Nevermind #1

The contents of my post from 6/25/2014, dEmocrat Hypocrites Should Unilaterally Disarm have been removed restored. The reason the contents of the commentary were removed were because of objections by another blogger. Against my better judgment I have decided once again to extend an olive branch to an individual who finds this blog objectionable and wishes my publishing commentaries here to cease.

He says he is "flattered" but I don't think that is actually the case. Anyway, I was previously banned from this individual's blog, which is what prompted me to open this site. Now this person has (apparently) changed his mind and allowed me to post a few comments on his blog. So it looks like the ban might have been lifted?

If that is the case, then I suppose the time is right (and it is now appropriate) for me to shut down LLIN.

I have therefore decided to tentatively declare that LLIN is now closed permanently. But only if this individual agrees and actually desires that it be shut down. I mean, if he really is "flattered" I'm game to keep LLIN going.

So... for now LLIN is closed. Perhaps permanently, perhaps not. That depends on what this other individual truly desires.

That said, if another Libertarian, Ayn Rand-worshipping blogger were to contact me and express a desire to take over here at LLIN, then LLIN could continue on under new management. Although I previously said that I'm also looking for financial compensation to cover the cost of setting up this blog, I might be willing to hand it over free-of-charge *if* the RIGHT individual were to offer to take it over.

The RIGHT individual would be another delusional Libertarian Ayn Rand-worshipping fool such as myself. So, if you are this kind of fool - a fool who worships Ayn Rand, thinks most people (especially the non-rich ones) are parasites and lice, and strongly wishes that Gary Johnson is elected president in 2016... and also desires to write blog posts advocating all these points of view - well, then YOU could be the next proprietor of "Lying Lester's Irrational Nation".

My only demand is that you keep me on as a an administrator. As an administrator I won't be authoring any posts. My fear is that someone might contact me in regards to taking over this blog and LIE about being of a like mind with Lying Lester. What if I turn over the passwords and delete myself as an author, and then the liar turns this blog into a joke and makes fun of my prior posts?

This fear is why I'd want to stay on as an admin until I was sure me and the new proprietor were of a like mind. Before, when I was asking for financial compensation I really did not care. But if I'm going to GIVE this blog away... then I've got to be POSITIVE the RIGHT person will be taking over.

But this discussion might be premature, as I've got to see what the feelings of the person who objects to this blog are first. He might want me to continue posting commentaries here. I honestly don't know. Given that, all I can say is that the future of LLIN is up in the air at the present.

Will Lying Lester continue to post commentaries? Will LLIN continue under new management or simply be shuttered for good (permanently this time)? Stay tuned... the answer is forthcoming (and will be announced here eventually).

I thank (any) loyal readers for their patronage.

Byline: This stricken commentary was authored by ?. LLIN-089.

dEmocrat Hypocrites Should Unilaterally Disarm

I find the following article fascinating. However given the tendency to class warfare not at all surprising. Some good stuff and more not so good stuff. Our uninformed and educated voting public will, of course, not take these things seriously and act to force real change. Too many people are just going along for the ride, too busy or ambivalent to care. Which is a good thing in Lying Lester's opinion.

Politico... David Brock has a message for liberal millionaires: Don't sweat being called hypocrites. Brock, a former "right-wing hit-man"-turned-top-big-money-Democratic-operative, is part of a behind-the-scenes campaign to convince donors it's OK to attack the Koch brothers for spending millions of dollars while doing the exact same thing for the left. "You're not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I", Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe, New Mexico, according to someone who attended the conference, but who declined to be identified because it was closed to the press. "Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want: keeping us quiet about what they're doing to destroy the very fabric of our nation", added Brock, whose deep-pocketed nonprofit groups are leading the charge to make the conservative megadonors Charles and David Koch an issue in the 2014 midterms. (Link).

Interesting stuff, and quite disappointing in my non-humble opinion (not humble because Lying Lester is ALWAYS right). While David Brock is ABSOLUTELY correct in his analysis, Lying Lester can't help but wish that the dEmocrats WOULD unilaterally disarm to save themselves from being "hypocrites". Then the Conservative candidates could really pull the wool over the voters eyes, WIN elections easily and drop tax rates on rich folks... hastening the transformation of American into a neo-feudalistic state.

And, isn't that what we all want?

Note: By "we all" I mean all of us that matter. I'm not referring to worthless Poors.

Byline: This author of this BS is Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-088.

Lying Lester Ridiculously Argues That The Clintons Should Pay More Estate Taxes Than They Legally Are Obligated To

In utilizing tax law as written to minimize their estate taxes (when they are due), the Clintons are doing nothing illegal. And taking advantage of legal loopholes while advocating to close them is not such a big deal. Maybe we should not criticize the people who use them but do something about closing them? As the Clintons have advocated doing?

Or that is the argument one commenter put forth on my other blog, rAtional nAtion uSA. But, even though this argument makes a LOT of sense, Lying Lester rejects it. Why? Because personally the death tax rubs me in the wrong direction - given that inherited wealth is one of the primary methods by which the noble goal of concentrating wealth at the top can be achieved.

For that reason I've decided to adopt a position of criticizing the Clintons there "hypocrisy". Using the bogus "hypocrisy" angle, I'm going to say that it is one thing to advocate for an estate tax to keep the nation from eventually (possibly) being heavily influenced by inherited wealth as the Clinton's have done. Apparently it is quite another to actually pay them, at lest for Bill and Hillary. They are taking full advantage of financial strategies that benefit the top 1 percent of the nation. You know, those individuals that lIberals love to hate. Well, when it seems politically expedient to do so.

