On The Fact That Political Hacks Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank & Elizabeth Warren Want To Steal Your Property

I heard that Bernie Sanders, Barney Frank, and Elizabeth Warren got together and decided that they fully supported thievery via government by the way of civil asset forfeiture and property seizure by way of eminent domain. Not surprising in that if you look at the fine-print of their progressive mission-statement it reads, "except when the oppressor is the state".

A lot of people don't realize it but the IRS can confiscate your life-savings and they don't even have to charge you with a crime first. It's called civil forfeiture and, while its initial purpose was mostly to target drug-dealers, it has quite literally made criminals of small business owners whose only sin is the fact that they don't take credit cards and make small deposits in cash (restructuring, its called; the IRS evidently seeing cash dealings as intrinsically suspicious).

Of course, the really scary thing in all of these scenarios is that a) the plaintiff (i.e. victim) is never innocent until proven guilty but guilty until proven innocent and b) if it wasn't for groups like the Institute for Justice (a LIBERTARIAN outfit - the progressives sitting it out again) most of us wouldn't even know about this shit. The government as a powerful force for good? Yeah, right.

By the way, I totally lied when I said that Bernie Sanders fully supports thievery by way of civil asset forfeiture. What he actually said is "that he will fight civil forfeiture, and that it's a big issue which basically punishes the poor".

Punishing the poor? I'm actually in favor of it. Although I'm for "punishing" them by taking away the free stuff. Bernie Sanders wants to give the freeloaders a LOT more free goodies! Anyway, as Bernie himself said, "he's learning more about it". Right. Sounds like a totally bullshit excuse to me. He's been in Congress for decades and now he's only catching up now? I doubt he'll do a damn thing, except perhaps vote to continue seizing the assets of small business owners (who he hates). What a fucking asshole!

Proof of Bernie's hatred is the fact that he wants to force small business owners to overpay low-wage workers and thus drive them out of business. The truth is that there is no limit to the number of taxes that Bernie Sanders wants to increase and there is no limit to the amount of new government he wants to create. Personally, I don't think that's where the American people want government to go. They're tired of these big-government solutions.

Libertarians, on the other hand? They believe in empowering people so that they can pursue their own American dream. Which bodes well for the Gary Johnson candidacy, I think. Perhaps the American people will wise up and elect this awesome Libertarian their next president? Sadly, this probably won't happen. Due to the fact that there are too many lazy freeloaders voting. Some Whites. But also (in HIGHER percentages) lazy Blacks (who are also VERY violent, but I digress).

I commend the GOP for its vote suppression tactics, but (unless they REALLY ramp up the voter suppression), it might not be enough. And, even if it is, it won't work in Gary Johnson's favor. Goddamn it!

Byline: This factual commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-215.

Willis Hart Contemplates A Warren Presidency

Our possible future under a Elizabeth Warren presidency? Given that Warren is a socialist/communist progressive, is it possible that such a presidency might bring mass murder to our nation?

In the USSR under Lenin, Lenin's number one henchman, Felix Dzerzhinsky - a Russian of Polish decent and quite possibly one of the toughest, cruelest men in European history - the Cheka was established. This was a no-holds-barred and totally lawless Russian secret police whose whole purpose was to crush dissent and to do so with the greatest amount of terror possible.

This "strategy" included a wholesale infiltration of every aspect of human life (big brother on steroids), mass arrests, convictions without a trial, concentration camps, hostage-taking, and of course mass/indiscriminate murder (including the murder of children and the elderly) to the tune of firing-squads working 24/7.

And talk about a militarized police force (a popular topic these days). These sons of bitches were chock to the gills with such high powered weaponry (machine guns, armored vehicles, etc.) that not only were they able to put down every peasant rebellion (and, yes, there were hundreds), they were able to annihilate them beyond belief. In fact, if it wasn't Dzerzhinsky and these brutal tactics of his, Lenin may not have ever survived and, so, yeah, I guess that you've got to give him an A+ for that.

And, so I have to wonder, would a president Warren receive the same A+? One of my regular readers and commenters on my other blog, Contra O'Reilly would likely say "YES". In any case, a Warren presidency would likely be quite dangerous, in terms of people losing their wealth and possibly their lives.

Socialists like Stalin and Lenin seem to think we need massacres to "pacify the peasants". Do we know that the American progressive is of a similar mind? Well, there was one (now banned) commenter on the blog RNUSA who is far to the Left - and he quoted Stalin to buttress his opinion. And we also know that Warren is FAR to the Left.

The Leftist meme that the system is "rigged" is one that Warren talks about frequently. So, would she want to establish a secret police, round up the opposition and start the "pacification"?

Surely one has to admit it is a possibility. A Warren presidency would be bad for the wealthy, in any case, which is why Elizabeth Warren must never be president. Not that I think it is that likely. But then Barack Obama did ascend to the highest office in the land, despite a threadbare resume. So it could happen.

Don't want you or your family to be murdered and dumped in a mass grave by a socialist tyrant? Don't vote for Warren or Sanders or any Socialist who runs as a dEmocrat in 2016 (if any). Just something to think about.

Byline: This cautionary commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of straw men. LLIN-138.

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.