On CNN's Virtue Signaling Social Justice Warriors

I refer to CNN's post debate coverage Monday night (9/26/2016). Six people criticizing Trump (seven if you include the increasingly more and more difficult to stomach host, Anderson Cooper), two people defending the guy. So, no, not even remotely balanced. Though, yes, it was better than MSNBC, where even the Republican pundits - Steve Schmidt, Nicole Wallace - fall all over themselves in a rank effort to virtue-signal, be liked, etc.

They'll be sorry when Mr. Trump is in the White House. He'll have his revenge then, I'm sure. It's almost enough to make me root for Trump. But, yes, I'm still voting for Gary "what's Aleppo" Johnson.

Despite him having zero chance of being elected. I'm sticking to my principals and not voting for the lesser of two evils (I'm voting for the greater evil). Because I'm convinced that Gary Johnson would make the best president. In that he'd cater to the needs of the oligarchs the best.

BTW, why the hell wasn't Gary Johnson up on that debate stage? Trump is implying that (if he loses) that it will be because the election was rigged. But what about Gary Johnson? Is the election not rigged against him? But the elites knew that, if he had been allowed on the debate stage, he'd surely have mopped the floor with DJT and HRC.

And likely ended up our next president. But, given that he's getting no exposure? He can't win when people don't know who he is. Which is the point, of course. To suppress Gary's message of building up our oligarchs even more and crushing the poor and middle class even more than they are currently being crushed.

Although (to be completely honest, which in the past I haven't been) he cloaks that message in lies. Because the ignorant and stupid voters wouldn't like his real message (that they NEED to be crushed for the good of our oligarchs).

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-312.

Will That Lying Piece Of Shit Lawyer, Miss Hillary, Finally Be Put Behind Bars Where She Belongs?

If there's a deity, maybe. The fact that she lied to the families of the Benghazi victims was the final straw for me. Sure, that's a load of bullpucky, but STILL, it was the final straw for me. Not the Rightwing lying re "she lied to the families of the Benghazi victims", but the Leftist media calling out that lie. Fuck them.

PoltiFact: This allegation that Clinton lied to victims' families refers to events right after the 9/11/2012, attack on a US diplomatic compound in Benghazi Libya. 3 days after the attacks, President Barack Obama, Clinton and others met with the families of the four victims, gathering at Joint Base Andrews to receive the victims' remains. [Rightwingers allege] that at this meeting, Clinton told the families a story about the attacks that she knew at the time to be false. This talking point gets right at the heart of the deep partisan divide over Benghazi and Clinton's role, and readers have asked us for clarity. But the lack of hard evidence makes it impossible to know what really happened between Clinton and these families. No one recorded these brief meetings behind closed doors. Family members and Clinton disagree on what was said. Especially given the emotional setting, memories - both Clinton's and the families' - might be fuzzy. Patricia Smith, mother of information officer Sean Smith [said HRC told her a video was to blame, as did] Charles Woods, father of CIA operative Tyrone Woods... Some family members don't remember any discussion of a video. Jan Stevens, father of Ambassador Chris Stevens, told PolitiFact that the first time he heard anything about a video was when the Washington Post Fact Checker called him with a similar question. He confirmed that he heard "nothing whatsoever" about a video from Clinton but declined to comment further. Tyrone Woods' mother, Cheryl Bennett, told PolitiFact that when she spoke with Clinton, she "never heard the word video mentioned. That's just a fact". Bennett, who is estranged from Charles Woods, said the motivation behind the attack didn't come up in her brief interaction with Clinton. Speaking with CNN's Anderson Cooper in October 2015, Kate Quigley, sister of CIA operative Glen Doherty, said Clinton mentioned protests but not a video. Barbara Doherty, Glen Doherty's mother, didn't recall talking with Clinton about a video and said she remembered Clinton as being sincere and crying, according to the Washington Post. Clinton, for her part, flatly denies saying anything about the film in her one-on-one with the families. (What did Hillary Clinton tell the families of people who lost their lives in Benghazi? by Lauren Carroll, 2/9/2016).

More people say HRC never mentioned that fucking video (the Innocence of Muslims). But, you know what? I'm going to believe what I want to believe. Which is that HRC lied. Even though she didn't. Just like I'm going to keep believing that Lara Logan's reporting on what Benghazi "eyewitness" Morgan Jones proves that IT'S NOT a fake scandal... this despite the fact that Logan herself said "we were wrong... and we apologize to our viewers".

Fact is, I'm quite proud of my cognitive dissonance. How the hell else do you think I could remain a Libertarian? Heck, I've even gone further down the Libertarian rabbit hole since I started this blog, this KNOWING that Gary Johnson is a despicable colossal liar.

But Gary HAS to lie. Because today's voters only go for the candidate that offers them the most free stuff. So, when Gary says that, under a Johnson presidency "we can still still create a safety net [and] nobody goes without", OF COURSE he's TOTALLY BSing. But he HAS to! It's what they call the "good lie". And I commend Johnson for lying about such things.

Unlike HRC. She lies by telling her supporters what they want to hear. But Johnson isn't lying to his supporters, he's lying to those who want free stuff. His genuine supporters (people like me), know the REAL agenda is to get rid of the safety net. Specifically so the parasites will "do without". And die off. Believe me, America will be better without the moochers.

Anyway, will HRC go to prison like Julia Assange of WikiLeaks says? Probably not. But maybe. And that would surely be a great day. As then Gary Johnson would be the only alternative. And perhaps THEN he'd be viable. Something he currently is not. Sadly. Even my cognitive dissonance (massive as it is) can't convince me that Gary has a shot at getting elected POTUS. Unless something unprecedented occurs (like HRC getting arrested). Let's just say my fingers are crossed.