Because they're following the laws as written, even though if they were written differently - and the Clintons have advocated a change that would affect them - and then they'd follow those rules - and therefore me whining about "hypocrisy" is at least a little bit bullshitty... I'm doing it anyway.

If you're wanting to be a leader shouldn't you set an example? Somehow do as I say, not as I do just doesn't cut it. Even though that argument doesn't apply here, as it would be stupid to think that two people opting out of paying certain taxes would make any kind of difference AT ALL when most others aren't.

But bullshit arguments that make no sense at all are just the way Lying Lester rolls, given that Lying Lester is a master of making such arguments.

By the way... if you don't know WTF I'm talking about, I've included an article excerpt below that explains it all...

Bloomberg reports that while Bill and Hillary Clinton have long supported an estate tax to prevent the U.S. from being dominated by inherited wealth [still they] are using financial planning strategies befitting the top 1 percent of U.S. households in wealth. These moves, common among multimillionaires, will help shield some of their estate from the tax that now tops out at 40 percent of assets upon death. The Clintons created residence trusts in 2010 and shifted ownership of their New York house into them in 2011, according to federal financial disclosures and local property records. Among the tax advantages of such trusts is that any appreciation in the house’s value can happen outside their taxable estate. The move could save the Clintons hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes, said David Scott Sloan, a partner at Holland & Knight LLP in Boston. "The goal is really be thoughtful and try to build up the nontaxable estate, and that's really what this is", Sloan said. "You're creating things that are going to be on the nontaxable side of the balance sheet when they die". (Link).

I won't judge there integrity on this but does anyone think that perhaps the "hypocrites" don't have any? Hopefully I can trick someone into agreeing with my BS argument and decide that they don't.

Byline: This hypocritical commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of hypocrisy. LLIN-087.

The Handsome Debonair Goateed POTUS

Some time back a commenter on my other blog (rAtional nAtion uSA) remarked that "you can't trust a man with facial hair". This comment was in reply to a post concerning former Republican president Rutherford B. Hayes.

The commenter then added, "seriously, though as beards and mustaches and facial hair in general has gone out of fashion except amongst counter-culture, when do you think we'll get a President with facial hair again?"

My reply? I said, "I couldn't possibly guess... When I run maybe!" The commenter then commented that he would vote for me. In response to that I added "Well then, I'll be needing a campaign manager. Any interest?"

That was back in 2012. Lying Lester is still considering a run for the presidency. That is, if Gary Johnson does not throw his hat in the ring (a third time). Perhaps Gary would consider Lying Lester as a running mate in 2016? Surely a Johnson/Nation ticket would garner a fair percentage of the vote (more than Gary running with someone else), but would it be enough for us to take the White House?

A deluded Lying Lester is thinking it just might. Surely the ladies would swoon and cast their ballots in favor of Lying Lester, if for no other reason than to get a hunk in the executive mansion (we all know the ladies act on eMotion and not reason).

And Lying Lester admits that Gary isn't that shabby in the looks department either (a manly Man that Lying Lester might go for *IF* he were gay). The most handsome/manly duo of Iron Men - if Gary Johnson and Lying Lester ran together - ever to seek the presidency. Can you think of any other past presidents and VPs as handsome/manly as Gary and Lester? I doubt it.

Then, after Gary served out his two terms... then the time would be right for a Lying Lester presidency. At that point - after the most successful presidency in US history (that of Gary Johnson) - Lying Lester would be a shoe-in.

A Man can dream, can't he? A dream for his beloved Gary Johnson, for himself, and for America. Or for the worthy Makers, who would prosper wildly under a Johnson (and then a Nation) administration. Realistically speaking, however, a vote for Gary or me is a complete waste (you'd be throwing your vote away). Still, I urge you to consider casting such a vote.

And, if the names "Gary Johnson" and/or "Lester Nation" aren't on your ballot when you go to the polls in 2016? Then you might consider writing us in. Or vote Gary if he's on the ballot and write in "Lester Nation" for VP. Or write in "Lester Nation" for President if Gary Johnson decides not to run.

If nothing else, you'll be sending a signal to the man that you're sick of business as usual and REJECT the sTatist direction our country has been headed in under BOTH rEpublicans and dEmocrats. Also, who knows? If enough people cast their ballots using objectivity and reason to decide who they think should be POTUS - instead of voting for the lesser of two evils... well, then it is surely possible that, come 2017, we might be inaugurating a handsome debonair goateed POTUS. Or a a handsome debonair goateed VP.

Unlikely, perhaps. But (in my deluded and slightly senile mind) it could happen. And then we could get about the work of restoring America to its former glory. Lying Lester imagines something along the lines of a new Gilded Age, except instead of growing real wages for wOrkers, all the prosperity could be siphoned off by those at the top (as they have been doing, only under Lying Lester the siphoning would be greater).

That is my dream, in any case. Perhaps you share it? If so... well then, you already know what to do. Don't vote rEpublican and don't vote dEmocrat. Vote Libertarian. Vote Gary and vote Lester and together we can shrink gOvernment and hand over the rule of our nation to the wealthy (put things right, in other words).

Byline: This spectulative commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of goat tees. LLIN-086.

Lying Lester Mentally Masturbates In Regards to The Possibility of POTUS Gary Johnson

Lying Lester is still seething with anger. When America was faced with a (false) choice on November 6, 2012 of selecting and voting for one of "the lesser of two evils", the electorate chose wrong.

