Saturday, May 31, 2014

Freedom & Liberty As Defined by Ayn Rand & Lying Lester

What is "Freedom" according to the great philosopher Ayn Rand? What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.

Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion. The most essential component of freedom, according to Rand and according to myself, is to be free from the burden of taxation. In that respect the ONLY way complete freedom can be achieved is through anarchy (no government).

But of course SOME government is needed to enforce contracts (legal system), but also to keep people from stealing (police and military). The police are mainly needed to keep the Poors in line, and the military to stop other countries from stealing our land our resources. Beyond those core functions, however, the gOvernment should do little else. If we want to maximize Liberty, that is.

However, as we all know, our gOvernment does MUCH more (much of it unconstitutional). And, in order to pay for all the gOvernment spending (much of it wasteful), taxes must be high. And, who pays these high taxes? Those with the money of course. In that sense, America's wealthy class and Big Business constitute America's Persecuted Minority.

It is under sOcialism that these two minorities are shackled with the chains of slavery, bound in servitude to greedy power-hungry politicians and to the worthless parasitical Takers who vote for them... in return for goodies purchased via the "tax" money stolen from them by way of gOvernmental physical coercion.

What is "Liberty" according to the great philosopher Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand says Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called "the common good".

That is why the so-called sOcial sAfety nEt MUST be shredded or done away with completely, as it diminishes freedom, erodes liberty, and is leading us down the road to enslavement (of the wealthy). And, as we all know, slavery is evil. Allow the Poors to die in the streets, Ayn Rand argues, and Lying Lester agrees. One should expect death when one refuses to work.

So, not only is this the right and Just course to take, it is the moral one, as it avoids enslaving the Makers to pay for the parasitical Takers to loaf (play video games on their big screen TVs while reclining in their easy chairs eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew).

Although, when we stop paying for the Poors to loaf and those who still refuse to work start dying (in their homes and on the streets), the bodies must be disposed of in order that disease not be spread. In that case Lying Lester supports some kind of voluntary tax to employ people to collect the bodies and incinerate them. I suggest we get some other Poors to do the work for an extremely low wage.

Lying Lester would be OK with that, but only if the tax is voluntary. If nobody pays and disease sweeps though the country? Well, Lying Lester thinks the wealthy, being smarter than the rAbble will pay... voluntarily. Or some will, and hopefully it will be enough. If not, then surely many will perish, including some of the "good ones" (ie Rich Makers).

But if any Rich Makers (as well as worthless Poors) die? That is a price Lying Lester is willing to pay in order to maximize Freedom and Liberty and avoid the tyranny of cOllectivism. Lying Lester would even be willing to risk the destruction of our civilization. Surely some worthy Makers would survive in a bunker somewhere... and those Makers would enjoy the greatest Freedom and Liberty any Man has known in this country for quite some time.

Byline: This commentary concerning freedom and liberty was written by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of freedom and liberty. LLIN-075.

Friday, May 30, 2014

Elvis Presley Ignorance: In the Ghetto

Always an avid Elvis Presley fan, I can say there are many many songs that merit recognition for their unique creative presentation and feeling. However, there is one tune that, at least in this critic's view ranks at the very bottom. The worst of Elvis, this one qualifies as one of the lesser hits by the legendary artist.

Lying Lester dedicates this dumb ditty to the lIberal pRogressives, as it is the sort of tripe they surely enjoy. Despite Lying Lester enjoying Rock-n-Roll, this is one song I give a big thumbs down to. Yes, Elvis Presley absolutely was a great artist, but this piece of rubbish is a definite misfire in Lying Lester's book. A song about how a worthless Poor is "doomed" to repeat the cycle of poverty? Lying Lester REJECTS the notion! How about trying hard work?

Yeah, I know, lIberal pRogressives don't believe in it! THAT is why the person being sung about can't escape the ghetto! At least Mr. Presley did not write this dishonest tune. WHY he chose to sing it is anyone's guess. Ayn Rand forbid he subscribed to the lIberal pRogressive ideology.

Lying Lester thinks he may very well have, given his acquiesce to singing and recording this terrible propagandist melody. Oh well... Lying Lester can still enjoy other Elvis songs, as "the King" only rarely spewed lEftist pRopaganda. In fact, many of his numbers are quite good, this one being the rare one that is exceptionally bad.

Byline: This post was written by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-074.

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Stand With Lying Lester In Opposing pRogressive cOllectivist Tyranny!

In less than 900 days Americans will go to the polls to elect a new POTUS. As we prepare to celebrate our unique and exceptional history, the nation is engaged in a great and profound battle for its very soul. We stand at the ultimate crossroads. The road we ultimately choose will determine whether this nation survives with our founding principals as the guiding light for future generations of free people.

After several days of visiting progressive blogs and contemplating their message and mission it became clear the battle lines have been drawn, and who is most responsible for drawing the invisible in the sand. It also became clear how profound and fundamental the differences are between lIberal pRogressives and conservatives or Libertarians.

While one can point to, and argue many specifics, the fundamental differences lie in the opposing values of Individualism and cOllectivism. Our nation was founded on the belief in the rights of the wealthy White individuals and not the cOllective "will of The People" (ie the Poors or lower classes). The Constitution was written to insure the rights of the Individual White wealthy Man would be protected against the tyranny of the majority or cOllective "will of The People". The simple beauty of the experiment called America was that it became a nation of laws promulgated to protect the wealthy White individual.

Today the rights of wealthy individuals, no matter their ethnicity are protected. What is important is that these men (and sometimes women) are wealthy Makers and not worthless parasitical Takers (who should have considerably fewer rights).

In so long as the Individual respected the rights of all other Individuals (excepting pOor iNdividuals), and observed the laws enacted to protect the rights of all Rich Individuals society functioned well. Thus for the first time in history a nation was governed by laws and not by men. A truly radical and progressive system in the I800's (the good kind of "progressive"). It remains so today in the judgment of Lying Lester, although (given the election of the sOcialist oBama) just barely.

I have stated the invisible drawn in the sand by the lIberal pRogressives it is the line separating Individualism from cOllectivism. The pRogressives ultimate goal is to bring cOllectivism to America in a way the Marxist Utopian ideal that gOvernment should take from those with the greatest means, and redistribute to those with the greatest need is achieved... or to do the "will of The People", some might say. Of course never attempting to identify and understand that that rich people DESERVE to have most of the wealth of our nation.

Or, I could fib and spew some baloney about how "at some point there will be few with means and a great number with extreme need", as if higher taxes on rich people would cause them to become poor and also in "great need". Actually, I have lied about this in the past and will continue to do so. Taxing the wealthy will impoverish us all (that was a lie just there).

The pRogressives desire to replace Individualism with cOllectivism is nothing more than the desire to level the human playing field so everyone becomes entitled to that which their neighbor possess (another lie, actually pRogressives believe both individualism and collectivism are necessary for society to function). "Equal prosperity for all" is another lie wealthy-worshiping dipshits like me buy into and promulgate on our moronic blogs (like rAtional nAtion uSA).

The issues of effort, ability, motivation, hard work, and perseverance are of no concern to the pRogressive or cOllectivist (yet another lie). Only the appearance of mass economic equality is important (or so the lie goes). Of course the only way the pRogressive cOllectivist (fictional) dream can be realized is through gOvernment oversight, deep taxation, and intrusive control over one's personal and business life. The driving force behind the pRogressive cOllectivist is the desire and need for power (for The People). Power over the wealthy Man's (or less frequently, wealthy woman's) life.

The Individualist is one who values the life of the wealthy Man (or woman), Individuality, and (most importantly) property/wealth. By their very nature these exceptional Individuals value liberty and understand it is right to value the Rights and Liberties of their fellow worthy Men and women (and disrespect the "rights" of the Poors). They recognize that limiting the role of gOvernment results in the greatest Liberty and ultimately prosperity for Rich people (be as it may at the expense of the general population and nation). The Individualist also recognizes the inherent tendency for evil to exit with government by The People.

The pRogressive cOllectivist by contrast sees rich people not as Individuals but rather merely as a very small part of a greater whole. Their belief system says the Individual is relatively unimportant and should set aside their desires and goals (sacrifice) to the goals and agreed upon desires of the larger sOciety... The whole (which is of course complete rubbish, but for the purposes of this commentary I will pretend it as true... another of my lies, in other words).

It is then only natural the pRogressive cOllectivist belief system desires bigger and a more intrusive government (or a gOvernment big enough to do the will of The People. As for "intrusive", that is where Conservatives come in and not pRogressives... so this can be chalked up to another of my lies). The pRogressive cOllectivist economic and sOcial system requires large government to survive.

And so the battle between Individualism (rights for the wealthy) and pRogressive cOllectivism (rights for everyone) will likely be the defining moment in our modern history. Either we will choose the road to Individuality, Liberty, and prosperity for the wealthy, or we will equivocate, abandon our reason and be lead down the road to collectivism, loss of liberty, reduced prosperity, or and as Hayek might say, down "The Road To Serfdom".