And who wants a chick president anyway? Not me, that's for sure.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-305.

As A Libertarian, I Can Confirm That I Hate Democracy

This is an accusation that is often flug at Libertarians. Instead of denying it, I can confirm that it is absolutely TRUE. Fact is, I do agree with James Madison's view of Democracy, which is that "it is the most vile form of government".

And of course he's correct in that the inevitable results of pure democracy are mob-rule, socialism, plunder, subjugation of the minority, and a total abandonment of the non-aggression principle (sometimes leading to war or genocide). I mean, just look at Zimbabwe and South Africa for starters. Fucking hellholes!!

Me, I would MUCH prefer a benevolent dictatorship lead by a coalition of the uber-wealthy elites, perhaps with Gary Johnson serving as a figurehead. "King Gary" or "Emperor for life Johnson" sounds a HELL of a lot better to me than President Hillary Clinton (*shudder*)

BTW, as far as our new dictator's "benevolence" goes, I only mean there would be no mass murdering in the oligarchy. Unlike socialist dictatorships, under which the State usually kills millions. Directly. Indirect deaths (those due to starvation) would likely be similar. Or perhaps even greater. Due to our new oligarchic overlords abolishing ALL welfare.

The result being that millions of worthless Takers would (given their refusal to work) bite it. Or, as Ayn Rand said (in regards to the poor man) "If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course". Ha ha ha ha! Perfect!

If that utopia ever came about? It would SURELY cause me great joy to hear the news of the day. Because the top story would likely be a report on how bodies of worthless poor people were collected and incinerated that day. Of course it wouldn't go on for too long. Sooner or later the US would purged of it's parasite infestation. And that would be a day to par-tay! Emperor Johnson would likely declare a national holiday.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-302.

As Plainly as I Can Say It... I'm A Gary Johnson Dupe

This commentary concerns my vote for president this November. Will I vote for Trump? I thought long and hard about it, but in the end I decided that Trump is a clown and I refuse to vote for clowns. If he wasn't a former reality show personality? Then, MAYBE I'd vote for him.

I really like his idea about building a wall. Not to keep out Hispanics willing to work for incredibly low wages. I'm 100 percent in favor of opening the borders to let in slave wage laborers (driving down wages for average Americans). But we do need to keep out terrorists who might try and sneak over the border (perhaps with a suitcase nuke).

So, that's a NO on Trump (unfortunately).

But you know who else I refuse to vote for? I refuse to vote for a person who lies to the families of the victims of the Benghazi attacks (telling them one thing when you told your own family something different) and who, when pressed on the matter, strongly implies that they're the ones who are lying.

Regardless of whether or not that actually happened. Which it did not. According to David Brooks (a man I admire because he's one of the very few commentators out there who holds both sides' feet to the fire) the search for something (anything) to indict Hillary on (in regards to Benghazi) failed because there was no scandal. In Brook's words the endless "investigation" of HRC over Benghazi resulted in NOTHING to slime Hillary with because it was a "big nothing burger".

David Brooks further said "there is a certain psychosis that goes through people's minds, especially about scandals, but Clinton scandals, where they — where something smells, and they think there must be something big, and they imagine there is about to be some big revelation that will destroy their careers".

Yeah, I think that just about sums it up for me. The psychosis that results in thinking there MUST be something big. That "something" being the "fact" that HRC "lied" to some of the families of those who lost loved ones in Benghazi. See also Lara Logan's debunked reporting regarding what Dylan Davies (a British employee of the security company Blue Mountain Group) said happened on the night of the Benghazi attacks.

According to Davies (as per his incident report) he "could not get anywhere near" the compound the night of the attack. Later he changed his story. In the revised version he "scaled a wall of the compound, personally struck a terrorist in the face with his rifle butt, and later went to the Benghazi hospital to see Ambassador Chris Stevens' body". Presumably he made himself a hero in this version in order to sell a book (a book that Simon & Schuster pulled when it discovered Davis was a liar).

Regardless of whether or not Davis is a liar (which he is), I continue to stick to my guns and insist that Lara Logan's reporting (reporting which she apologized for, saying "we made a mistake") PROVES that that IT'S NOT a "fake scandal" After All!!! And, yeah, I strongly suspect that Ms. Logan is going to get slimed over this one. Just because she said she made a mistake in putting a liar on the air?

Does it really matter that Davis lied? I say NO. What's important is the story that Logan initially reported. A story that makes the Obama administration and HRC look bad. Sorry, but I've got to part ways with the estimable David Brooks on this one. In this instance I think he took his penchant for holding people's feet to the fire regardless of party TO FAR. I mean, in this instance I think harming HRC's presidential chances is what is important. As opposed to getting the facts right.

For the record, when I said before that I'd vote for Hillary if someone held a gun to my head and told me I had to chose between her and Donald... and I said I'd vote for Hillary? What I forgot to add was (in that scenario), it was Hillary who was holding the gun to my head. If nobody was holding a gun to my head - and the choice was Hillary or Donald? I'd choose Donald. Despite him being a clown. And least he isn't a liar like Hillary (even though what I SAY she lied about is something she actually didn't lie about).

That's who and why I'm voting for Gary Johnson again. I'm totally in with his use of the buzzwords "liberty" and "freedom". Because he's referring to freedom and liberty for rich people. Mostly freedom from high taxes. Nevermind the fact that, belying the "liberty" facade, Gary has surrounded himself with a bevy of Rightwing opperatives.

