that Willis doesn't bring up (has never commented on) the rape allegations against Donald Trump (from his ex-wife Ivana who previously claimed that The Donald tore her clothes off and violently assaulted her).

This would be the same Trump who recently described Hillary's 2008 primary defeat by Barack Obama by saying she "got schlonged" (a sexist reference to the stereotype of Black men having large members?), and who had the termerity (given his sexist provlivicities) to levy the sexism charge at Hillary, saying she can't get away with "playing the women's card on me".

Well, I don't know how Willis thinks he can get away with what he's doing (using allegations against Bill Clinton to harm Hillary Clinton's presidential chances) when he's never ONCE brought up these allegations in a discussion about Bill Clinton's presidency. Fact is, Willis has more frequently PRAISED Bill Clinton.

Willis Hart: On Bill Clinton Being a Cheater... Fair enough. But after 13 years of noncheaters, maybe a cheater is exactly what we need again. (9/25/2013 AT 4:26pm).

Granted, he's talking about cheating and not rape (allegations), but what the hell does WJC's cheating have to do with his presidenting? Yet, here Willis makes that connection, saying (in essence) so what if WJC cheated? "Maybe a cheater is exactly what we need again" he says, which is miles away from criticizing the dude for raping/cheating (allegedly/factually).

So, I guess it was OK for Bill to cheat, but it's not OK for Hillary to make a statement about believing women who allege rape because of the Juanita Broaddrick allegations? Hell yes, this strikes me as Trumpesque hypocrisy and misogyny. Absolutely.

Further hypocrisy is that Willis believes that 90 percent of women who report rape are liars. He slams Barack Obama for quoting a "thoroughly discredited" CDC study that found 1 in 5 women who are today college-aged will ultimately be raped. Willis says it's actually 1 in 50, and that the 1 in 5 stat comes from women who were intoxicated, had sex, then regretted it (OST #81).

So the Hartster's "alrighty then" is obviously ONLY in regards to Broaddrick, in that he's enthusiastic to have her believed because it could hurt Hillary's candidacy and NOT because he thinks women should be believed. To hear Willis tell it, the REAL problem is women falsely accusing innocent men of rape. And that believing women when it comes to sexual assault is the LAST thing we should be doing.

OST #99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OST #97

On Why I Don't Like Willis Hart

When you lose 3 out of the 5 of your remaining commenters - maybe it indicates that I was right about Willis all along? Jerry Critter, Rational Nation and Dennis Marks... gone. Only BB Idaho and Rusty Schmuckelford remain... and they don't even comment that often.

"Take a hike, Willis boy" I say to his increasingly racist and misogynist commentaries. Misogynist diatribes like the following (which I imagine spewing from his butthole face).

On Why I Don't Like Jennifer Lawrence... 'Cause when everybody says one thing (to the point of forcing it down my throat), I say, "Take a hike, Jackie boy". That, and with a meh body she's not even a good butterface. (12/16/2015 AT 8:50pm).

Judging a woman by her fitness/body type and calling a woman a "butterface" are both things I'd say are sexist. Not to mention the fact that neither terms "meh body" nor "butterface" applies to Jennifer Lawrence.

Further proof of the Hartster's misogyny? I say yes, given the fact that he doesn't even mention whether or not he likes her movies - something where some legitimate criticisms could possibly be made. But Willis goes immediately to her looks. As if that is the most important/only factor by which to judge the worth of a woman.

And, what the hell is the one thing people are saying - to the point of forcing it down his throat? That Jennifer Lawrence is a beautiful woman? While I wouldn't argue with that, I see no evidence of anyone trying to force this down anyone's throat. If Willis doesn't like her movies, how about he doesn't watch them? Boom, done.

BTW, when I say I don't like Willis Hart, I mean I don't like him AS A BLOGGER. Just like (I assume), when he says he doesn't like Jennifer Lawrence, he means as an actress (although he IS judging her looks). I might, if I met him and got to know him, actually like Willis Hart as a person? Maybe, but I doubt it. Given how repellent I find a lot of what he writes on his blog.

OST #89

According To Willis Hart 90 Percent Of Women Who Claim They Were Unable To Consent To Sex (& Were Therefore Raped) Actually Consented Then Just Regretted It Later

This is yet another example of misogyny from the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart IMO.