Not that that is a bad thing, but in this case it is "serfdom" for the wealthy (in that they will be paying a little more in terms of taxes)... as opposed to serfdom for the Poors and mIddle cLass, which would be a good thing. And so I am back. I will stand with the philosophy and principals of Ayn Rand and all those on the side of reason, limited government, and who believe in our Constitution "as written" (or how the Makers decide what "is written" means), and not how some libtards professor or lawyer wishes to interpret it for the good of The People.

And so, as stated above, I shall stand by these and I invite all who love liberty for the rich (and for the rich alone) and concentrating wealth at the top - to stand with me in bowing down to our wealthy rulers (and not the rUlers elected by The People). A tyranny of the rich or a tyranny of, by and for The People - which will you choose? Lying Lester thinks the choice is easy. Hint: it's a tyranny of the wealthy, if you believe allowing the rich to rule is "tyranny", which Lying Lester does not.

Lying Lester foolishly believes it is "freedom and liberty". Are you as foolish as Lying Lester? I surely hope you are... and that (due to your foolishness and love for the wealthy) you will vote for for Gary Johnson in 2016.

Byline: This feebleminded commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of foolishness. LLIN-073.

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

As the Senseful Violence Continues

In the spirit of Patriotism no doubt "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher (JTP) in one breath offered condolences to the slain victims of the UCSB shooting and in the next declared that "your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights". Technically I know he's right. Depending of course on how one interprets the 2nd Amendment. But that is what lIberal pRogressives do... "interpret". Lying Lester believes in following the Constitution as written.

Support for the 2nd Amendment and the right for the populace to bear arms for hunting and sport is something I believe the majority of of Americans are fine with. As well as their use in self defense, which is something Lying Lester takes seriously. Seriously, I'll blow your head off if you break into my home. Fewer people are OK with this (pansy lIberals, for example). They think criminals who break into your home have more rights than you do!.

In any case, the right to own firearms must be regulated and uniformly applied across the nation... if one does not believe in the 10th amendment, that is. Our patchwork of gun regulations and laws have done little to control the firearm violence that has spread in recent years, but that is the price that must be paid to ensure Liberty.

Firearm manufactures with their money and lobbyists, along with the NRA have effectively stymied any reasonable, responsible, and needed national policy to improve the public's safety with respect to firearms and the violence that no one can deny is increasing at an alarming rate. For a civilized people to accept the level of firearm violence the USA is experiencing and do nothing is admirable in Lying Lester's opinion. It shows we have a strong dedication to maximum Liberty.

One has to question exactly what the Founders would say today if they had a voice. They might say something about the 2nd amendment being about militias and not about an individual having the right to buy and own unlimited firearms with little regulation and that court rulings saying otherwise are a twisting of the amendment.

Or they might not. Lying Lester thinks people who say that would be the position of the Founders are gun-grabbing Constitution-hating lIberals who want to trample on my rights! In regards to what the Founders might REALLY say, I suspect they would not take the present position of the NRA and the firearms manufactures. It is is more likely they would find a way to protect the concerns of legitimate firearm owners and yet institute safeguards that more effectively protect the general public.

My right to own a firearm for the purpose of hunting and sporting is protected by the 2nd Amendment. However, what about the mentally unbalanced individual who wants to mow down people he doesn't like with a semiautomatic weapon or a handgun? These loons are the ones who SHOULD have their 2nd amendment rights taken away, yet we have states with open carry and such lax regulations that it is not difficult for anyone to acquire a firearm.

Please understand that I am a strong supporter of the 2nd and the ABSOLUTE Right of responsible law abiding citizens to own as many firearms as they want, withOUT having to register them with the gOvernment. I am however, like most people, against the needless death of innocent people that occurs when a cRazy gets hold of a gun. Especially when we can do something about it, like institutionalize them. Unfortunately money and the NRA seem to trump common sense.

So, as far as JTP goes, he was RIGHT when he said "as harsh as this sounds – your dead kids don't trump my Constitutional rights". Joe the Plumber is very much concerned about the gun-grab extremists, as is Lying Lester. But Lying Lester doesn't think we should do nothing. Lying Lester thinks we need to take away 2nd rights from those who don't deserve them. The cRazies, in other words.

And we ALL KNOW the kid who killed those young women was a cRazy, due to the videos he posted on YouTube. So why couldn't the cops grab him and send him to a mental institution where he belonged? Those are the laws that need to be changed. If you're obviously a cRazy you should be locked up, or at least kept away from guns.

In that regard Lying Lester stands with JTP. There is no way in hell 2nd supporters (like Joe and myself) will stand for the exploiting of these types of tragedies by the gun-grab extremists of the anti-Second Amendment lEft. Believe you me, Lying Lester is willing to lay down his life to protect his RIGHT to own as many guns as he pleases. On the day the lIberal pRogressive gestapo comes for Lying Lester, I will USE my guns to take as many of them to the grave with me as possible.

Remember a certain group of people that were led willing to Hitler's gas chambers? Well, Lying Lester sure as hell won't go willing to the lIberal pRogressive gas chambers... and that in no way makes Lying Lester a "cRazy" - it makes him a rational Freedom and Liberty loving Patriot.

Byline: This Constitution-affirming commentary was typed out by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-072.

Tuesday, May 27, 2014

Good News From Wisconsin: Free Speech Rights Defended

Special interests at play in the political arena. Money does indeed talk and what it buys is sometimes not good for this floundering dEmocratic Republic.

When a federal judge blocks an investigation into the possibility of illegal spending during a recall election it should raise some eyebrows, especially when the judge orders all the evidence gathered destroyed.

If you're thinking the name Koch figures into this somehow you'd be correct.

PR Watch - The federal judge who ordered a halt to Wisconsin's "John Doe" criminal investigation into spending during the 2011 and 2012 recall elections has regularly attended all-expenses paid "judicial junkets" funded by the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, and other ideological and corporate interests.

On May 6, federal District Court Judge Rudolph Randa blocked an ongoing John Doe criminal probe into allegedly illegal coordination between nonprofit groups like WI Club for Growth, which spent $9.1 million on electoral ads during Wisconsin's recall elections, and the recall campaigns of Governor Scott Walker and state senators. ... WI Club for Growth director, Eric O'Keefe, a longtime compatriot of the Koch brothers, asked the federal court to stop the probe, alleging it violated their "free speech" rights.

Judge Randa sided with O'Keefe, and also ordered prosecutors to destroy all evidence gathered in the investigation... An analysis by the Center for Media and Democracy shows that Judge Randa attended privately-funded, all-expenses-paid judicial seminars put on by George Mason University in 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012...

The George Mason University seminars are bankrolled by a long list of right-wing foundations, like Koch, Bradley, and the Searle Freedom Trust, as well as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and corporations like BP, Exxon Mobil, and Dow Chemical. Many of these interests have long opposed limits on money in politics... (Link).

Lying Lester's eyebrows are definitely raised, along with the corners of his mouth (Lying Lester is smiling). When money talks and it's the money of the uNions or pRogressive sPecial interests, that is bad. In this case, however, we're talking about the money of the Libertarian Kochs, so what their money bought is good.

That would be the speech of the Koch Brothers, and YES, this probe DOES violate the Koch brother's free speech rights. Lying Lester thanks the ghost of Ayn Rand that there some judges who base their rulings on the Constitution instead of legislating from the bench.

Byline: This celebration of good news in Wisconsin was expertly composed by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason, an exceptional individual otherwise known as Lester Nation. Purveyor of calling out schmucks. LLIN-071.

Monday, May 26, 2014

Lying Lester Misses His Good Buddy Rusticus

Rusticus Shackelford, known affectionately by me as "Schmuckelford", due to the fact that he is a schmuck, used to be a regular visitor to this blog. Rusticus and I have argued in the past, usually due to anger on my part after my buddy writes something incredibly stupid or insulting.

But I have come to realize that is just the way Rusticus is. It's just his nature to be an as$hole. Lying Lester accepts this, as many (if not most) people who know Lying Lester (both online and off) think the same of him.

In that respect Rusticus and I are kindred spirits. There are people who loath Rusticus just as there are people who loath good ol' Lying Lester. Although in Lying Lester's case the hatred is due entirely to jealously, while in Rusticus' case the hatred is due to him being a total jagoff.

But Rusticus did voice support for this blog, and for that Lying Lester is appreciative... and therefore willing to overlook what a jagoff he is. I mean, if Rusticus was someone Lying Lester encountered in real life, he'd probably end up beating the shit out of him (that is, if Rusticus didn't pee his pants before running away).

However, Lying Lester does not have to deal with Rusticus in real life (and for that he is appreciative as well). That being the case, Lying Lester extends an olive branch in fRiendship to Mr. Schmuckelford.