Gary Johnson's campaign chief, Ron Nielson... runs a conservative polling firm called NSON Opinion Strategies, whose headquarters is the same three-story building on South Temple Road as Johnson's campaign headquarters... NSOM has a history of working with GOP right-wingers including crotchety Mormon asshole Orin Hatch and ex-witch and masturbation-denier Christine O'Donnell... Gary Johnson's campaign headquarters is located in Romney's backyard, in a right-wing Republican polling firm's office. [Also] according to documents filed with the state of Utah, the person responsible for filing the paperwork to register Gary Johnson's "Our America Initiative" is Maureen Otis, a Texas attorney with deep roots in the far-right Minutemen movement, and with Republican Party voter-suppression dirty tricks. (The Gary Johnson Swindle by Mark Ames. 11/6/2012).

The article goes on, but you get the idea. Gary Johnson being a "Libertarian" is (as per the article title) a swindle. Gary, despite his claims of wanting "liberty", associates himself with Rightwing operatives who are involved in voter suppression. Suppression that benefits Republican candidates.

Keep in mind that Gary (running as a Libertarian) has ZERO chance becoming president. So what's the game here? Help yourself by helping those who are cheating to get Republicans elected? Yeah, I think that's it.

Which I should note is A-OK by me. Will GOP dirty tricks help Donald Trump get elected? I think it's definitely possible that Republican voter suppression could hand the presidency to Gary Johnson Donald Trump. Sure, I'd be ecstatic if (somehow) voter suppression benefited Gary Johnson. Unfortunately that's not going to happen.

That being the case, I'm OK with Trump getting "elected" president. I'm not in love with the idea, but it is what it is. Better him than a piece of shit like HRC. Although (like I said) I'm voting for Johnson. Unless Hillary held a gun to my head. Then I'd vote for her. I'm only one vote and surely my one vote is NOT worth dying over. At least it isn't worth ME dying over. If Hillary held a gun to wd's head and said "vote for me or else" (I'll blow wd's head off)? I'd tell her to pull the trigger.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-256.

Will Our Next President Be Gary Johnson?

So, here we are, actually on the verge of having to watch two of the most low-ball jamming and distrusted politicians in the country (Clinton and Trump) defecate on each other for the next five months in what is bound to be one of the most rancid presidential races in U.S. history?!

More and more I'm beginning to think that this existence thing of ours isn't actual but rather some virtual reality, hologram, dream, or video game. 'Cause I ask you here, what sane and cogent civilization would act like this? IT MAKES NO SENSE. Maybe we're participants in a game being played by the super-intelligent AI robots?

And, yes, I'm begging you, at least consider throwing away your vote on Gary Johnson, whose honesty, integrity, competence, sanity, and dedication to our beloved oligarchs we cannot question (at least not to this ludicrous level).

So, while I previously said that Johnson would probably have to kill somebody for me to not vote for him again, now I'm thinking that I'd vote for Johnson even if he out and out murdered someone. Heck, I'd still vote for Johnson even if we were to find out that he was a serial killer who pranced about in the nude wearing nothing but his victim's skin (in the privacy of his own home).

One thing I would not do, however, would be to write in the name "Les Carpenter" (AKA Lester Nation, the former proprietor of this blog). That guy is an asshole.

BTW, if Donald Trump were to be wise enough to select Gary Johnson as his VP, I'd vote for Donald in a heartbeat. Although I think Gary might say no if Donald asked him. However, IMO, Donald Trump might not be that bad. Also, at the end of Trump's 8 years in office Gary could run and win as POTUS (given the fact that a VP going on to become president isn't unprecedented).

On the other hand, the nation might just decide that neither Trump nor Clinton are fit for the presidency and decide to send Gary Johnson (a high-ball jammer) to the White House! Causing me (as well as others who worship the plutocrats) to jump for joy! Unfortunately, that seems unlikely, what with Miss Clinton going after the Bernie voters by offering to give away boatloads of other people's money. Not quite as much as Comrade Sanders wanted to give away, but still a LOT.

So, will Gary Johnson be our next president? Maybe not. A factor that might help Gary clinch the presidency could be the selection of the right person as his VP. Now, the former proprietor of this blog often suggested that he might be a good VP pick for Johnson. But given the fact that he went from being an anarcho-capitalist Libertarian who worshiped Ayn Rand and who thoroughly despised the Progressive Left to somebody who essentially signs off on every cockamamie Leftist notion under the damned sun? I'm thinking that I would be a MUCH better choice.

Surely Gary Johnson is smart enough to select Willis Hart as his VP. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if Gary reads this blog and takes pointers from it. And, a Johnson-Hart ticket would almost be a shoe-in, I think. Except for the fact that the voters are quite dumb. I mean, Bernie Sanders almost defeated Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, and he's a Socialist for Christ!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-238.

I'm With Trump In His Desire To Restrict Raghead Access To Our Country

Did you know it's a fact that only 33% of Ragheads living in Britian would turn in a terrorist to authorities (Source)? Obviously the solution is to not to allow in hundreds of thousands more of 'em? Apparently (even Angela Merkel has conceded that multiculturalism has totally failed).

Keep 'em out, I say. As for Trump, he says we need to keep them out, but only until we can "figure out what's going on". But we know what's going on! Islam is backward and incompatible with the values of the West. I say we should not only ban more of them from entering the United States, but kick out many that are already here (67% maybe?).

Perhaps we should start rounding them up and putting them in camps (the ones who would NOT turn in a terrorist to the authorities). Although that's not going to happen under Obama. Hopefully, after Trump is elected and figures out what's going on (they hate us)... then we can start deporting them? Trump did say that his administration would look at that and many other things. One of the "many other things" SHOULD be deporting Muslims as far as I'm concerned.