Both of the two major choices, bArack hUssein oBama and Willard Mittens Romney, were (and are) sTatists who believe in the power of government to correct perceived societal, economic, and political problems. They both believe an elected rEpresentative government - rather than an aristocracy based on wealth - has the solutions to problems and therefore believe gOvernment creates the environment that leads to prosperity and growth.

While this may be true, it is prosperity and growth for ALL, as opposed to just for a select few. Yes, the paths each advocate are different, but ultimately both paths lead to a tyranny of The People under which the rich will suffer (by not having MOST of the money). A tyranny under which the dEmocrat-controlled gOvernment fights for The People or a tyranny under which the rEpublican-controlled gOvernment fights for the wealthy (which is good) as well as themselves and also for wasting money (which is bad).

Gary Johnson, a limited government, fiscal conservative, pro defense (yet anti MIC), libertarian (liberal) on social issues, and vocal supporter of individual liberty for the wealthy is a man with a clear vision for America, one that is in direct contradiction to our founding principles and our Constitution.

Early Americans were all too familiar with European Aristocracy and as they began to conceive this new nation they wanted a new idea based not on Aristocratic order but on shared political power. For that to happen they believed there had to be relative equity in wealth among the citizens of America. There was a strong belief that inherited wealth would lead to a rising Aristocracy with wealthy families consolidating unfair political power. (Link).

As a Libertarian Gary Johnson rejects the Founders misguided ideas concerning an aristocracy and their silly worries concerning the wealthy buying political power (as if that would be a bad thing).

Gary Johnson understands the direction the nation needs to travel for the wealthy to further prosper (at the expense of working folks), and he understands how we can get America back on that track again (the track of recognizing the nobility of the wealthy and treating them appropriately). A track wrongly rejected by the rAbble when Gary Johnson failed to receive even one percent of the vote in 2012!

Is there any chance that my Beloved Gary could, should he decide to run again in 2016, win the presidency? No, there is absolutely no chance of Gary getting even ONE electoral vote. Still, Lying Lester likes to mentally masturbate whilst thinking he COULD, if only enough people came around to the timeless wizzdumb of Ayn Rand.

For this reason Lying Lester urges you to consider throwing your vote away and pulling the lever for Gary in 2016... or possibly Lying Lester, as I have been considering a run for the White House.

Either way you can be proud of your protest vote and say you didn't vote for the lesser of two evils... you voted for the greater of three evils! That is, if you believe that destroying the middle class and further impoverishing the poor is "evil" (all in the name of concentrating wealth at the top), which Lying Lester most certainly does not.

Byline: This exercize in mental masturbation was jacked out by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of jacking it mentally. LLIN-085.

A Lying Lester Tall Tail: Corporatism ISN'T The Natural & Unavoidable Result of Laissez Faire

While perusing the internet late night on what was a relatively slow day for substantial news I happened upon a November 2008 article published in The Thinker entitled "On Corporatism and Capitalism". This article more clearly defines the problems with our current mixed economy and how a true free market competitive capitalistic system is in direct conflict with our current Corporatism.

As the article is well written, concise, and with pertinent links I an reproducing it here with full credit and acknowledgement to Jeffry Ellis at The Thinker.

Regular readers of The Thinker will note that I've spent a bit of time lately defending free-market capitalism, in light of the recent financial crisis and $700B bailout. In this post in particular, I asserted that the most vocal opponents of capitalism — especially those who are blaming the current financial mess on "unbridled capitalism" — have refused to acknowledge and address capitalism's underlying values. This month's Cato Unbound topic touches on what I've been saying. The lead essay is now up, wherein Roderick Long (bio here) takes on the question of whether it is fair for libertarians to be characterized as corporate shills and big-business apologists: No and yes. Emphatically no - because corporate power and the free market are actually antithetical; genuine competition is big business's worst nightmare. But also, in all too many cases, yes - because although liberty and plutocracy cannot coexist, simultaneous advocacy of both is all too possible. Long blames three factors for the ongoing confusion between corporatist plutocracy (i.e., undue corporate influence over the political process) and a libertarian laissez-faire brand of capitalism: 1. Widespread agreement among liberals that laissez-faire capitalism and corporate plutocracy are the same thing. [They are NOT]. 2. A widespread tendency among conservatives to cloak corporatist policies in free-market speech, further confounding the two. 3. A tendency among many libertarians to reflexively dismiss many criticisms of corporate power as anti-market speech, when some of the criticism may indeed be well founded. This leads many libertarians to inadvertently defend features of corporatism. The net result of these three factors, says Long, is that: Those who are attracted to free markets are lured into supporting plutocracy, thus helping to prop up statism's right or corporatist wing; those who are repelled by plutocracy are lured into opposing free markets, thus helping to prop up statism's left or social-democratic wing. Those who advocate free-market capitalism should be more diligent and explicit — both in their own thinking, and in educating others — in making the case that free market capitalism and corporatism are INCOMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER. You cannot have true free market capitalism when corporations can lobby and make deals for protection, and subsidies, and bailouts, and favorable tax codes, and for any other mechanisms that tend to defeat or interfere with competition. Anyone who says otherwise is either misunderstanding free market capitalism (whether willfully or out of ignorance) or is cloaking their own corporatist agenda in free market rhetoric. (Link).