Even though I realize Rusticus may very well slap that olive branch out of my hand and tell Lying Lester to go f*ck himself... metaphorically speaking, he might do those things, that is. In a real life encounter he would be far too scared.

For the record, whatever Rusticus decides is fine by Lying Lester. It isn't as if he's going to have hurt feelings if Rusticus rejects his offer of fRiendship. It is his loss if he does. Lying Lester already has a number of fRiends of all political persuasions. As readers of this blog may know, Lying Lester is fRiends with the lIberal Octopus as well as the Conservative dmarks.

Although both of those individuals only visit and comment on Lying Lester's other blog, rAtional nAtion uSA (even though they are aware this blog exists). I guess a person only has so much time in their day to read and comment on blogs.

But Rusticus only occasionally comments on RNUSA, and only a few times here... and the last few he made fun of this blog's lack of comments. Surely I would be justified in telling Rusticus to go to hell. But Lying Lester is the Bigger Man (if Rusticus can be considered a man at all), so I will take the high road to refuse to insult Mr. Schmuckelford.

In fact, Lying Lester's magnanimity is so great that he will invite Rusticus to comment on his blog AND be his fRiend. The ball is in your court, Schmuckelford.

Byline: This introsepctive commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of calling out schmucks. LLIN-070.

Sunday, May 25, 2014

Lying Lester's Mother Told Him: You've Got to Shop Around

When Lying Lester was just a lad of 17 (in 1971), his mother told him he had to shop around. Just like in the 1960 song performed by the Negro singing group The Miracles - Lying Lester's mother gave her grown son advice about how to find a woman worthy of being a girlfriend or wife.

Seems that mom recognized that her prized precocious child was now a Man, and an extremely masculine Man at that. Dear old mom cautioned young Lester against accepting just any woman as a girlfriend or wife. No, an ordinary female would not do. She needed to be a 10 in the looks department with at least a B cup.

And, not only only did she need to have supermodel looks, but she needed a brain to match. Now, mom strongly cautioned Lester from hooking up with a woman who was smarter than him (as unlikely a possibility that may have been), but neither would her son be satisfied with a dolt, as Lying Lester has little patience for idiots - or even those with an average intelligence.

Of course it goes without saying that the future Mrs. Nation would also need to be good in bed and willing to do ANYTHING to please her mate. And, while, given the impressiveness of Lester's manhood, ANY woman would want to get with him... still, not just any woman would do. Lester's mother, being his mother, had seen his equipment and knew just how impressive it was. Even though the last time she had seen it was when he was a small child (you perverts).

So Lying Lester did not have any problem bedding hot women who were 10s in terms of appearance (nor does he today). But intellectually they were always lacking, and, after Lester had his way with them, he kicked them to the curb.

Eventually Lying Lester came to the realization that he should never marry, given his level of success and super manliness, he never could trust that a woman was not just interested in him for his body or his money.

That was, until I met HER. Lying Lester married her, had a son with her (that he named after himself, of course) and then divorced. Lying Lester really did try to make it work, but I should have realized that such an endeavor was doomed to fail.

And, wisely, Lying Lester did have his wife-to-be (at the time) sign a prenup, so Lying Lester wasn't on the hook for alimony or any splitting of assets (which were kept separate). Although I did willingly contribute something to the raising of my son. A thing I did happily.

Why? Because it was always a dream of mine to have a son to carry on the family name. Fortunately the junior Lester turned out to be a winner just like his dad. If not I'd have had to kick him to the curb, disown him, and try again.

Now that Lying Lester is a (divorced) free man, he can have sexual relations with as many women as he pleases. In a prior post I said I might go to the rEpublican national convention and hire some hookers, but that was a joke.

Usually, when I see a beautiful woman that I'd like to sex up, I simply point at her and say "you". Then we go back to her place and bone. And I leave as soon as we're finished... without telling her my name or where I live, I might add. And the woman (usually) never complains; realizing that one night with me is far more than she deserves.

Yes, there have been women who have begged for Lying Lester to lay them down and make sweet, amazing love to them for a second time, but Lying Lester usually refuses. Those are the ones he leaves crying (not that I feel the least bit guilty, mind you).

And this is the same advice that I've given my son, the fourth Lester in a line of super-intelligent manly Men. Shop around. Spread your seed, but use protection. And, when it comes time to propagate the family line, marry the woman (Nations do NOT father bastards). But be sure to get her to sign a prenup.

BTW, Lying Lester's mom never told him there was some things that he did not understand. Mom knew her son understood it all. Also, when I said that I refuse a woman who requests another boning, I meant on another day. In one session Lying Lester has boned the same woman dozens of times. Or the same womEn, depending on how many partners I've agreed to satisfy at once.

Byline: This Manly commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Manliness. LLIN-069.

Saturday, May 24, 2014

Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason

Lester Nation is a nobleman (noble Man), noble not by birth, but by his superior intellect. I have therefore decided that instead of "Mister", which is the usual prefix a Man attaches to the beginning of his name, I will henceforth use the title "Lord".

Also, given that I am a fan of the period of Enlightenment that was enjoyed here in the United States under the Founders, I have decided I shall append "Man of Reason" to the end of my name. I shall therefore be formally known as "Lord Lester Nation: Man of Reason", but you can still call me Lying Lester, informally.

This new title is, I believe, more befitting a Man of superior intellect, skill, strength, and sexual prowess such as myself. Make fun if you will, but Lying Lester shall take such taunts in stride, knowing they almost certainly come from a place of jealously.

Lying Lester knows this because he has had to deal with the unbridled jealousy his Manliness causes in those of a lesser stock his whole life. Yes, Lying Lester is fully aware that he possesses that set of qualities or characteristics generally considered typical of, or appropriate to, a Man, as described in Dr. Ronald F. Levant's Masculinity Reconstructed as "avoidance of femininity; restricted emotions; sex disconnected from intimacy; pursuit of achievement and status; self-reliance; strength; and aggression".

Lying Lester absolutely possesses all these qualities in spades, which is why a title of nobility is well deserved. Although it is a status-thing only, as the Constitution forbids the granting of actual titles of nobility. Perhaps this is something that the Founders messed up on?

Lying Lester is inclined to think they may have, as he is surely deserving of such a title - which is why Lying Lester is thinking he should require those beneath him to henceforth refer to him as "my Lordship"... at least in non-casual situations.

Byline: This noble commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Libertarian "reason". LLIN-068.

Lying Lester Asks: Are Money & Speech One In The Same?

Some say money is speech. At one time I argued that money was speech and corporations, individuals, political parties, and organizations (special interests) ought to be able to spend freely to "get their message out". After all isn't that one way voters keep informed?

But my position has, shall we say, evolved. Some say money can be considered speech if all parties have the same ability to spend large sums of it to get their voices "heard". Of course we all know this is not the case and realistically it never will be. The larger the corporation, the wealthier the individual, or the more flush the super PAC the bigger voice they have. So, what does this mean from a practical viewpoint? In a word INFLUENCE.

Money buys influence. Money combined with influence is power. And the more money that is available the more influence and power can be bought. So if you're the average person on the street, the small business competing against the big guys, or a politician with a small campaign war chest you simply don't stand an equal chance. The big money gets people elected, the big money buys influence, and the interests of the those without the same ability to spend rarely get noticed.

Some say the nation ought to be looking at real campaign finance reform and limiting the influence money has on the political process. The RNC, disagreeing with this position, has filed a lawsuit against the Federal Election Commission to allow it to solicit UNLIMITED cash amounts from individuals. Of course the argument is again the Article 1 of The Bill of Rights; aka the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Lawrence Noble, general counsel to the FEC from 1987 to 2000 and now an adviser at the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center says that "if the RNC is successful, we will again see party committees brazenly soliciting $1 million contributions from wealthy contributors seeking to directly purchase influence over candidates and officeholders, with the party committees acting as the sales agent".

Lawrence Noble is right. Although I must say... what the hell is wrong with the idea of those with the most money having the most political influence? That is the place that Lying Lester's position has "evolved" to. At one time I argued that money was speech and corporations, individuals, political parties, and organizations (special interests) ought to be able to spend freely to "get their message out"... and now my "evolved" position is that I will argue this more fervently.

Because money and speech ARE one in the same. And I believe that considering money speech resulting in elections basically being bought by whoever spends the most - that is a good thing. Why? Because money equals influence, and influence equals power. And the wealthy - having proven that they are superior to the rAbble by the mere fact that they have more money then them - SHOULD rightfully have great power. That being the case, Lying Lester prays to the ghost of Ayn Rand that the RNC wins it's lawsuit.

Sure, I'd be happier if gOvernment were so small that buying influence with politicians would be pointless, but we don't live in that world. Elect Gary Johnson in 2016 and maybe we can do something about the situation, but in the meantime I strongly object to limiting the "speech" (or the buying of it with large amounts of money) of wealthy people.