Fucking dirty flea-infested raghead terrorists. And the ones who aren't terrorists are terrorist lovers! As the study I linked to shows. Make America great again by kicking them out. I mean, here in the US we're the champion of diversity, inclusion, and tolerance, except when it comes to Ragheads. Which is why it's a very bad idea to allow the mass immigration of folks from cultures in which these very concepts are totally abhorred.

This is "logic" that an average 8th grader would have been able to dismantle when I was a kid but which today is quite literally parlayed around ad nauseam by 35 year-old insular feminists as a form of spiritual and ethical enlightenment. Boy, has the West ever gotten stupid. And, by "West" I mean Progressives.

Those fuckers are determined to destroy America. I wish we could deport them. Comrade Bernie Sanders would be a good place to start, IMO. Send him back to the country where he honeymooned (the USSR). Why didn't he apply for asylum when he was there? As opposed to coming back here and attempting to make the US more like Soviet Russia.

So, even though I'm voting for Gary Johnson? Bring on the Trump presidency, I say.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-236.

On The Jim Webb Presidency That Will Never Be

So, the Democrats rejected him for Bernie (a socialist a-hole/dullard) and Hillary (a crooked piece of shit lawyer). Just because he's a Republican? How deflating is that? Man, has that party ever hit the skids.

And, by "skids" I mean returned to it's FDR Progressive roots (HRC pushed there by that Commie fucker Sanders). As opposed to going in a more "Moderate" direction. By which I mean Conservative. Because Webb used to be Republican. Then he pretended to be a Democrat for awhile. A charade that ended with his being soundly (and I mean SOUNDLY) rejected by the American people. Via polling/failing to fund raise. He never got one vote in the primaries, as he dropped out before any were held.

Yes, this is the man who should be president. If not Gary Johnson. Sure, neither stood/stands a chance, but Webb (if he had obtained the Democratic nomination despite being a Republican) surely would have ascended to the White House. While Gary, even though he is still running, will likely not even get one percent of the popular vote.

Don't get me wrong, I'm still voting for (throwing away my vote on) Gary Johnson. But if the American people had been smart enough to get behind Webb and Webb was the Democratic nominee? I'd be voting for him. BTW, by "smart enough" I mean if they had been fooled into believing Webb was a Democrat and not a Republican. But, unfortunately they were not.

But did you hear that Webb's sore LOSERness caused him to say (despite being a Democrat pretending to be Democrat), "I could vote for Trump, but not Hillary"? Yeah, I'd be sore too if I was as soundly rejected by the electorate as Webb was.

However, as I noted previously, the American people saw through his transparent "Democrat" deception. Even though Webb was hopeful that he could trick them, as he tricked the people of Virginia when he ran AND WON a senate seat as a "Democrat". Albeit a Conservative one. But that was in the South where they like their "Democrats" to be of the Conservative variety. Obviously Webb's "Democrat" act failed when presented to the country as a whole, which is a damn shame. Fuck the voters for being so dumb. By which I mean smart.

Image: Jim Webb is, according to the caption on the pic below, "not your average Democrat". By which (I presume) the captioner meant he's a Republican.

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-230.

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.

Cruz and Rubio Should Stop Repeatedly Blasting Trump for Not Releasing His Tax Forms!

It's outrageous because Trump is being audited and no reputable tax attorney would ever recommend that a person being audited release his or her records to the public. Also, it is true that Cruz and Rubio have both released their 1040 forms, neither has released their Schedule C form and that is clearly what has the juicier info.

I mean, you do want the total picture here, right - and preferably from someone who doesn't have a dog in the fight, like me, Willis Hart? I mean, I'm for Gary Johnson (even though his chances are zero). But you can absolutely trust my objectivity on this.

Sure, if I wasn't voting for Gary Johnson I might vote for Trump and I hate both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders with the heat of a thousand white-hot suns, but otherwise I'm the most objective dude on the plant.

Anyway, as you recall Mitt Romney followed the precedent set by John McCain by releasing two years of tax returns. Although McCain, the 2008 GOP nominee, bucked the trend of other recent presidential candidates. In more than three decades, no other nominees for either party have released fewer than five years' worth of returns, and Romney's own father released a dozen years’ worth when he ran for the GOP nomination in 1968 (source).

But now maybe Trump is setting a new precedent, in that he'll release zero years of tax returns? I hope so, because a man's tax returns are really nobody else's business. My respect for Mr. Trump would go up by a notch or two if he stood up to this precedent of tax return releasing. If only he'd refudiate eminent domain, I might actually consider voting for him.

Byline: This objective commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart, purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-213.

On The Fact That All Politicians Are Phony. Except For Gary Johnson

Ted Cruz claims to be some sort of Evangelical Christian, but the fact is that he gave less than 1% of his income to tithing and then lied it to CBN's David Brody (giving him some bogus excuse). Regarding these facts, I'd like to say that I'm surprised by this but I'm SOOOOOOO not (a realization that all politicians are phony deep down).

Except for Gary Johnson, who is the real deal. With Gary Johnson (unlike any other politician living) what you see is what you get. He's probably the most honest politician who ever lived, imho. Hell, he might even be the most honest human who has ever lived! Not to mention the fact that he isn't that bad looking. Not that I'd go gay for Johnson, unlike the former proprietor.

Fact is, Johnson would probably have to murder somebody for me to not vote for him again. Although it would depend on who he murdered. If it was someone like wd, for example, then I'd give him a pass. And, if it was wd himself? Then I'd suggest we give Johnson a tickertape parade!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-201.