The lIberal pRogressives would argue that laissez faire inexorably leads to Corporatism, and they are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. But Jeffry Ellis at The Thinker laughably argues that they are "incompatible" and "antithetical". All Lying Lester can say is he greatly admires the outstanding job Mr. Ellis did dissembling on the issue. This is the kind of bullshit that a Libertarian-inclined worshiper of wealth like Lying Lester eagerly lap up.

Which is why I did just that... believe that laissez faire does not inexorably lead to corporatism and plutocracy, but that they are "incompatible" and "antithetical", despite the fact that this IS NOT TRUE. Facts notwithstanding, Lying Lester believes it regardless. Because doing so furthers the noble goal of concentrating wealth at the top.

I'm cloaking my their own corporatist agenda in free market rhetoric just like Jefry (wink, wink). Lying Lester GETS IT.

And, believing these lies - or acting like you do - aids in the accomplishment of the goal of concentrating wealth at the top. By deluding simple-minded fools into accepting policies and courses of action that will further said goal. And they MUST be deluded into accepting the policies and courses of action that lead to concentrating wealth at the top because... if they knew this was the REAL goal they would reject said policies and courses of action.

Because who the f*ck desires plutocracy? Nobody but the wealthy who would rule under such a system. Them, and worshipers of wealth like Lying Lester. But Lying Lester LOVES the plutocrats, and this is why I like lies like those dissembled by Jeffrey Ellis... and why I repeat these (and similar) lies at my other blog, rAtional nAtion uSA.

A constant barrage of such garbage furthers the cause of brainwashing the weak-minded into believing Libertarianism isn't a tool of the wealthy elites DESIGNED to bring about plutocracy. Even though IT IS!! And Lying Lester, being a superior individual with a intellect much MUCH greater than yours KNOWS THIS.

But Lying Lester laughs at the fools who buy into such disinformation. Enslavement is freedom and handing great power and freedom to do as they please over to the corporations WON'T result in plutocracy - this is the kind of idiocy that only deluded morons assimilate. But Libertarianism would die a quick death if not for these morons.

It's a fringe ideology the way it is, which is why the subterfuge is necessary if your ultimate goal is tricking people into accepting the neofeudalism the wealthy elites strongly desire. This is why Lying Lester lies on rAtional nAtion. I am very proud to be a part of this plan; and very proud to be doing my part in transforming America into a plutocracy.

Not that we're not on the road to plutocracy already. We are. It's just that the Middle Class has not been completely destroyed yet. So, their is still work to be done.

Byline: The shocking admission put forth here was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of tall tails told in furtherance of advancing plutocracy. LLIN-084.

On Lying Lester Possessing A Smarterphone

Yes, you read that right... Lying Lester does not own a "smart phone", Lying Lester owns a SMARTERphone. Why? Because a regular smartphone would seem dumb to someone as super-intelligent as Lying Lester.

You think you're brainy enough to own a smarterphone? Tough titties, YOU can't buy one. Why? Because they are not for sale to the general public. *If* you're smart enough you'll get an invite to purchase one.

It's like possessing a American Express Centurion card (AKA "the Black Card"). This is a credit card you must be invited to apply for. Same thing with the smarterphone. Lying Lester was recognized for his superior intellect and invited to purchase a smarterphone.

And let me tell you, it's as if this thing was from the future. Totally voice controlled, able to project holograms, etc. Unfortunately I'm not allowed to disclose all the features of this top secret phone, but let me assure you that you'd be totally blown away if you knew what it could do.

But you never will, as you will never be invited to own one. By the way, the smarterphone, despite it being a technological wonder from the future (literally), still can't seem to catch all of Lying Lester's typos (of which I am quilty of making quite a few). Such is life, I guess.

Byline: This genious level commentary was produced via the superior mind of Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of smartness. LLIN-083.

Lying Lester's Deep Thoughts On oBama & sTatism

Self determination and self governance... dEmocratic sOcialists seek to fundamentally transform our capitalism-based society via elections. Obama, the man - and I use the term loosely - is a product of the "dEmocratic sOcialist" movement. I often dissemble and use the term "sTatist" which essentially means a belief that the sTate The People through their elected representatives and senators have the power to determine the nation's course (which Lying Lester opposes).

As society has grown, along with it has grown the demands placed on the sTate by The People. Keep in mind the response to the Great Depression by FDR and the "New Dealers". Add to that John Kennedy's "New Frontier" and Lyndon Johnson's "gReat sOciety" and the stage was set long ago has been trending in the natural course one would and should expect.

We're on a steady march toward sOcialism, in other words. But the dEmocrats are not alone in their desire to use the power of the sTate to do The People's will and better the lives of our citizens. rEpublicans, specifically the "neo-cons" (new conservatives) are just as sTatist and interested in setting the agenda and controlling the people rAbble through the power of the state as are the "democratic socialists" (who are actually interested in rEpresenting The People by carrying out THEIR agenda, but, about this, I will continue to dissemble as always).

The difference lies only in that which they wish to control. I am known for saying the difference in the rEpublican and dEmocrat statist is merely the color and shape of their respective mascots, but that is only more dissembling.

The fact of the matter is that the dEms work on behalf of The People (the citizenry at large), while the rEpublicans work on behalf of the Rich and powerful, which, while a good thing, still falls short. I agree with the rEpublicans on this, but they go wrong when they try to insert themselves into the personal lives of people, and, of course, when they capitulate to the spending demanded by the dEmocrats (or, spending to better the lives of The People demanded by The People via their elected rEpresentatives, if you will).