Byline: This evolved commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Advocator of money equaling speech. LLIN-067.

Friday, May 23, 2014

Wise Thoughts From A Randian Capitalist, Limited gOvernment, Classical Liberal & Advocate of Maximum Individual Liberty

It has allegedly been said as one gets older they get wiser. This is quite probable as the experiences of a long and productive life gives a person many references that naturally become part of their life experience and mold their philosophy of existence, although sometimes Lying Lester feels as if he is getting stupider as the years go by.

Of course the getter wiser assumes the individual chooses to use reality and the truth of rational unemotional and unethical thought to guide them. Both in their analysis as well as their ultimate conclusions on every important issue of their life, as Lying Lester does. But very few people are as wise as Lying Lester.

I was not a advocate nor a supporter of William Jefferson Clinton in his hey day as pResident and Commander in Chief. He was, in my incorrect opinion, just a bit too pRogressive (incorrect in that WJC was actually a 3rd way Conservative dEmocrat) as well as being a bit untrustworthy (in getting busy with an intern, which is unbecoming a US pOtus).

Forgive me as I have digressed... for reasons that, perhaps, include senility?

In any case, I recently stumbled across an article published back in 2012 on The Daily Beast, a lEftist website I rarely visit. On the rare occasions when I do, I typically find it to contain a boatload of BS, or views that disagree with the particular flavor of BS I prefer (Objectivist Libertarianism).

But today was interestingly different. I found myself reading and rereading the auricle expressing ex pResident Bill Clinton's position on various things. Not reading and rereading because I fully disagreed nor fully agreed with his positions. Rather I ALMOST fully disagreed.

Bubba: In the 51 years since President Kennedy took the oath of office, Republicans have had 28 years in the White house; Democrats have had 23. In the same half century, the economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs - 42 million of them under the Democrats, 24 million under the Republicans. "No one states these facts", Clinton asserts. found many of his arguments to be both interesting as well as some possessing a bit of merit.

The facts may be true, but nobody states them because they are misleading. Sure, the recession began under pResident bush, but oBama continued making things worse by giving away a bunch of money to connected cronies via the so-called stimulus. Then the economy began to recover (on it's own). And, seeing as it had fallen so far, it had a long way to go to get back to where it was.

Lying Lester does not believe that oBama or the dEmocrats are responsible for creating those jobs. Our beloved job creators created the jobs (which is why they call them JOB CREATORS) *despite* gOvernment meddling. This is a testament to capitalism and not sTatism.

Then WJC rambled on about how oBamaFArt is good and how the SCOTUS striking down the individual mandate would be bad (the article was written before the SCOTUS decision in which the traitor Roberts upheld it).

Anyway, as a person enters the senior years of their life they become more reflective. In the process the individual seems to gain the ability to fully grasp more complex perspectives that only experience can give them. That is to say if they have managed to stay awake throughout their life and take in all the intellectual stimuli that life and reality provides. Also if they do not go senile, as Lying Lester may have.

Of course it is the ideal for one to retain an objective and rational ability to determine reality as it is, rather than how one may wish it to be. Which I suppose is the reason I put this post up. To suggest that everyone, whether they are conservative, liberal, neo-conservative, Libertarian, Objectivist, Platonic, or Aristotelian in their leanings consider the merits or lack thereof of the article.

My conclusion? pResident WJC most definitely does not have all the answers. In fact he may only have a few. A very few. Or possibly none. It might even be possible that he has NEGATIVE ideas (although I am not sure how that could even be possible). Certainly this Randian capitalist, limited government, classical liberal, and advocate of maximum individual liberty has many issues with ex pResident WJC. However, given his intelligence and experience (personal shortcomings aside) his views are at least worth considering. And then rejecting.

Naturally this means with an active and inquisitive mind. Something I fear too few lIberals and conservatives do in this day and age of wedge politics. I have prepared myself for the possible backlash this post might cause. I stand ready to defendantize the post as well as the logical and rational justification for having posted it. Which is to go on and on and on and on and on and on about how Lying Lester is a superior thinker because he is an old fart, but a RATIONAL old fart who examines the evidence unemotionally (and is therefore RIGHT while so many others are wrong).

Simply stated it is time the political activists of both parties, the candidates as well as current office holders, and the general population start to engage in studying both sides of issues and civilly discuss/debate the possible disadvantages as well as the possible advantages of all positions... and then to vote Libertarian.

Based solely on empirical data and actual facts that is the conclusion that we should be able to easily reach. Sadly this nation and its people seems to have lost the ability to do so. Admittedly I have taken a very long way around in getting to the subject matter that drove this post. I humbly ask your understanding for this and hope you posses the capacity to understand the reason why I did so, even though I do not.

Please take the time to read WJC's article in full. Consider the thoughts of this ex pResident. Weigh them against all opposing views. After doing so decide based on logical and rational criteria, not emotionally driven concerns or experiences. In the final analysis reason and logic must prevail and we MUST elect Gary Johnson in 2016.

Certainly this is true if this nation is to survive as we have known it. Both for the next millennium and beyond.

Byline: This senile commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of senility. LLIN-066.

Thursday, May 22, 2014

The Hate Filled lEft: No Tolerance For Lying Lester's Bullsh!t

After a week of liberal bashing from a prominent pRogressive/sOcialist/Leninist blogger of note who runs a relatively successful pRogressive/sOcialist/Leninist site I have NOW become a firm believer pRogressives present the most dangerous threat to freedom of speech and liberty there is or ever was.

Why you may ask do I say this? A fair and reasonable question. The answer to this fair and reasonable question lies in the following individual's comments made on a lIberal blog I visit fairly often. Following is an example why there can be no reasonable dialogue or bi-partisanship with the far out emotional lEft.

pRogressive-lIberal As$hole: I read the comment of Lester Nation and recalled his relentless 'liberal-bashing', as if this kind of stereotyping is somehow different from outright bullying and abuse. It is not. It is just as inflammatory and defamatory and abusive as every other kind of bullying we are forced to endure online, and his intellectual dishonesty makes me sick. Here is the arsonist trying to make everyone think he is putting out the fire. Bullshit in extremis. (Link).

OK, so these criticisms might be 100 percent accurate, but does that mean I have to like them? No way, Jose! lIberals pointing out the truth - and having no tolerance for my intolerance and intellectual dishonesty... truthful statements such as the one above are deemed by me to be propaganda from the misguided, angry, and hateful lEft. As a purveyor of poop as well as an independent conservative with strong Libertarian leanings I trust you will understand my aMazement at the obvious hatred for untruths the far extreme lEft has at it's core.

Do I not have the right to spew my own hateful drivel and falsehoods without being called on it? Some might call this attitude of mine (I can lie but won't tolerate being called on my lies) ridiculous, but I say this exemplifies the liberality extremis. As in Leninist/Stalinist ideology extreme.

The lEft is, and always has been, the first at labeling those who disagree with their progressive/socialist/Leninist ideology as UN American, racist, homophobic. and UN Patriotic. They have a lot of nerve telling the truth about fools such as myself. The logical question is this... Who is really these things?

The lEft, who believes everyone should vote, including the Poors - who will only vote themselves more unearned gifts from the gOvernment (paid for by raising taxes on successful people like Lying Lester), or fiscal conservatives like myself - people with the intelligence to realize that the wealthy SHOULD have most of the wealth of our nation?

Obviously if you're a rational individual you agree with Lying Lester about the Right of the wealthy to reign supreme. F*ck the Will of The People, Lying Lester says. gOvernment by mob rule is the wrong way to go in my informed opinion. gOvernment needs to get out of the way and allow the wealthy job creators to do their thing, which is to work toward concentrating wealth at the top.

Also, to further impoverish the mIddle cLass and the wOrking Poors... and, isn't that what we all want?

Byline: This hate-filled commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of lEftist intolerance for my intolerance. LLIN-065.

Wednesday, May 21, 2014

Lying Lester Strongly Supports Dishonest rEpublican Attempts to Disenfranchise dEmocratic Voters

Lying Lester strongly supports dishonest rEpublican attempts to disenfranchise dEmocratic voters. Previously on this blog I said I "reluctantly endorsed voter suppression"... but I'm ready to admit now that I was lying. Given that my chosen moniker is LYING Lester, can you honestly say that you're surprised?

However, I've also said (in my initial post) that I planned on revealing "stark truths" here on this blog, and claimed that I am a "superior individual who can see the truth where others cannot".

However, one must keep in mind that I admitted that my "truth" is bullplop and that my goal is to obfuscate the truth (the actual truth, and not the "truth" I prefer).

And, that rEpublicans are suppressing the right of legitimate and legally-entitled-to vote individuals through dishonest means is a tRuth that Lying Lester most assuredly wants obfuscated.

Hence a recent lie-based post on my other blog (the one where my goal is to see how many untruths I can get by my unsuspecting readers), rAtional nAtion uSA.