FDR corksucker censored version

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

On the Fact that CEOs Are Woefully Underpaid

Did you know that it's a fact that CEO Pay increased faster (from the '60s to 2000) amongst privately held corporations than it did amongst publicly held ones?

This is strong evidence that more corporations need to go private, IMO. Sky high CEO pay that decreases wages for the lowly worker being a good thing, of course. Sure, the people on the various boards taking care of their buddies is how science operates. Which is also good... but obviously not good enough.

Sure, we all want CEO wages pushed higher into the stratosphere, but public companies just aren't doing enough on that front, IMHO. I mean, according to Booth Business School economist, Steven Kaplan, CEO Compensation actually declined by 46% from 2000 to 2010, which totally outrages me!

My suspicion is that Socialist Bernie probably doesn't know about this and if he did I'm pretty sure that he wouldn't include it in his stump speeches. He's probably in favor of worker-owned co-ops where the workers share in the profits and upper management only makes a few times more than the lowest paid worker, for christ!

As opposed to thousands of times more. Which is the way it ought to be, of course. Obviously what we need is more privately owned corporations so the pay of CEOs can keep going higher. The sky ISN'T the limit when it comes to these masters of the universe. They might not deserve every penny, but so what?

You think worker pay should rise? Banish the thought. Yet, if Sanders or even Clinton gets in? It could happen. With Sanders it's likely. At least he'll push for it, because Sanders represents the politics of envy at its worst.

With Clinton? Less likely. But I don't think we should risk it. Which is why I'm voting Libertarian. Hopefully Gary Johnson will run. He knows that CEOs need extravagant pay. If it doesn't make your jaw drop and leave you dumbfounded and stunned the pay obviously isn't high enough. Even then I say keep pushing.

By the way, getting a bonus for doing a "bad" job, in that your company loses money... as many of the CEOs of Wall Street finance companies did (received big bonuses) just after the bubble burst (the one that caused our recent recession)? I say why the fuck would we want to punish CEOs for the mess caused by poor people taking out loans they weren't able to pay back?

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Champion of our underpaid CEOs. LLIN-174.

Lying Lester Dissembles About Fascism

Fascism is typically viewed as a lEftist political and economic system. This is true if lEftist is to mean a strong central government with great influence on and regulation over a nation's economic matters. In other words private ownership of business exists but the government essentially establishes economic policy through over burdensome regulations.

As an adherent of the great philosopher Ayn Rand, this is a view that I share. Even though it is complete BS. Some view conservatives and rEpublicans as drivers of our politics and government in the direction towards fascism, which is a lot closer to the truth. Like Mussolini, rEpublicans want to put business in control by freeing them from "over regulation" and "over taxation".

And by placing the burden of taxation on the lower classes, where it belongs. Anyway, while Lying Lester acknowledges that he STRONGLY desires that the United States go fascist, he will continue to lie (as in the opening paragraph of this commentary) and claim that lEftism leads to fascism.

Because the rAbble fears fascism, even though Lying Lester recognizes that under fascism the deserving wealthy are in charge (as they should be). Although some quack named Dr. Lawrence Britt claims that, when combined with other traits exhibited by fascism, the case can be made that it is conservatives and rEpublicans who are more likely to meet the criteria for fascism.

I call the guy a quack not because he is wrong, but because he may cause some of the rAbble to wake up to the truth. The truth about rEpublicans and fascism, that is. Which, if the dream of bringing fascism to the United States is to be realized, is a truth that must be concealed.

For more on this truth I recommend Dr. Leonard Peikoff's work entitled The Ominous Parallels, a fabulous book on the parallels between Nazi Germany and modern day uSA. Note the book was published in 1982 and supports at least in part Dr. Britt's list of 14 characteristics of fascism.

So, after reading the list by Dr. Britt (and considering what you know about fascism) I thought it would be fun to see how many characteristics of fascism you identify as existing in out political and governmental systems today under the Obama Administration. I suspect not that many, or fewer than under the bush administration.

But associating the lEftist Obama with fascism is, as I pointed out earlier, necessary to frighten the gullible rAbble into voting rEpublican. Or perhaps (and this would be preferable), Libertarian. Because the Libertarians are with the rEpublicans when it comes to putting the wealthy in charge.

Although - and this is where the crucial difference comes in - Libertarians are for getting government out of the way completely. Unlike the rEpublicans politicians, who favor leaving themselves in place as corrupt middlemen (skimming off some of the booty stolen from the people for themselves). That "booty" being money and power.

Libertarians, on the other hand, strongly disagree with the concept of a corrupt political class receiving any of this booty. In the opinion of the Libertarians this booty should go exclusively to our wealthy overlords - and the political class should be eliminated - or "shrunk" so as to eliminate the voice of The People (AKA the rAbble) entirely.

Because, even though under dEmocracy the plutocrats have done a decent job bribing our elected representatives (corrupting most rEpublican and many conservative dEmocrats), there still are some politicians who actually listen to The People and try to do their will.

Obviously this is unacceptable and, while this course may EVENTUALLY lead to fascism, the only way to get their QUICKLY is by going Libertarian (which is the reason this sight supports Gary Johnson for President in 2016). Only then (under Libertarianism) will fascism be brought quickly and completely to the United States.

But back to my noble desire to dissemble on fascism and pin the accusation on lEftist pRogressivism, as my colleague dmarks does over on my other (spoof) blog rAtional nAtion uSA by lying about labor unions.