Add on top of this the spending demanded by the rEpubs and the interests of the wealthy they represent. Mainly I speak of the MIC and corporate welfare. Although, perhaps, the dEms are more guilty of this with their support for the greenscammers and the bailing out of financial institutions that engaged in risky behavior (mortgages to losers who did not deserve them).

In any case, it is my belief that as bad as Obama is for this nation, it could have possibly been far worse with either Santorum or Gingrich. Romney would have been, in my opinion, on a par with Obama. So had he elected president it would be a wash. Although he would have keep taxes low, which would have been good. But he would have made up the difference by taking on more debt, which would have been bad (so, a wash like I said).

Keep in mind here I am referring specifically to sTatism and my dissembling regarding both dEms and rEpublicans believing that the state should control the reins the power rather than the people (when it is actually only the rEpubs who believe this).

But, back to Obama and "dEmocratic sOcialism", which Obama certainly personifies, what with his belief in the democratic process of voting and in the rule of law, which Lying Lester rejects. Obama is no Mao, however his dEmocratic sOcialist beliefs guide him in the direction of cOllectivism as being a ultimately superior economic system to Libertarian-style capitalism (under which the rich rule, which Lying Lester embraces).

But the rAbble still seek Self-governance and likely always will. That is, until people wise up and start voting Libertarian. Then the rAbble can finally be crushed under the oppressive boot heel of the rich and powerful. So, the reality is that self-governance is likely unattainable, as the Galts of the world and their stooges (people like Lying Lester) will continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

Which is why we see lies like dEmocratic sOcialism (as it exists in Europe) leading to
what we currently see in countries such as Portugal and Greece being told by people on my side. That such a thing could happen is, of course, complete horseshit, but the gullible eat up that kind of ridiculous equating and it keeps them voting rEpublican (the lesser of two evils) or Libertarian (under which the rich rule, as they should).

Obama is the culmination of many many years of both dEmocratic and rEpublican trough feeding if you will. As we continue towards the economic abyss, and the continuing erosion of the liberty of the wealthy to not be overtaxed - there is much blame to be passed around. Obama is the rightful recipient of much of this blame.

This is why self-governance is bad in Lying Lester's opinion. It gets corrupted by those who want to use it to enrich themselves. But, instead of enriching themselves via gOvernment, the wealthy should be enriching themselves on their own by abusing and taking advantage of wOrkers.

Obviously the correct solution here is to weaken government (or cut off it's balls), so the wealthy have free reign to do as they please, which would lead to the utopia Lying Lester desires. I could say much more but this is it for now.

Byline: These deep thoughts sprung from the superior mind of Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of deep thoughts. LLIN-082.

Liberty & Integrity: Too Concepts No Longer in America

The United States of America, a land built by pioneers, free and independent thinkers, men with vision and the understanding of what it means to be free.

The United States of America, a land where men of common principles and values, yet holding fiercely differing opinions as how to arrive at the "common good" found the integrity and strength to form a great nation.

The United States of America, a land whose founders understood that freedom is not free and that liberty, like a well kept\t garden must faithfully be attended to.

The United States of America, a land whose founders left a road map that would insure continued freedom and the individual liberties that brave men gave their lives for so that their own, as well as succeeding generations may be free.

The United States of America, a land whose people once understood the value of hard work and that expecting something for nothing was unethical, indeed immoral.

America, the once proud beacon of freedom, strength, integrity, ethical values, and tolerance for the divergent ideas of intelligent men whose purpose it was to further the greatness of a nation that was great because of the principles and values that were articulated during the Enlightenment. AKA, the Age of Classical Liberalism.

Today we have a nation whose populace sorely lacks in a basic understanding of the concepts of freedom and liberty that involve keeping taxes low and getting rid of, instead of strengthening the sOcial sAfety nEt. Very few people GET it that voting for Gary Johnson in 2016 is our only hope of restoring freedom and liberty.

The difference between the two parties in America today {dEmocrat and rEpublican) is but the difference between a blonde or a brown hair. Which is just another way of saying virtually none.

Today America is on the verge of foregoing its heritage and the legacy of its founding principles, including the principle that only wealthy White landowners could vote. Today we let EVERYONE vote, including the pArasites. Is it any wonder that the slothful vote themselves more "gifts" from the government and THAT is why we are so deeply in debt?

Is it any wonder that our sOcialist gOvernment taxes our successful people at so high a rate that they throw in the towel and decide to stop creating wealth, thereby harming our economy? It seems we simply do not understand capitalism anymore. The noble goal of concentrating wealth at the top has been forgotten. Today all we seem to worry about is "inequality", but is it fair that the wealthy be forced to live with a slightly smaller portion of our nation's wealth instead of virtually all of it? Of course not.

The united States of America will be going to the polls in November 2016. It is currently experiencing a painful period of circus watching as the rEpublican party tries to decide if another Bush should run, or if it's going to be the hispanic dude named Rubio, or the pathetic son of the great Ron Paul.

A stage that will eventually pit the presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton against the rEpublican nominee for the same elective position.

For the individual with a sense of history, a understanding of what freedom and liberty mean, a active and free thinking mind, and a love of country and what American exceptionalism really means (such as myself) it is looking as though the choices will be bleak.

To spell it out... Red {republican} sTatism or blue {democratic} sTatism. STatism is sTatism (or dEmocracy is dEmocracy). Either way the result will be bad (in that a candidate who represents The People will be one choice and a candidate who represents the rich people will be the other choice). Lying Lester might go for the second choice, but is it good enough?