The tolerance hyperbole of Howard Dean. He wants rEpublicans to move to Russia. Personally I am hoping for Howard to figure continue to speak out vocally. And loudly. Very loudly. The public just might get to see another Howard tirade like the one that ended his presidential aspirations. (A RNUSA post expressing my OUTRAGE regarding remarks from last week by Howard Dean - see video at the bottom of this post).

Can Howard Dean's enthusiasm really be described as him "bellowing like a beast", as one foolish commenter on RNUSA claimed (multiple times)?

Diane Sawyer [reported] ...that Dean was using a special microphone that night that filters out crowd noise to heighten his voice; other videotapes taken illustrate that his "scream" was barely audible to his live audience. (CNN Says It Overplayed Dean's Iowa Scream, 2/9/2014).

So, obviously Dean was simply fired up and speaking with enthusiasm, which is a good thing for a politician to do. But this is a lie that the foolish dmarks (the dense dude who thinks Dean bellowed "like a pterodactyl") likes.

And, if there is one thing that Lying Lester can absolutely not be accused of, it is not telling his RNUSA readers the lies they like to hear. Or, the Conservative readers, at least. The lIberal pRogressive ones don't care for the political lies very much... so I tell them lies about me having an active mind and "realizing there is something to be learned from everyone".

Ha ha ha ha ha. Are pRogressives gullible or what?

As for Dean's truthful comments about rEpublicans thinking it is OK to be taking away people's right to vote, Lying Lester feigns outrage over this comment on RNUSA... because it serves a purpose of obfuscating the truth about rEpublican voter suppression. Which is that they're engaging in it; because it is virtually the only way they can win.

So, just to be clear, in the video below Howard Dean is telling the truth... and on "rAtional nAtion uSA" Lying Lester is feigning outrage over this comment; as well as lying about the "Dean Scream" (a nod to my buddy dmarks).

And THIS is one of the "stark truths" I promised to reveal in my initial post... the truth about what a liar I am. But deluded dummies will continue to believe these lies no matter what, and for that I am grateful (Redneck Poors will continue to vote rEpublican). Of course there are those (superior individuals such as myself) that tell these lies KNOWING they are lies.

Why? Because they further the greater good of keeping the plutocrats powerful and concentrating wealth at the top. Do you think the electorate would continue to vote rEpublican or even libertarian if they knew the truth?

Compositional Attribution: This excellent post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of lying about dEmocrats. LLIN-064.

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Lying Lester The Problem Solver

OK, so the question is... Is the individual responsible, either morally or otherwise, for his brother's or sister's welfare and insuring their well being? Put another way... Are you your brothers (sisters) keeper?

And the answer is an emphatic NO. Also, if you answered yes to either of the afore-going questions you are an avowed progressive, socialist, Marxist and need read no further. Why? Because Lying Lester knows you do not try to reason with that which is evil.

If however, you stopped to seriously ponder the questions with an open mind, and to consider the proper role of government versus that of the individual to insure their well being then please read on (people who agree with me have open minds).

As individuals we are ethically responsible for ourselves, and only for ourselves. We have no right, natural or societally given to impose that responsibility upon another. We either rise or fall on the merits of our own individual effort and capabilities. As Ayn Rand recognized, selfishness is the HIGHEST virtue.

The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of the United States of America when taken together insure the right to our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That and the guarantee that we have, and shall retain the right of self government based on the principles enumerated in the Constitution. The Founders were all selfish as*holes like me, in other words.

With respect to one's current and future well being; the responsibility to insure we have a satisfactory means to take care of our health concerns rests with each individual, not with society at large, and certainly not with the government. Should we be concerned if poor people are dying in the streets? Absolutely not. Aside from the fact that Lying Lester hates poor people, I do not want my money stolen to save the lives of any losers.

The notion that you are responsible for your own health care is similar to the idea that responsibility for providing satisfactorily for our senior years also rests with the individual. The decisions each individual makes, or, on the other hand chooses to evade will ultimately determine their happiness during their retirement. And, if circumstances beyond your control ruin your carefully laid plans, Lying Lester simply does not give a shit.

Individuals must take responsibility for their own needs and wants. Governments place is to oversee the existence of a civil society and enforce laws that will protect and preserve the peace and security of society. It is not now, nor has it ever been the responsibility of the state to insure all individuals are guaranteed equal results under the law. Rather the sTate's roll is to insure only the equal opportunity under the law. Results are the responsibility of each individual to secure through their own efforts and perseverance.

Obviously the lIberal pRogressives strongly disagree with my Randian sentiments expressed above. They believe that we (sOciety) are/is our brother's and sister's keeper, but Lying Lester regards such sentiments are pure evil.

This is what charities are for, stupid pRogressives! If you want to voluntarily give your hard earned money to a worthless loser, do it though a charity and LEAVE ME OUT of the equation! Frankly Lying Lester thinks you're throwing your money away, but I support your right to do with YOUR money has you see fit (including throwing it away to "help" worthless gutter trash). You do NOT, however, have any right to do with MY money as YOU please!

That said, Lying Lester MIGHT support using public dollars to feed poor people... if it were the RIGHT kind of program. Feeding young and healthy poor losers by grinding up and turning old/feeble sick poor losers into some kind of foodstuff... that is the kind of program Lying Lester could support.

Although, now that I think about it, such a program of turning worthless undesirables into food for losers who could provide some value as menial labor would probably be a task best handled by our corporations.

Which is why Lying Lester would support the passage of legislation allowing licenses to be granted to the rich to hunt and kill, or otherwise roundup the poor so they could be euthanized and fed to other Poors still in good health.

Under this legislation our corporations would be given license to round up the Poors and sort them into two groups: one group of old/sickly Poors that would be used as food for the second group of Poors (the young healthy one). This second group would then be forced to provide menial labor for the corporations (in exchange for very low wages).

This would ethically solve our homeless problem and our problem of sick people who can't afford medical care. "Ethical" because we would not need to resort to the evils of wEalth rEdistribution or infringe on the Rights or Liberties of anyone with worth (non-Poors). Call me Lying Lester The Problem Solver.

Authorship Attribution: This excellent post was composed by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of solving problems. LLIN-063.

Lying Lester The Hedonist

Oops, not again. As the GOP leadership considers which major city to host its 2016 national convention the rEligious rIght has warned against selecting Las Vegas. It matters not (apparently) the positive attributes of the cities ability to host a major national convention, the numbers of hotels etc. it matters only that Vegas is considered "The City of Sin" by the self righteous rollers that comprise the rEligious fUndamEntal faction of the GOP. Is anyone taking bets on what the Gee-Oh-Pee'er leadership will decide?

Washington... Some of the heaviest hitters on the religious right are pressuring GOP leaders to cross off Las Vegas as a potential host city for its 2016 convention, warning that putting the next convention in Sin City will harm the party's image and drive away supporters.

The leaders sent a letter last week to Republican chairman Reince Priebus, putting him on notice that picking Vegas would generate friction. They call the city a "trap waiting to ensnare". ...What could go wrong? The answer is obvious.

Leaders from the religious right who have joined the effort include Tim Wildmon, president of the American Family Association; Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum; Andrea Lafferty, president of the Traditional Values Coalition; Paul Caprio, director of Family-PAC; and James Dobson, president of Family Talk ministry.

"The GOP is supposedly interested in reaching out to conservatives and evangelicals. Maybe that's just a front, but if they really mean it this is not the way to do it", Dobson said Tuesday. "Even though Vegas has tried to shore itself up and call itself family-friendly, it's still a metaphor for decadence. There's still 64 pages of escort services in the yellow pages. ...You can't have it both ways". (Link).

Yowzah! 64 pages of escort services! Should the leadership decides to go with Las Vegas I for one will start making early plans to attend the festivities. Festivities including hiring a few hookers to join Lying Lester in his hotel room. Better remember to bring the Viagra! What happens in Vegas STAYS in Vegas, Baby!

Byline: This hedonistic commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of hedonism. LLIN-062.

Monday, May 19, 2014

Lying Lester Asks: Does it Take A Village?

I guess it depends on your view as to what it means to "raise a child". I think a strong, cohesive, loving, and supportive family (immediate and extended) is important to successfully raising a child. As well as lots of money. Poor people usually have problems with their kids, including them ending up behind bars. That's just a fact.

However, Hillary was right that the influence of teachers, coaches, spiritual leaders, etc. plays a part in helping to shape a child's view of life as well. Although "spiritual leaders" shape the child's worldview for the worse, as rEligion is basically the belief in an imaginary fRiend who happens to be all-powerful. Imaginary fRiends are something kids should grow out of early and not take into adulthood.

But it is the immediate family influence during a child's early developmental years that lays the foundation for a well adjusted and successful adult life. In most cases. This is where poor parents who are on the dole can have a very negative influence on a child's views. This concerns Lying Lester very much, although he isn't sure what the answer is.