According to the (2nd) quack I site above, "labor power is suppressed - because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government [and under fascism] labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed".

dmarks spins this with a reference to Right To Work (RTW) as empowering workers, because Labor Unions are "crushing labor rights by bullying workers into [them] against their will".

Ha, ha, ha. You've got to admire an individual who is willing to tell such audacious and patently absurd lies like dmarks. Because, in all honesty, RTW is designed to kill unions, thus enabling the plutocrats free rain to bully and take advantage of workers. But, as one NAZI fascist said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it".

Spreading the "big lies" that will benefit our wealthy overlords when the rAbble believe them is the objective on my other blog, rAtional nAtion uSA. dmarks buys into one of these big lies concerning Labor. I'd say "hats off" to him in helping spread this lie, but the deluded doofus actually believes the BS he spouts, which is quite sad and pathetic.

But also fortunate, in that even if it is deluded doofuses spreading these Big Lies - as opposed to people who KNOW they are dissembling (people like Lying Lester) - the spreading of these lies will still work to the benefit of our wealthy betters.

The thing to remember is that Blue Dogs (corporate dEms) like Obama should be painted with the fascist brush, because even if a corporate dEmocrat like Obama is in charge, the end result is an empowering of other dEmocrats, including pRogressive dEmocrats, the most dangerous wing of the dEmocratic pArty. Dangerous because they actually listen to The People (AKA the rAbble).

Also remember that pRogressive dEmocrats are the ENEMY. The enemy of hard working Makers like Lying Lester who's only desire is to see the deserving Wealthy come to power and remake (or "fundamentally transform") America by subjugating the rAbble and seizing ALL the power and (most) of the money. Thus fulfilling Ayn Rand's dream. A dream, by the way, that is also Lying Lester's (and the Libertarian Party's) dream.

In closing Lying Lester urges you to vote Libertarian in 2016 when you can (if a Libertarian is on the ballot). In instances when a Libertarian isn't on the ballot vote rEpublican. But whatever you do DO NOT vote for a "fascist" dEmocrat! Even a Corporate dEmocrat.

Byline: This dishonest commentary was dissembled by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-157.

Gary Johnson, a Man for the Times... A Times For The Oligarchs To Rise!

Will the previous Libertarian Party candidate for president Gary Johnson be the standard bearer of the Ron Paul Revolution going forward into the future? As the Liberty movement and the Paul Revolution continues to pick up steam it is critically important that individuals who cherish individualism and liberty based on wealth (more wealth means more liberty), that understand and desperately want a return to limited constitutional government, that want every individual, regardless of race, ethnicity, religious affiliation or sexual orientation or accumulated wealth to be free to live their lives as they chose within the constitutional laws of society stand up and cast their ballot for Gary Johnson in 2016, should he decide to run again.

There are many (they number in the several million) that support what the Libertarian Party and Gary Johnson stands for but will vote rEpublican simply because of their disdain for the job President Obama has done since being elected. And their disdain for the probable Democrat nominee, Hillary Clinton. There are millions more who will vote for Hillary simply because of their distaste for Romney (I've heard he might run again). But it simply amazes how anyone can vote for either candidate, Romney (if he runs again) or Hillary... when in reality they are merely shades of each other.

Voting for Romney or Hillary simply means voting for the "lesser of two evils" and either will insure the continued downward spiral of our nation into fiscal insanity and increasing sTatism instead of shrinking government and allowing the wealthy to do as they please. In other words continued fiscal instability, continued deficits and increasing debt, continued loss of individual liberty, increased dependency on government, continued polarization of the populace along religious, ethnic, and racial lines, and more will be the reality if either the rEpublican or dEmocrat becomes president. Unfortunate as it is, we all know one of them likely will.

This despite the fact that many of us want gOvernment to get out of the way and allow the wealthy (instead of We The People) to set the agenda and the rules of the game. In other words continued concentration of wealth at the top, continued deficits and increasing debt for middle classers and working Poors who are finding it extremely hard to get by as it is, increased liberty for those who deserve it, decreased dependency on government because the leeches are simply allowed to wither and die, and continued polarization of the populace along class lines.

Things we all want, in other words. So why aren't we voting Libertarian? Unfortunate as it is, we all know Gary Johnson's run for the presidency is a long shot at best (if he runs again). He knows that to get 34% of the vote, with the other two candidates splitting the other 66% is mathematically just not going to happen. Gary Johnson understands this, but views past exposure as invaluable in helping to fuel the Liberty Revolution and keep it alive and growing into 2016 by fooling as many people as possible.

Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is not very well known outside of his home state, yet he hoped to send a strong message to the nation's political establishment by siphoning enough votes away from Democrat Barack Obama and Republican Mitt Romney to throw off the 2012 November general election - which, as we all know, did not happen. Gary said he hoped he would get labeled a "spoiler", but he failed miserably, as any moron could have predicted. Although Lying Lester was still hopeful and remains hopeful for 2016. Will Gary run again? And, if he does, will he win? Lying Lester deludes himself into thinking he might.

Gary has so much to offer a weary and fiscally unstable nation. He is about BS and hyperbole and lying about the nation's realities like the New Neo Fascist rEpublican pArty candidate and the New Statist Socialist pArty candidates are and will be. He is about telling the truth, telling it like it is, and he is for the sound fiscal policies that will bring down the debt and concentrate more wealth at the top. He believes in limited government intrusion into our lives. Should the government care what we do in our bedrooms? Should it care if we have enough to eat or a roof over our heads? Should it care if we die in the gutter? No, because that is Communism.