Lying Lester says No. There is one candidate in the room who dares defy the sTatist mold of both the dEmocrat and rEpublican party. Only one candidate who says get government out of the way so the the Plutocrats can do as they please {unchecked by the rAbble). That candidate is Gary Johnson.

Yes, the election is two years off, but that is exactly WHY Lying Lester is advocating for Mr. Johnson starting NOW. Last time out Mr. Johnson received a pathetic 1 percent of the vote. Scratch that, it was LESS than one percent. As well as zero electoral votes. Can he do better next time? Unlikely, but Lying Lester will vote for him none-the-less, and urge you to do the same.

Because if you love the plutocrats as I do, voting for Gary is the only rational choice. sTatism or Plutocracy? The choice is easy in Lying Lester's eyes.

Byline: This radical blog post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of concepts. LLIN-081.

Lying Lester The Panderer Identifies lIberal pRogressive Blogs That Are A Part of The Problem

I am going to do something I said I would never do*. Pander to the worst in American politics. So please forgive me as I decline into the depths. But before I go further I want to acknowledge those on the pRogressive cOllectivist lEft who are most responsible for teaching me that descending to the depths of political demagoguery can and does pay dividends.

Here is the short list of the most disingenuous and least principled sights on the net at this point. At least in this independent conservatives opinion, after having visited them all. Most of what you read on these sights, should you choose to visit, will merely confirm the hatred the pRogressive cOllectivist lEft has for America. Let their own words speak for themselves.

The Short List of the least objective of pRogressive Collectivist Sights are... Sleeping with The Devil**, The Swashing Zone, Crooks and Liars, and Hello Mr. President, are You Listening. As time passes, and I have more tips on who us rational people should focus our scorn on, I shall surely pass them on.

Time spent on conservative sites renders focus for the right and objective cause of concentrating wealth at the top. Time spent on pRogressive cOllectivist sights renders the stuff that gives fortitude against the cOllectivist altruist onslaught of anti individualism and liberty and BS like doing the "will of The People".

If you have the intestinal fortitude take a moment and visit the above sights. Doing so will only serve to solidify the correctness in opposing most what they stand for, which is economic prosperity for all. As opposed to economic prosperity for those who already have a large portion of the money but (rightfully) want a larger portion.

And, do our wealthy elites NOT deserve more (leaving less for everyone else)? Of course they do.

(*Notation 1: I said it; but I lied. I actually do it all the time).

(**Notation 2: Sleeping with The Devil is The MOST disingenuous and least principled site on the net, but it is also the most pathetic, getting virtually ZERO traffic. As such, I wouldn't have mentioned it, if not for the fact that the host of that sight is a lunatic who has been harassing me, as well as my good buddy Willis Hart. If you should decide to visit this sight, just remember that I warned you that the guy who runs it is completely nuts. He is NOT interested in rational discussion. Try and engage him in any and he might start harassing YOU).

Byline: This awesome blog post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-080.

Fearless NRA Could Care Less About Public Backlash

Is the NRA softening its hard line stand on the heels of recent events in Texas eateries? Could reason, reasonableness, and responsibility suddenly have taken hold in the rifled halls of the organization's executive offices? Has what has essentially become the lobbying arm of firearm manufactures anode gun dealers across the country finally showing signs of a conscience?

Answer? NO. And for that Lying Lester thanks the ghost of Ayn Rand!

First came the following...

A statement from the NRA-ILA issued May 30, 2014... Now we love AR-15s and AKs as much as anybody, and we know that these sorts of semiautomatic carbines are among the most popular, fastest selling firearms in America today. Texas, independent-minded and liberty-loving place that it is, doesn't ban the carrying of loaded long guns in public, nor does it require a permit for this activity. Yet some so-called firearm advocates seem determined to change this. Recently, demonstrators have been showing up in various public places, including coffee shops and fast food restaurants, openly toting a variety of tactical long guns. Unlicensed open carry of handguns is legal in about half the U.S. states, and it is relatively common and uncontroversial in some places. Yet while unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms. Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it's downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one's cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates. As a result of these hijinx, two popular fast food outlets have recently requested patrons to keep guns off the premises (more information can be found here and here). In other words, the freedom and goodwill these businesses had previously extended to gun owners has been curtailed because of the actions of an attention-hungry few who thought only of themselves and not of those who might be affected by their behavior. To state the obvious, that's counterproductive for the gun owning community. More to the point, it's just not neighborly, which is out of character for the big-hearted residents of Texas. Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. That's not the Texas way. And that's certainly not the NRA way. In summary, NRA certainly does not support bans on personalized guns or on carrying firearms in public, including in restaurants. We think people are intelligent enough to resolve these issues in a reasonable way for themselves. But when people act without thinking, or without consideration for others – especially when it comes to firearms – they set the stage for further restrictions on our rights. Firearm owners face enough challenges these days; we don't need to be victims of friendly fire. (Link).

Then came the walkback...

NRA Apologizes For Calling Open Carry Protests "Weird" And "Scary"... The National Rifle Association is walking back its recent criticism of pro-gun activists in Texas, apologizing to protesters for the "confusion" over the powerful gun lobby's position on open carry of firearms. ...on Tuesday, NRA official Chris Cox was quick to renounce the statement, describing it as a "mistake".

Yeah, Lying Lester was thinking that first statement was quite uncharacteristic of the NRA. It was a mistake. Lying Lester understands. We all make mistakes, even Lying Lester. Although Lying Lester making a mistake is very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very rare. Actually, statistically speaking, Lying Lester makes no mistakes at all.