Perhaps losers on the dole should be sterilized in order to get assistance? Yes, that would be a horrible violation of a mother's liberty to have children as she sees fit... but you have to remember we're talking about poor people here... and, as I'm sure you know (if you read this blog), Lying Lester does not believe poor people should have the same rights as the rest of us.

Also, I sure as hell wouldn't want the "village" of Detroit, Oakland, DC, Los Angeles, Chicago, or numerous other large drug infested and crime ridden cities "raising" my children if I was still of child rearing age.

In any case, and in reply to the original question I posed... NO, it does not take a village to raise a child. Just parents who work hard and are not losers. Also, reading Ayn Rand to your kid would, in Lying Lester's opinion, be an extraordinary idea.

Byline: The author of this commentary is Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-061.

Lying Lester's Deep Thoughts & Stuff #2

The reason for this post today is that I must comment that I, Lying Lester, have, from time to time been quilty of cherry-picking data to validate my viewpoint, revising history to validate my subjective agenda, and demonstrating a knee-jerk intolerance for any difference of opinion.

Most notably I am quilty of the use of derogatory descriptive adjectives like POS, "asshat", "devious" and many others. I guess you have to take the good with the not so good. We've all been quilty at one time or another I suspect.

I must also admit that Lying Lester is quilty of these transgressions more than the average person. Far more. I tend to not extend the benefit of the doubt to people. I believe most are basically dishonest like myself. How someone interprets information will shape their conclusions. Misrepresenting information is often due to this, although, this usually does not apply to any incorrect information disseminated by yours truly. They don't call me Lying Lester for no reason.

Everyone has an agenda and the human tendency is to frame it in the best light, or even to outright lie, as I often do. As to politics and governing, neither conservatives, pRogressives, rEpublicans or dEmocrats are immune from the temptation to spin the information to best suit their agenda. I have come to accept it simply is what it is and efforts to change it are, in the end futile.

Hopefully more of us have active inquisitive minds and don't just dismiss everything we prefer not to consider because it doesn't fit old paradigms or simply makes us uncomfortable.

What I'm saying is that I'm hopeful that people out there in Blogostan will take me at my word and continue to buy my bullshit. I'm VERY hopeful, in fact, that Lying Lester will NEVER be called out on his lies by his so-called fRiends (people who Lying Lester actually considers dupes he has masterfully tricked). :)

Byline: The deep thinking author of these deep thoughts is Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of deep thoughts. LLIN-060.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

The Enlightened Lying Lester

Voltaire... he was quite a character, huh? Yes indeed. A man of the Enlightenment and a Classical Liberal. Those must have been the days! If Lying Lester could time travel back to one historical period in our nation's history, it would be the days of the Founders.

Why? Because Lying Lester would have been welcomed with open arms by the Founders, as Lying Lester and the Founders are (were) of a like mind, in agreement on virtually all the important issues of the day.

That only rich land-owning White men should be the decision makers? Lying Lester and the Founders agree. That taxes should be kept low? As I recall the income tax did not come about until MUCH later. The Founders did not believe in individual taxation at all... the same as Lying Lester.

Slavery? The Founders agreed that Black people should be kept in chains and forced to work for rich White folks. Lying Lester does the Founders one better, believing that not just poor Blacks should be bound in servitude to rich White "job creators", but that Poor Whites should be as well. Although Lying Lester thinks that if a Black person has what it takes to get rich, then he (or, less likely, she) should be able to employ some poor wage slaves too. (Lying Lester believes in equal opportunity enslavement).

Yes, there is no doubt about it... Lying Lester, with his superior mind, would fit right in alongside the enlightened thinkers that existed during this Age of Reason. During this cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in late 17th-century Europe that emphasized reason and individualism rather than tradition - people, unlike today - realized that the answers were not to be found with an all-powerful sTate.

No, during this time society was reformed using reason. Ideas grounded in tradition and faith were challenged, and knowledge was advanced through the scientific method. Lying Lester, just like these superior individuals, believed in promoting scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange.

Lying Lester would have LOVED to be part of this revolution in human thought. This new way of thinking was that rational thought begins with clearly stated principles, uses correct logic to arrive at conclusions, tests the conclusions against evidence, and then revises the principles in the light of the evidence.

All principals that Lying Lester applies to his everyday life. And Lying Lester is a advanced thinker who is opposed to the fantastical superstitions of rEligion, just as the deep thinkers who lived during this grand period of history were.

Had Lying Lester lived during this time period (or could time travel back to it) he likely would have been invited to participate in the Constitutional Convention and help author the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution. Nay, likely Lying Lester would have ended up authoring large portions of it.

And then Lying Lester would have likely went on to serve as one of the early POTUSes, as many of the Founders did. President Lester Nation would have gone down in the history books as one of the greatest US presidents to ever serve, of that I am 100 percent certain. No doubt Lying Lester would be remembered as our GREATEST Founding Father and Greatest President. Greater even than Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson.

Can there be any doubt that Lying Lester was born during the wrong period of history? Instead of Lying Lester quoting and admiring Ayn Rand, Ayn Rand would have been influenced by Lying Lester. And (future president) Gary Johnson would likely have modeled his administration on the presidency of Lying Lester.

Byline: This enlightened commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of enlightenment. LLIN-059.

Lying Lester's Deep Thoughts & Stuff #1

I've been thinking... or perhaps more accurately stated I've been trying to think above the noise of the thoughtless idiots on the lEft as well as those on the rIght (but mostly on the lEft).

With the exception of exceptional individuals like Lying Lester, does anyone actually think ENTIRELY for themselves? Or do most wait to test which way the wind is blowing on any given day, week, month, or year?

After years of blogging (both here and on my other site, rAtional nAtion uSA), visiting conservative, moderate, and lIberal sites - it seem most follow the blast of some unseen fog horn announcing the proper and correct path all good sheeples should follow. Without question. I should know, being a superior individual who can see the truth where others cannot.

For many this works. After all it IS the easy path. Letting others decide what the proper and reasonable path to liberty and happiness is. Just believe and ye shall be rewarded with eternal blissful happiness.

After all, isn't everyone too busy trying to earn a living, assuming of course they have been able to find employment, to concern themselves with the often intangibles of what exactly the sTate's role in their life ought to be?

Or, sometimes what the role ought NOT to be?

lIberal pRogressives and rEpublicans alike, sTatists both in their own unique way claim to have the answers to what ails American society and it's economy. However, there is little truth to be found from either side. Except the rEpublican side, who at least knows taxes on the wealthy should be kept low. But it is undoubtedly true that neither has the complete answer to anything.

Yet both sides CHOOSE to remain deaf, dumb, or ignorant of the possibility the synergy created by the fine art of honest negotiated compromise just might {and most probably will} render the best and most workable solution for the nation.

That compromise? Getting more Libertarian, shrinking government, and allowing the wealthy to rule by default instead of The People via their elected representatives. But, I guess pride gets in the way sometimes and clouds better judgement.

It has been said the more things change the more they stay the same. Can anyone in good conscience disagree that the worthy goal of concentrating wealth at the top could be more easily attained if only more people were hip to the timeless wizzdumb of Ayn Rand? Or at least fooled into accepting it as Timeless Wisdom? Methinks not. But, then again, we can't all be genusisus (or complete fools) like Lying Lester (who is both}.

Byline: This entirely-thought-out-by-himself commentary was written by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of deep thoughts & timeless wizzdumb. LLIN-058.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

The Wisdom of Voltaire & The Foolishness of Lying Lester

Fran├žois-Marie Arouet (11/21/1694 – 5/30/1778), known by his nom de plume Voltaire, was a French Enlightenment writer, historian and philosopher famous for his wit, his attacks on the established Catholic Church, and his advocacy of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state. (Source: Wikipedia)

Below I have transcribed (or cut and pasted, in computer parlance) some Voltaire quotes I feel are worthy of reflecting upon, followed by my interpretation/take on said quote...

Voltaire: I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Lying Lester: Sure I'll defend your right to say it... otherwise how can I make fun of you for saying it? In all honesty, this is one of my favorite quotes to pay lip service to, as it makes me appear reasonable to my lIberal "fRiends". And, if I can't trick you into being my fRiend, I'll ban you from my blog.

Voltaire: It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.

Lying Lester: This is an example of something I might say after I've just defended your right to say something with which I disagree. Like I said, I can't make fun of you for saying something foolish unless you say it.

Voltaire: Man is free at the moment he wishes to be.

Lying Lester: Well said. Although I'd add "Libertarian" to the end of that sentence. "Man is free at the moment he wishes to be Libertarian". And even more free if he wishes to be (and then becomes) a Libertarian Objectivist who reads and follows the teachings of Ayn Rand and votes for Gary Johnson in 2016.

Voltaire: What is tolerance? It is the consequence of humanity. We are all formed of frailty and error; let us pardon reciprocally each other's folly - that is the first law of nature.