Gary believes in opportunity for all and helping to create the environment where the wealthy can grow and prosper. He believes in the value of hard work, self reliance, poor people working together as a team to enrich their wealthy overlords, and thereby unleashing the great American spirit and can do attitude. Rather than creating dependency on government and the divisiveness that has become so prevalent today, perhaps lazy Poors would get off their asses and WORK, realizing that if they don't work (and for low wages) that they will die.

Lying Lester strongly believes that further enriching the plutocrats is possible if we believe and work hard enough to achieve it. Perhaps even winning the White House in 2016. But we must get vocal in 2014, write letters to the editors, if you have a blog pitch the value of Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party, Volunteer time and or make a contribution if you can, talk about Gary Johnson and his ideas to anyone who will listen, and especially important go to the polls on November 6th 2016 and do the right thing for our country and for our wealthy masters - and VOTE Gary Johnson for President of the United States.

Byline: This excellent commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-151.

Gary Johnson and the Case For A New Direction

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate for president's chances of ever becoming president are at around zero. I agree. But then that really isn't the point. Certainly not in my considered opinion anyway.

In a time when Americans find much about both major party candidates distasteful, and in some cases outright unacceptable, the concept of a third alternative to the status qua can be intriguing. Indeed for some it offers the hope of real change. Rational change that has been proven effective in the State of New Mexico by an effective two tern Governor, Gary Johnson.

That new direction? Shrinking government to the point where it is small and ineffectual, in order that the wealthy might step in and fill that void. With the wealthy fully in charge and the will of The People the rAbble ignored, wealth will naturally concentrate at the top. Faster. Much faster than it is currently. Which is a good thing, of course.

And, while the rEpublicans work hard to accomplish this goal along with corporate dEmocrats, neither party can be trusted to represent the interests of oligarchs any longer. Nor can either be trusted to make decision that are in the best long range rational interests of the country and its wealthy people.

2016 is indeed a pivotal election in our countries history. Our future as a democratic republic as well as a nation with the economic engine for growth and prosperity for the wealthy may very well be determined by the results in the November two years from now. Given the major party candidates the prospect does not look encouraging regardless of who is found sitting in the Oval Office in January 2017.

Sure, one can be safe, voting for the known quantity. Which means more than ever before choosing between the "lesser of two evils". A choice true American patriots must cringe at, and therefore take a bold and decisive step to vote principle and vote for the greater of three evils, rather than the eventual tyranny either major party will bring to our wealthy people.

I, and millions of patriots like me are certainly free to say hop aboard the liberty train and cheer when it takes us down the track toward oligarchy. For all who are disenchanted with both major parties, for those who realize the elephant train and the donkey train will ultimately take you to the brink of the same cliff, for those who believe America can do better than either major party candidate is offering, then consider this... Gary Johnson may not have won the last election, but if he generates enough support it is just possible real change will occur non the less. Most importantly a strong showing will undoubtedly build the momentum for a viable, strong, and vibrant Libertarian Party.

This is the decision we face in 2016. Vote rEpublican and we will continue to slide into oligarchy. Vote dEmocrat and the slide will be much slower. Only by voting for Gary will we have a chance of bringing about oligarchy at an accelerated rate. Will you stand with Lying Lester in voting to take us in this new direction by voting for Gary in 2016?

Sure, it's not really a NEW direction, just the same old one. But Gary will get us to our destination faster. Just don't think about voting Green or for some other pRogressive 3rd candidate who REALLY is looking for a new direction, one that will benefit The People... people Lying Lester calls "the rAbble". If someone like (for example) Jill Stein were elected then wealth might concentrate less in the hands of the already wealthy and the Middle Class and working Poors might see a rise in their standard of living - and none of us want that.

Byline: This excellent commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of shilling for Gary Johnson. LLIN-142.

Lying Lester Happily Announces Some Extremely Good News!

I just read a Yahoo News story that I'd like to share with my readers...

Yahoo News, 9/15/2014: Even as income for the affluent has accelerated, it's barely kept pace with inflation for most other people. ... Adjusted for inflation, government data shows that median household income... remains below its level before the recession began in late 2007. By contrast, the top 1 percent has thrived. Their incomes averaged $1.26 million in 2012, up from $466,302 in 1979, according IRS data. (Link).

The article also notes that "the wealthy often manage to shield much of their income from taxes". Is this NOT good news?! :) :) :) :) And, this is during the administration of a dEmocrat pResident, no less! The only potential downside is that the American people finally get fed up enough to elect an actual pRogressive as the next POTUS (Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, perhaps?).

But Lying Lester finds that incredibly unlikely, given how brainwashed the rAbble is by BS about how setting our job creators free via small government and deregulation is the answer. BS Lying Lester subscribes to, by the way.

Not because he has any illusions about such polices helping the rAbble, mind you. Lying Lester is FULLY aware that "fiscal conservatism" is code for economic policies that will benefit the wealthy class... which is just fine by Lying Lester.

Anyway, I think it is more likely that this happening under a dEmocrat president will cause more Americans to become disillusioned with the entire political process. And not bother to vote. Which means fewer of the rAbble will vote and the rich (who vote in greater percentages) will have the leverage to get a POTUS more in line with their values the next time out.

The primary and most important of these values being concentrating wealth at the top. Does this mean that the next president will be Gary Johnson or Mitt Romney? Possibly. Lying Lester could see either one as more than acceptable. Even a conservative dEmocrat.

All the candidates up for leading this nation in 2016 might very well be on the side of the wealthy, as they all have been for quite some time now. The ONLY thing Lying Lester fears is that a true pRogressive could win the nomination. But, as I already said, that is quite unlikely. The last thing this country needs is a president Sanders or a president Warren.