I mean, as a percentage of all the times Lying Lester has been Right - all the times Lying Lester has made a "mistake" (been wrong) is under 1 percent. So, if you round down, Lying Lester has never been "wrong" or "made a mistake".

But that's neither here nor there. I was talking about the NRA and THEIR mistake (and it was a mistake). In regards to that mistake - Lying Lester realizes not everyone can be perfect like him, and Lying Lester accepts the NRA's apology. Just don't let happen again. Nobody would want this kind of rhetoric to be that which we grow accustomed to heating.

Also, I would suggest firing whoever authored that press release.

The NRA should surely not let any potential "public backlash" prevent it from consistently defending the rights of gun owners. Lying Lester is a gun owner and he was insulted by that first press release.

Keep fighting the good fight, Wayne. Lying Lester has your back.

Byline: This excellent blog post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-079.

Bob Marley: More Crying About Poors In The Ghetto BS

Again it is time for some not so great music by a legendary artist, this time from Bob Marley. Again, Lying Lester dedicates this tune to the lIberal pRogressives, as this is the sort of tripe they surely enjoy. Bob Marley may have been a great artist, but this piece of rubbish is a definite misfire in Lying Lester's book.

Another song about worthless Poors living in ghettos? Just as Lying Lester rejected the notion in regards to the Elvis Presley tune, I reject it again when it comes from Mr. Marley's misinformed lips! What about personal responsibility and hard work?

According to an article I found titled "Top 10 Most Politically Significant Bob Marley Songs", the song "Concrete Jungle" (#9 on the list) "represents the struggle of the urban poor in the third world. Though the song refers to Arnett Gardens, a garrison in Jamaica, it could represent the poverty and tension found in any ghetto".

OK, so Bob isn't singing about a ghetto in the US, a country where ANYONE can get ahead IF ONLY they work hard. He was singing about ghettos in the 3rd world. As we all know, many countries in the 3rd world suffer under oppressive governments. Still, the description for this song says "it could represent the poverty and tension found in any ghetto". And Lying Lester has a big problem with that.

Worse yet, Bob Marley (of course!) blames the White man for the poverty of dark-skinned Poors (see below). Shame.

What follows are a few excepts from the dishonest Marley-penned tune followed by a response from yours truly (Lyrics from this website)...

Lyrics from "Concrete Jungle" by Bob Marley (with commentary by Lying Lester).

Bob Marley: No chains around my feet. But I'm not free. I know I am bounded in captivity; oh now...

Lying Lester: Depends what type of "chains" you're referring to. Regarding residents of US "concrete jungle", I'd say those people DO have chains on their feet... the chains of entitlement "gifts" that incentivize people to not work. Lying Lester says throw off those chains and provide for yourself via hard work. Only then will you truly be free.

Bob Marley: (Never known) Never known (what happiness is) what happiness is; (Never known) I've never known (what sweet caress is) what sweet caress is yeah. Still, I'll be always laughing like a clown; (oooh-oooh-oooh) Oh someone help me 'cause I (sweet life) - I've got to pick myself from off the ground.

Lying Lester: Perhaps this person Mr. Marley is singing with the voice of has never known happiness because he's a lazy welfare loafer. Providing for yourself gives one a sense of accomplishment which is the ONLY way to achieve true happiness. As for the line about picking himself off the ground... well, THAT sounds like a good idea to Lying Lester. Surely you should not expect gOvernment to do it.

And, Lying Lester MUST add that the gOvernment does it (picks people off the ground... or ATTEMPTS to) by stealing from Makers like Lying Lester... something Lying Leser does NOT appreciate! Get a job you bum!

But is that what Mr. Marley is referring to... that the residents of the concrete jungle should pick themselves up? Given that Marley believed that povery could be blamed on "oppression caused by the western world and the White man", Lying Lester is thinking NO.

Instead Bob chooses to blame the problem of the Poors (being poor) on others instead of on their own failings. Shame on Mr. Marley. Still, this does not mean that Lying Lester cannot enjoy the songs of Mr. Marley in which he does not place blame where it does not belong (something lIberal pRogressives are NOTORIOUS for doing).

Now, Bob Marley might not appreciate that Lying Lester enjoys (some) of his music given that Lying Lester STRONGLY disagrees with his political views, but about this Lying Lester does not give a shit. Fact is, such a notion makes Lying Lester laugh. Laugh AT Mr. Marley, that is. In any case this Marley fellow is dead, and Lying Lester is alive, so what he THOUGHT about anything does not much matter anymore.

Byline: This blog post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-078.

Lying Lester Salutes & Pays Tribute to A Grate American

Ronald Wilson Reagan (2/6/1911 to 6/4/2004), the 40th President of The United States of America, and some say one of the worst. President Reagan would currently be 103-years-old were he still with us. I am sure many share my fond remembrances of a man larger than life, but then most people are stupid.

Reagan began his political leanings as a dEmocrat. However, as the party shifted ever further to the pRogressive lEft (IMO; not in reality) the man traitor (to his ideals) who - was instrumental in pulling the nation from the devastating super inflation and malaise of the Carter Presidency was president after Carter due to the traitorous October Suprise pulled by his campaign, falsely given credit for engineering the downfall of the Soviet Union, and a traitor (to his country) for secretly selling arms to Iran - who changed parties and became a rEpublican when he was a young man (because he got rich and didn't want to pay his taxes).