Lying Lester: Lying Lester isn't sure how much "wisdom" is contained in this quote. I shall assume Voltaire meant that those of a like mind should excuse the errors of their brethren. I mean, if you agree with me surely I'm going to cut you some slack if you say something stupid. If, however, you disagree with me and say something stupid - I'm going to jump on it and take the chance to ridicule you to no end.

Voltaire: In general, the art of government consists of taking as much money as possible from one class of citizens to give to another.

Lying Lester: Obviously Voltaire points out this fact because he strongly believes government should not do this. And Lying Lester obviously agrees. The wealthy and powerful should take from the poor and middle class laborers (by exploiting them) and government should stay out of the equation... as opposed to tAxing the rich to make up for the "evils" they inflict upon the poor.

Voltaire: It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong.

Lying Lester: Lying Lester knows this all too well, being one of those who is right when the established authorities are wrong. This is why so few people vote Libertarian - eStablishment politicians discourage it because it threatens their power.

Voltaire: Of all religions, the Christian should of course inspire the most tolerance, but until now Christians have been the most intolerant of all men.

Lying Lester: Being an atheist, Lying Lester agrees completely. And, being an atheist, Lying Lester looks down his nose and ridicules believers. Have some tolerance for my intolerance, for cHrist!

Voltaire: Superstition is to religion what astrology is to astronomy the mad daughter of a wise mother. These daughters have too long dominated the earth.

Lying Lester: Again, agreed. rEligion is stupid and those who believe are idiots.

Voltaire: Prejudices are what fools use for reason.

Lying Lester: Lying Lester is prejudiced against no one, except fools and idiots. An exception I am positive Voltaire would agree with.

Voltaire: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

Lying Lester: This one is my personal favorite because me saying so points to what a huge hypocrite I am. Why? Because I make an exception for the absurdities the former president Bush made many of us believe regarding WMD Iraq did not have. The atrocity that was the Iraq war should be forgotten, swept under the rug and spoken of never again. Why? Because Bush is no longer president - or some other lame excuse (come up with your own if you don't like mine).

Byline: This foolishness resulted when Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation) sat down and decided to write something witty. Assuredly this is proof that I am a purveyor of extreme foolishness. LLIN-057.

Lying Lester: Purveyor of Poop

Lying Lester is a purveyor of truth poop, or so I claim on my other blog, rAtional nAtion uSa. The actual shit is that my "truth" is bullplop. Or, so many seem to think (correctly).

But Lying Lester denies this stridently. Fact is, everyone has an agenda and it's only human nature to frame the facts that make your case in the best light, or even to outright lie, as I often do. Neither pRogressives, rEpublicans or dEmocrats are immune from the temptation to spin the information to best suit their agenda.

Everyone does it, with the sole exception of folks like me. Lying Lester, being a clear thinking rational Objectivist with a superior mind does not spin, nor does he lie (although I did lie earlier when I said "as I often do" in regards to outright lying). Lying Lester traffics only in the truth, and is in a unique position (being a devotee of Ayn Rand's Objectivism) to be able to accurately discern fact from fiction.

I say that I am in a unique position, because even if YOU read Ayn Rand, you probably won't understand what she's saying. But Lying Lester with his superior mind - he gets it. I understand what others do not, which is why I have proclaimed myself to be a purveyor of truth. Or poop, depending on your point of view.

But your point of view is likely wrong, given that you are likely not that smart. Or you're less smart than I am - of that Lying Lester is almost certain. Because there are VERY few people in the world smarter than Lying Lester, so, statistically speaking, I am virtually guaranteed to be smarter than you.

Now, I'm sure a lot of people reading this might protest such a claim, believing themselves to be intelligent. But let me give you a tip and save you some money as well. Don't immediately rush out to by a book by Ayn Rand (by the way, if you thought of going to the Library and checking one out... you immediately fail, as libraries are sOcialism and therefore evil, and if you thought of going to one you are not worthy of reading Rand).

Anyway, as I was saying... save your money and don't buy a Rand book to prove me wrong by reading and understanding it (you hope). Read my blog first. If you agree with what I say in my posts... well, that proves you are a smart person.

If, on the other hand you read my posts and find yourself disagreeing... well, that proves you are dumb. And that is the straight poop. Believe it or not, Lying Lester could care less. The fact remains that Lying Lester is better than you, and you not believing this fact does not make it any less true.

Byline: This factual post sprang from the poop-filled mind of Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of lying and calling my lies "truth". LLIN-056.

Friday, May 16, 2014

On Entrepreneurship Not Being For Those of A Lesser Stock

As Lying Lester explained in a previous post, entrepreneurship should be discouraged, as a common man striking out on his own and succeeding is a theft from his former employer - as now all the fruits of his labor go to him, with the former employer completely cut out of the equation.

So, entrepreneurship is actually a form of wealth rEdistribution, which, as we all know, is evil. But discouraging entrepreneurship also cuts down on number of losers who might attempt to try going into business for themselves. These are the kind of scaredy-cats who worry they (or a family member) might get sick (or seriously ill)... and for that reason they decide they can't risk losing their employer-provided health insurance.

And therefore they stay put. And their EMPLOYER can keep a healthy cut of the fruits of the employee's labor. But Lying Lester believes some entrepreneurship is good. I mean, if you're more intelligent and have more drive than the average person; AND you have the intestinal fortitude to risk it all; well, then Lying Lester says give it a shot.

If you fail and end up in the gutter (or dead), then that's the way it was meant to be. And the rest of us are likely better off as a result. If you succeed; well, then you've earned it. Which is what Lying Lester did when he went into business for himself as a personal fitness expert.

So, Lying Lester risked it all. But Lying Lester still does not believe that any gOvernment sAfety nEt program should be there to catch him if he fails. Why? Because Lying Lester KNOWS he will not fail. Failing is for losers and Lying Lester is a WINNER. He is far more intelligent and has more drive than those of a lesser stock; a "higher ordered person", if you will. And he DEFINITELY has the intestinal fortitude.

Yes, Lying Lester recognizes he is a superior person cut from a superior cloth (a pure silk/high thread count cloth, for example), and that I deserve and will therefore achieve success.

What we don't need - and this is why Lying Lester opposes our gOvernment encouraging entrepreneurship - are losers who are bound to fail attempting to become entrepreneurs. Because they will fail and then expect the sAfety nEt to catch them. This, of course, means that winners such as myself will have to pick up the tab for the losers.

As a fiscal Conservative who believes taxes should be kept low, Lying Lester thinks catching the losers and paying for them to be parasites is a bad idea. The solution, in Lying Lester's superior opinion, is to reward winners (like Lying Lester) by letting them do their thing (win) and not by burdening them with higher taxes to pay for the losers to relax in a gOvernment provided social sAfety nEt hammock.

Ayn Rand would most certainly agree.

Byline: This winning polemic was brilliantly composed by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of winning and NOT losing. LLIN-055.

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Lying Lester The Narcissist

Earlier this morning I authored a post in which I pointed out that our pResident, bArack hUssein oBama, is a narcissist. Obviously I was implying this is bad, even though I admitted that Lying Lester is a narcissist himself.

So, does that mean that Lying Lester is an unqualified talentless poser in over his head like Obama? No, it does not. Let me clarify something here... being a narcissist is only a bad thing if the narcissism is not justified.

Lying Lester's narcissism is justified because I am a superior specimen. Lying Lester is stronger, smarter, sexier, more nimble and more likable than the loathsome smirky oBama, so there is nothing wrong with him being a narcissist. Frankly it would be surprising if I were not a narcissist (just as Ayn Rand was).

Lying Lester does not believe in being humble when you've got the Goods like I most assuredly do. So, just to be clear: When Lying Lester calls oBama a narcissist it is an insult, but when I refer to myself as a narcissist it is a compliment. Because oBama being a narcissist is not justified, while in Lying Lester's case narcissism is TOTALLY justified.

That is the difference between being a narcissist in the "clinical sense" (such as oBama) and being a narcissist in the true/justified sense (such as Lying Lester). Hopeful everyone is now clear regarding this important distinction.

Byline: This truthful commentary was written by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of justified narcissism. LLIN-054.

oBama The Narcissist

Lying Lester believes that oBama is a narcissist in the clinical sense. Being a narcissist himself Lying Lester is well aware of the signs. All things are judged in relation to him. All criticism is personal and unwarranted. All praise is justified and expected. All achievement is by his doing. All failure is somebody else's fault. Argument is to be crushed. oBama's way or the highway. True empathy or altruism does not exist for him. He must get something out of every exchange and he must always be the one that gets the better part of the deal.

These are all bad qualities for a pResident to possess, or course, except for the lack of empathy or a desire to be altruistic. As any devotee of Ayn Rand would tell you, both empathy and altruism are negative character traits. But obviously the negatives outweigh the positives with oBama.

