Lying Lester Laughs At The Idea Of A Lady President

A Lady president? Apparently the dEmocrats think it is "time". Don't worry about earning the position or about actually being the best qualified person for the job. That was not a concern when the dEmocrats decided it was "time" for a Black president, after all.

In bArack oBama they selected a not-even-one-term Senator from IL. A former community organizer who "achieved" nothing in the private sector. And, although his educational achievements appear impressive, he refuses to release those transcripts. I wonder why. Perhaps he only "achieved" what he did due to affirmative action?

Given what a lazy pResident oBama has been, Lying Leser finds it hard to believe he achieved anything beyond organizing people to demand handouts from the gOvernment (isn't that what a "community organizer" does?). So, oBama, our first affirmative action pResident? Lying Lester thinks YES.

As for the next dEmocratic presidential hopeful, it has been decided that the time has come for a lady pResident. Many think that the job should go to Hillary Clinton. Because she is a former first lady who parlayed that "experience" into a Senatorship and then a disastrous stint as the current prez's secretary of state.

A position Hillary held when one of our nation's worst terrorist attacks occurred, I should note. I refer to Benghazi, of course. An attack during which the terrorists killed ambassador Christopher Stevens, among others. But Hillary did not even care, saying "what does it matter"?

Now it is Hillary's Turn to get her shot at the White House as the nation's first female candidate for president. That is, unless Elizabeth Warren challenges her. Either way the dEmocrats have decided to go for a lady, even if that lady lacks the necessary qualifications, or did a rump job while serving as one of oBama's secretaries.

Only because it is "time". Now, given how Ayn Rand viewed feminism, you know she would strongly disagree with this argument. Because there are strong strands of collectivism in feminism, Ayn Rand rejected it, and even went so far as to provocatively declare herself a "male chauvinist". Not that that makes any f*cking sense, but it is true.

Ayn argued that sexually, women should desire to engage in "hero worship", and that this required having at least one man to whom they could each look up to. For this reason she argued in her essay "About a Woman President" that a women should not want to be the commander-in-chief.

I, as an Objectivist and admirer of Miss Rand, defer to her judgment. A woman should not want to be president. And, even *if* I were inclined to vote for a lady president, it would surely not be either Hillary or Elizabeth, each of whom is completely unqualified in Lying Lester's opinion.

Being a First Lady or terrible sEcretary of sTate does not qualify one to be president! Should Hillary be able to ride her husband's coattails into the White House? Of course not. Even though she has ridden his coattails into the Senate and into the position of one of Obama's secretaries (and I refer NOT to the type of secretarial position that is appropriate for a woman to hold).

And Elizabeth Warren? Give me a break! She isn't even qualified to hold her current position. One which she has not been in for that long, remember. But like oBama the presidential buzz is suggesting she should run despite a resume that shows she is unqualified for the position of Commander-in-Chief.

So, who should one vote for come 2016? I say vote for Gary Johnson. He's a MAN and has the necessary qualifications to serve. Gary Johnson served as the 29th Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003. In 1976 Gary founded Big J Enterprises, which grew from this one-person venture to become one of New Mexico's largest construction companies.

Experience running a state as Governor, and experience running a company in the private sector. And also a Man. Are these NOT the qualifications that we should be looking for in a Chief Executive?

So, come 2016 I say you should vote for Gary. He is more than qualified, and he's also not a Lady nor is he Black. I know Gary is the Man I'll be voting for. As would Ayn Rand, were she still with us. Of that I am sure.

Byline: This non-misogynist nor racist commentary was authored by Objectivism adherant and superior huMAN Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-116.

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.

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.

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.