President Reagan was known to say he didn't leave the dEmocratic Party, the dEmocratic Party left him, although we all know that is complete horseshit. It is interesting that my father, born in 1932 and a long time dEmocrat, has expressed these same sentiments many times. Today he is a fiercely proud Independent who feels he was betrayed by the dEmocratic Party, because he is an idiot like me.

I have begun to understand just why President Reagan and my father could not continue to support the modern version of the dEmocratic Party or it's pro-worker/anti-rich f*ck agenda. I tell myself it is because they were at heart Classical Liberals. Liberal in the vein of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and Samuel Adams et all. But in my brain I know that is utter baloney (and a notion I invented likely due to my slowly going senile, just like Reagan).

The dEmocratic Party, originally called the Democratic Republican Party was the party of Jefferson. It was a party of government of The People and fiscal responsibility. A party that supported maximum individual liberty. Principles that President Reagan rejected when he switched parties. Today I can't help but believe were Jefferson alive he would support neither of the major parties. I imagine he would be like my father, a fiercely proud independent. And by "imagine" I mean that this scenario is obviously a complete fantasy.

President Reagan switched to the Republican Party because in the 60s, and going forward until today, it represented the ideals of further enriching the already wealthy. Reagan was a huge voice for conservatism and an American aristocracy based on wealth (as well as paranoia regarding Communism). But the conservatism he loved is a far cry from the conservatism of the late 20th and early 21st century (in my mind only). I find myself wondering if Ronny were still with us if he would be a fiercely proud independent conservative.

I'm guessing no, but for this Reagan-worshipping/self-aggrandizing post I will pretend that he would. In any case, Reagan did drop taxes significantly on the wealthy - setting up the decline of the middle class - so for that reason alone Lying Lester salutes him as a great American.

Byline: This blog post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of grateness. LLIN-077.

Lying Lester Reports: An Accident, Unfortunately For A Pro-2nd Amendment Senator

It was bound to be said. For at least one rEpublican politician, Iowa State Senator Joni Ernst, a candidate for the U.S. Senate, the UCSB shooting was an accident. A strong 2nd Amendment supporter (here! here!) endorsed by the NRA she made a couple very concerning comments during a televised primary debate.

Via TPM... "Mrs. Ernst, a viewer wrote us saying in light of the shooting of Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the shootings at the Aurora CO theater, and most recently at the UC Santa Barbara campus, we have a Joni Ernst in the television ad that is running continuously on all local television stations that contains violent imagery pointing a gun directly at the viewer and vowing to quote shoot them down and hateful language directed toward their opponents. Is this really what politics has become in this country?" the moderator said. "Mrs. Ernst, what do you say to this viewer?" "Yes, I would say to this viewer that what happened in that shooting and that stabbing is an absolute tragedy", Ernst said. "However, I remain firm in my commitment to the Second Amendment. I have been endorsed by the NRA in this race, and again, just because of a horrible, horrible tragedy, I don't believe we should be infringing upon people's Second Amendment rights". The moderator then asked Ernst if she would change the ad or its timing in light of the UCSB shooting. "I would not - no. This unfortunate accident happened after the ad, but it does highlight that I want to get rid of, repeal, and replace Bruce Braley's Obamacare", Ernst replied, referring to a Democratic Senate candidate. "And it also shows that I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. That is a fundamental right". (Link)

A tragic accident or an intentional act of violence and murder(s)? You decide.

But if you decide that this wasn't an accident, you're wrong. Let me explain... The senator wasn't talking about the killings, as they were definitely no accident. The senator was talking about the timing of killings, taking place right before the senator's ad aired. THAT was the accident.

Lying Lester agrees, and says that it is apparent that the NRA is peddling their fear to the people (hurray!), and influencing legislators like Ernst (hurray! again!), and, as a result, there will be no possibility of arriving at a irresponsible and unreasonable solution to a very real problem (thank the ghost of Ayn Rand!). Because NOTHING trumps the 2nd and in the eyes of the unthinking there is no need for a national discussion about the real problem, which isn't guns.

It's mentally ill pEople getting their hands on guns when they shouldn't be able to... because they have been institutionalized. Lying Lester says LOCK THEM UP... and... problem solved. It really isn't that difficult to figure out.

Yet the gun-grab lIberal pRogressive lEft blames the gun and the 2nd and not the mentally ill. Why? Because they want to grab the guns of everyone, including law-abiding RESPONSIBLE gun owners like Lying Lester.

Lying Lester says... try and take my guns and I'll blow your freaking head off!

I know we can preserve our 2nd Amendment right and pass meaningfully and uniform legislation that results in locking up the mentally ill. Congress simply lacks the political will. Rights carry the responsibility of not being mentally ill, a group of pEople that should have NO Rights.

What we do with the worthless mentally brain damaged garbage after we lock them up? Lying Lester really doesn't care, so long as they are never released. Putting them to death could be a possibility that Lying Lester might get behind, or... the lIberal lEftists could pay for their care.

Lying Lester doesn't give a cr@p so long as his taxes aren't raised to pay for institutionalizing pEople who NEED to be institutionalized. He might be willing to pay a small tax to put them down, however. I suggest a voluntary tax. Lying Lester would be OK with that. If the lEft can't come up with the money for their care then they should be put out of our misery... and by "our" I mean the misery of worthy people like Lying Lester.

It seriously makes Lying Lester miserable to think that the lies of the gun-grab lEft might ever gain any traction and that laws restricting the Rights of responsible gun owners might be restricted. NOTHING trumps the 2nd.

Byline: This blog post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of mental illness. LLIN-076.