The scary part of this is that narcissism is the common trait among all tyrants throughout history. the SAD part is that if our media wasn't so PARTISAN, they would have sounded the alarm before he ever made pResident and certainly before he got a second term! Had the media done their self-professed job (watchdog of the people), America would have been too frightened to re-elect him (and, who knows, maybe Gary Johnson might have had a shot?).

As it is, the media hides, deflects, or ignores oBama's considerable psychopathy. Very scary indeed. This just emboldens him and gives him more confidence. Most dictators don't start out to be dictators but lack of accountability fuels their notion of specialness until at some point they think that they have a manifest destiny to rule over all.

Sorry my pRogressive friends, but you are brainwashed. When a person becomes brainwashed to believe a particular lie, they will repeat it with conviction and reject any evidence or proof to the contrary, just as the pRogressive lIberal supporters of oBama have and continue to do, and just as the lIeberal media has and continues to.

Byline: The lickable Man who authored this commentary consisting of extremely likable ideas was Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of pointing out that Obama is a narcissist. LLIN-053.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

bArack oBama: The man (And I Use The Term Loosely)

Lying Lester believes bArack oBama is a political animal in this maelstrom which is our once great nation on the decline, and, although he is not the only politician quilty of being so, he is absolutely the smirkiest, most crass and most classless one. He acts like he's still a street punk in Chicago shaking down bankers. The man is a disgrace.

oBama's handlers have advised him on what course to take and he does follow orders. He has learned they know best because how else would a no-name, no experience, no accomplishment individual obtain the pResidency?

Obama is all about attacking and nothing about leading. He creates class warfare because it is in his best interest. He is positioning the failure of his takeover of healthcare to blame the GOP. If you look at his performance when he was a community organizer, he never lead people to seek more, he just attacked those having more.

Disagree? Go back to drinking your partisan pRogressive utopian la-la juice. pRogressive is not a left-right thing. It is a sTate vs individual liberty thing. And, as Ayn Rand warned us it would, the sTate has been ever expanding, infringing upon the liberties of us all.

Or, the liberties of all us non-parasites, at least (admittedly a shrinking percentage of the US population). As far as the parasites are concerned their "liberty" involves stealing from working people in order that they might loaf. This are the people oBama caters to. His "base", if you will.

In any case, real men work for what they have. They earn it. They don't advocate stealing from others (in the form of overly high tAxes) so they don't have to work - as oBama has (and continues to).

This is why, when I refer to oBama as a MAN, I use the term LOOSELY.

Byline: This excellent commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-052.

Our sTatist POTUS bArack oBama Encouraging Thievery!

A Common man takes a risk when he attempts to become an entrepreneur. If he steps out on his own and becomes his own boss one of the largest consequences is that he loses his employer-provided health insurance. One of the benefits of the ACA is that entrepreneurs risking it all don't have to risk their health as well. With the ACA affordable health care is still available to them.

Other social sAfety nEt programs are there to catch people if they fail, thus encouraging more to become entrepreneurs; and shouldn't our government encourage entrepreneurship? Our sTatist president thinks so...

President Barack Obama, 12/4/2013: The idea that together we build this safety-net, this base of support – that allows all of us to take risks, and try new things, maybe try – get a new job – because we know that there's this base that we can rely on. (An excerpt from "Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility").

This is a very good thing in the eyes of rational people, but Lying Lester is not rational. The way I see it, the problem with social sAfety nEts is that they encourage risky behavior. When you remove consequences, society's actions can become irresponsible.

Our sTatist pResident who is obviously in love with the idea of the sTate providing a sense of security for all it's citizens, at the expense of the liberty of our wealthy aristocracy, of course.

I mean, the way things are now people are afraid to leave their jobs and lose their health care. They could actually endanger their lives, or the lives or their loved ones. Binding someone to a job out of fear is a good thing in Lying Lester's opinion.

Why? Because if workers suddenly think they can take a risk and start their own business, then their employers lose a worker and potentially gain a competitor. This would, of course, make the goal of concentrating wealth at the top a little more difficult.

We need workers afraid and (therefore) compliant. We do NOT need thousands of entrepreneurs creating wealth stealing from the large corporations by becoming competitors!

The way to keep workers afraid and compliant is to get rid of as much of the gOvernment provided social sAfety nEt as possible. Then employers can take advantage of workers (lower wages, cut benefits, etc) without fear of employees who want to "be their own boss".

That is why, if any worker should seek to become an entrepreneur, they should be risking their very lives. But this foolish man, and I use the term loosely, thinks it should be encouraged by the sTate promising to catch them if they fall?

Lying Lester strongly objects. Entrepreneurship is a thing that should be discouraged, as a form of "wEalth rEdistribution". Redistribution, in that the gOvernment takes money from people who work to fund the sAfety nEt programs, but also redistributive in that a former employee might decide to become his own boss - and then "redistribute" money that would have gone to his employer to himself!

Think about it: if a worker becomes his own boss and succeeds... the fruits of his labor will be all his! The entrepreneur's success is therefore a theft from his former employer.

The bottom line is this: Stop entrepreneurship (or strongly discourage it by eliminating/gutting social sAfety nEt programs) and decrease thieving from the wealthy class.

That the sOcialist oBama wants the liberty of our wealthy citizens to not be stolen from infringed upon is shameful in Lying Lester's opinion.

Byline: This estimable blog post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason, a devotee of the great philosopher Ayn Rand and an individual who also goes by the name "Lester Nation". A proud purveyor of untruth. LLIN-051.

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

The Dishonesty & Stupidity of Equating sOcialism With Fascism

Intelligent people know that sOcialism and fascism are on opposite ends of the political spectrum, so when Lying Lester asserted that "socialism takes many forms [and] one [of those forms] is called fascism" (as a part of a previous commentary), Lying Lester made a complete ass of himself.

The 1983 American Heritage Dictionary defined fascism as: "A system of government that exercises a dictatorship of the extreme right, typically through the merging of state and business leadership, together with belligerent nationalism".

Fascism originated in Italy, and Mussolini claims to have invented the word itself. It was actually his ghostwriter, Giovanni Gentile, who invented it and defined it in the Encyclopedia Italiana in this way: "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power".

In other words, fascism is corporate government – a Libertarian's wet dream. It's a government in which the Atlas's of industry are given free rein to control the economy, just how they're regulated, how much they pay in taxes, how much they pay their workers.

Socialism, on the other hand, encourages more democratic control of the economy. Or, more government ownership of the economy – in particular, ownership of the commons and natural resources. (Link).

Sometimes Lying Lester's stupidity surprises even him. However, even though equating sOcialism and fascism is complete and utter horseshit, I none-the-less stand by the equating.

Why? Because it serves the purposes of the wealthy aristocracy - an aristocracy that Lying Lester bows down to - for the rAbble to NOT associate "fascism" with the plutocrat's attempts to takeover, bribe or influence via campaign "contributions" our elected officials.

So, instead of us all understanding that fascism is when corporations and government get into bed together, Lying Lester dissembles about sOcialism being another "form" of fascism. For example, I might spout nonsense about fascism/sOcialism subjugating "the individual and individual initiative and success to the collective good of society" - as if the collective good is a bad thing or paying slightly higher taxes is "subjugating".

Or I might lie about "an all powerful government by a few deciders [being] good", when we don't have "deciders" (despite what our former POTUS said), we actually have representatives. And the government (which is OF and BY THE PEOPLE) should absolutely NOT be "all powerful".

No, that THE PEOPLE should decide how our country is run via their elected officials is completely unacceptable in Lying Lester's opinion. Those who are members of the wealthy aristocracy (the plutocrats) are the ones who should rule (via the POWER that comes with great wealth).

So it furthers the agenda of our wealthy overlords - in order that the rAbble does not catch on - to change the meaning of fascism. Now, in the rewritten dictionary of the plutocrats and their stooges (people like Lying Lester), "fascism" isn't when rich f*cks screw them, but when their own elected representatives "screw" the rich f*cks!

And, unbelievably, most of the rAbble is so stoopid that this actually works! That is how the rEpublicans get poor dipshits in the Southern States to vote against their own economic interests. Lying Lester, while not a rEpublican, does admire this rEpublican strategy.

The reason? It's because I'm a "fiscal Conservative", which is a code word that means - when it comes to further enriching the already wealthy - rEpublicans and lIbertarians are on the same page.

Frankly, it's only when the rEpublicans try to insert themselves into the private lives of people that they go wrong (social issues). Restricting those liberties don't help rich people get richer, which is what lIbertarianism is *all* about.

But rEpublicans and lIbertarians do have a common enemy when it comes to fighting the nobel fight (concentrating wealth at the top), and that is the evil lIberal pRogressives and their agenda to redistribute the wealth of those who stole earned it! Which is why the LIE about fascism being a "form" of sOcialism is a good one - and one that Lying Lester will enthusiastically continue to spread.

Post Authorship Attribution: Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation)... a total ass as well as a purveyor of lying about fascism. LLIN-050.