Lying Lester Says iSlam Is The rEligion of Pure Evil

That ISIS is threatening more beheadings of captured Americans if President Obama does not stop American operations in Iraq should take no one by surprise, ISIS being the scum of the earth.

Radical jihadists, adherents all to the "prophet" Muhammad and his "religion" called iSlam, will continue their barbarous assault on reason, liberty, Christianity, Judaism, Objectivism and any other belief system that does not conform to their treacherous beliefs and values (Objectivism being the last one I named, but the best one).

It remains to be seen what Obama will determine to do in response to this beheading of an innocent American journalist. Now may not be the time to show weakness, although I'm sure he will, given the fact that he is a lazy Black man.

As for we should do, Lying Lester thinks the mUslins should be given the opportunity to denounce/renounce their "prophet" and convert to some other rEligion (Lying Lester favors Objectivism). If not? Then Lying Lester says KILL THEM ALL!!! Perhaps some beheadings of our own might be one option we could (at least) consider?

In any case, the evil that is iSlam can no longer be tolerated. And saying so, by the way, is not bigoted, as one troll who is now banned from rAtional nAtion uSA suggested. Just ask my mUslin friends. I told them that mOhamed was an evil man, and they completely agreed with me.

Although they did say that, "Islam requires that mOhamed be acknowledged as Aslan's final prophet". To that I said "no". And then my mUslin friends said "you make a compelling argument, Lester. We'll do it". And then they broke from the mUslin church and formed a brand new sect of iSlam. A new sect that acknowledges that mOhamed was an evil man and a false prophet.

As for still using the Quran, which is the central religious text of iSlam and is believed by mUslins to have been revealed to mOhamed by Aslan, I said "that won't work, given that mOhamed wasn't a prophet and therefore he couldn't have had the text revealed to him by Aslan".

But I came up with a workable solution. I told my mUslin friends that they could pretend the text of the Quran was revealed (dictated by Aslan) to someone else. I mean - as with all rEligions - iSlam is completely pretend anyway... so just pretend someone else transcribed what the imaginary Aslan told him, her, or them?

I suggested Jesus, and my mUslin friends agreed, given that iSlam already views Jesus as a prophet. "Really?" I said. That iSlam views Jesus as a prophet is not something I knew. I would have thought that Jesus, being a good guy who did not rape and pillage, would be viewed by iSlam as an infidel.

But my mUslin friends said, "no, he's a prophet too. Or, he is a prophet while mOhamed is not. Not in our eyes anymore, anyway". And I told them that I was glad to hear that, as it meant they were serious about iSlam being a rEligion of peace. And, any mUslin that does not desire death should agree as well.

Agree by converting to this new form of iSlam that rejects the prophethood of mOhamed. They can convert to this new mOhamed-condemning sect of iSlam, or we (the sane rational world) will unleash such destruction on them they'll wish they were never born!

And I also suggested changing the name of their rEligion, so us sane folks would know who among the flea-and-lice-infested sand monkeys are the non-evil ones.

Christianity is named after the Christian's gOd, Christ... so what about Aslanity, named, of course, after the mUslim's lion-deity, Aslan?

Byline: This rational and non-iSlamophobic commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-122.

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.

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.

The Ignorance and Arrogance of Lester Nation

In my opinion I, Lying Lester, in my past attacks on the pResident belied both my basic ignorance of our republic as well as my arrogance. Arrogance that I actually argued that past words of our lEader were enough to deny this man, and I use the term loosely in this case, another term as pResident.

Forgive me my rational liberal friends for my bashing of the president for his statist leanings, although with this I have proven beyond any doubt that I am indeed clueless, in that I believe that even a Mitt Romney with all his baggage would have been preferable to this outrage!

I speak, of course, of the pResident's railing against the SCOTUS and the possibility that they may have struck down the ACA (AKA "ObamaFart")... in part, or perhaps just the mandate. Obama complained about the possibility that "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law".

But Lying Lester agreed with the 4/2/2012 WP article "Obama's unsettling attack on the Supreme Court" by Ruth Marcus that said...

Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice. (link).

But, as we all know, the SCOTUS upheld ObamaFart and it is now law. Still I was right to criticize the pResident... criticisms I stand behind... and for that I am indeed ignorant as well as arrogant. But as a real man I must never admit I was wrong, and that is what is important here.

Byline: This ignorant commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of ignorance. LLIN-037.