Willis Hart: On President Obama Spouting that Thoroughly Discredited Claim that 1 out of Every 5 College-Aged Women Will Ultimately Be Raped... Do they simply not have a fact-checker at the White House? Yes, folks, there is a study from the CDC (and an older one by an activist named Mary Koss) which claims what the President is claiming, but it is seriously flawed (the main flaw being that they count all episodes of drunken sex in which the woman regrets it in the morning as "rape" and all episodes in which the man lies to the woman in an effort to get her in the sack as "sexual violence"). A much more accurate number (one that is considered the gold standard) is the one which comes from the Justice Department Crime Survey; 1 in 50 (still a troubling number but not the type that produces hysteria). Of course the $64,000 question is why in the hell did Obama use the bogus stat? Stupidity? More pandering? I'd kind of like to know. (11/16/2015 AT 4:16pm).

First of all, the CDC study (the one Willis refers to) has NOT been "thoroughly discredited" nor are it's stats "bogus". I looked into it and found that some Libertarian-types have concerns with how one of the questions was worded.

...the wording of the question measuring "incapacitated rape" (which accounted for nearly two-thirds of the CDC's estimate of rapes that occurred in the past year). Respondents were asked about sexual acts that happened when they were "drunk, high, drugged, or passed out and unable to consent". This seems to imply that "unable to consent" is only one of the variables and to include situations in which a person is intoxicated - perhaps enough to have impaired judgment - but not incapacitated as the legal definition of rape requires. A CDC spokesperson told The New Republic that "being unable to consent is key to the CDC's definition of rape". Presumably, this is conveyed by the introduction to the question about alcohol and drug-enabled rape: "Sometimes sex happens when a person is unable to consent to it or stop it from happening because they were drunk, high, drugged, or passed out from alcohol, drugs, or medications". However, in a telephone survey, some people may focus only on the question itself and let the introduction slide by. Moreover, the introductory message ends with an advisory that may create more confusion: "Please remember that even if someone uses alcohol or drugs, what happens to them is not their fault". Obviously, the intended point is that even if you got drunk, you're not to blame for being raped. But this vaguely phrased reminder could also be taken to mean that it's not your fault if you do something stupid while drunk or on drugs. At no point are respondents given any instructions that could result in fewer reports of alleged victimization: for instance, that they should not include instances in which they had voluntary sex while drunk but not incapacitated. (The CDC's Rape Numbers Are Misleading by Cathy Young, contributing editor for Reason Magazine. Time 9/17/2014).

Note the three words in RED. "May" (twice) and "could". Is this how the study was "thoroughly discredited"? By guessing how someone may or could interpret a question based on the wording? Obviously this is an absurd conclusion to reach. I say the wording might produce some false positives, but 90 freaking percent?

That's what the false positive rate would have to be if you say 1 in 5 is wrong and 1 in 50 is right. 1 in 5 would be the same as 20 out of 100, while 1 in 50 would be the same as 2 out of 100. Which would mean Willis is saying 18 out of 20 women are saying they were raped when they actually were drunk when they consented to sex (but later regretted it).

Which is a figure I'm not buying. The way the question is worded might produce some false positives, but no freaking way would it result in a 90 percent false positive rate. Yet this is EXACTLY what the Harster concludes.

That Justice Department Crime Survey, by the way refers to "forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force". But it doesn't say anything about no force being needed because the victim is drunk (or under the influence of drugs). Taking advantage of someone while they're too incapacitated to say NO is still rape in my book. Which explains why the CDC got higher numbers (I'm guessing).

The stats were obviously good enough for the president, and YES I think he has fact checkers, and NO I do not think he quoted the CDC stat due to either "stupidity" or "pandering". I'd say he used it because he felt the CDC stats were (questioning of question wording not withstanding) more accurate than the Justice Department Crime Survey figures... and I'm inclined to agree.

I'm certainly NOT inclined to believe that 90 percent of women who responded to the CDC survey misunderstood the question and answered that that they were unable to consent when they actually did consent (did "something stupid while drunk or on drugs"). Actually, there is no f*cking way I believe that. I am, however, inclined to believe the Harster buys that this is the case due to his (previously demonstrated) misogyny.

OST #81