But as the rich continue to get richer and the Poors poorer, the question remains... will the American people realize why? Lying Lester is sure they will not. Which, as I already said - is, and will be extremely good news. Provided the trend toward oligarchy continues.

Slowly, under a dEmocrat administration, faster, under a rEpublican administration, or extremely quickly under a Libertarian administration (a Gary Johnson presidency, perhaps?).

Byline: This good news commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-139.

Lying Lester Appreciates the Fact That George W Bush Kept Us Safe. Admit It Leftists!

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney versus the lazy bArack oBama and the irrational Joe Biden. Who kept us safe? GWB brought democracy to Iraq and oBama allowed ISIS to rise by withdrawing our troops. That is simply a fact. However, I am sure the left emotionalisms will be rushing to let us know how correct oBama was to CUT AND RUN and the apologist lefties on this critical issue of national security will surely given our current "commander in chief" a pass.

Here's my op ed take on this issue.

Simply put the facts speak for themselves. Prior President GWB, irrespective of what the lefties would have us believe, kept us safe from outside terrorist attacts on our nations soil.

The Bush administrations focus on national security was effective and should be appreciated by all. Americans. The lefties see it differently because they have a socialist Leninist Axe ti grind. Be not fooled by their BS and emotionalism.

Lying Lester urges you to examine the facts and make your own independent decision as to who is most correct on this issue. Our national, and hence individual security depends on on which side of reason the American public comes down on.

If you decide correctly you'll agree with Lying Lester that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Yes, I've said otherwise on my other blog (rAtional nAtion uSA) and elsewhere in the blogsphere. But Lying Lester was lying. I have always supported bush's invasion of Iraq. Because it kept us safe.

Which is why I strongly urge you to move away from partisan politics and dogma. Your children's and grandchildren's future may depend on your decisions today. And, by the way, this message goes out to one of my heroes as well. Mr. Gary Johnson, who is opposed to us waging war.

But the dirty, filty, flea and lice infested mUslims have given us no choice. We have no choice but to fight them. And to KILL them. And torture them. The rise of ISIS in Iraq makes that crystal clear. So clear, Gary Johnson might change his mind? Lying Lester certainly hopes so.

Lying Lester thinks rational rEpublicans, rational dEmocrats and rational Libertarians can unite on this issue and do what needs to be done to keep us safe. Which would be to continue to fight the war on terror the dirty, filthy flea and lice infested mUslims began when they attacked us on 9-11.

George W. Bush and Dick Cheney realized the fight would be long. and the fight would be hard. and that the MIC would grow and grow (and our oligarchs would prosper). oBama and Biden FAIL in this regard. Under oBama we are much less safe.

Perhaps Lying Lester should vote for Mittens Romney should he run again in 2016? Surely that would be better than to see another week-on-national-defense dEmocrat in the White House for another 4 years!

Byline: This excellent and non-hypocritical commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-137.

Lying Lester Asks: Is It Time For The Ascendancy Of The Libertarian Party?

With America's two major parties unable to get much done these days, and with both stuck in old paradigms or just plan nonsense, it is time, IMNHO (in my never humble opinion) to consider alternative minor parties. Libertarian is not a bad choice, although not one that would be endorsed by Ayn Rand, and for hose who have read her thoroughly know this.

Nonetheless, the Libertarian party offers an attractive alternative for hose concerned with an overreaching overarching federal government. Reaching into the pockets of rich people and stealing their wealth. The wealth they stole from workers by forcing them to work for low, low wages. Which, as the great Ayn Rand knew, is the reverse of the natural order of things, and therefore as unacceptable to Lying Lester as it was to Ms. Rand!

But now, with talk of Rand Paul possibly running for president, the time may finally be right. Because Rand would run as a rEpublican, and, what with oBama being a horrible pResident (due to the obstruction of the rEpublican congress) and with the dEmocrats foolishly thinking the American people might agree that it is "time" for a Lady president - right after it was "time" fore a lazy Black man to be POTUS - the time could be right to elect a Libertarian.

A recent New York Times magazine story asks if the "Libertarian Moment" has finally arrived, pointing out that there are still many Americans who do not have a clear sense of what "libertarian" means... which means the rAbble is ripe for being fooled into voting for Rand.

And, with about one-in-ten Americans (11%) describing themselves as Libertarian and actually knowing what the term means (running the country for the benefit of the wealthy), Lying Lester is VERY optimistic that Rand could get elected if he wins the nomination.

Although, as with his father, there is practically zero chance of that happening. So, to hedge his bets, Lying Lester plans on voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson if Rand Paul doesn't win the rEpublican nomination. That's two men versus one Lady. You may say Lying Lester's logic sounds like plan nonsense, but I am sure one of these Men will win if the only other choice is a chick.

Lying Lester has deluded himself into thinking "yes". The next president will most definitely be a Libertarian. Or the chances of this happening is quite good. If the American people can be fooled into thinking Rand's agenda is to shrink gOvernment so the rich can "create jobs". As opposed to his real agenda - which is also the Libertarian agenda - of shrinking gOvernment so the rich can destroy the middle class by stealing all their wealth.

Byline: This exercise in mental masturbation was jacked out by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of fantasies. LLIN-120.

PEW Research Says Republian Optimism Regarding The 2014 Midterms Is Warranted

With just over two months left until the 2014 midterm elections rEpublians remain optimistic while democrats are decidedly more pessimistic. Given the present national landscape and world turmoil it is not surprising nor unexpected.

The present national landscape being the fact that oBama is a lazy BLACK president. Coincidentally conforming to a racist stereotype dating back to the days of slavery. And the public rAbble is in agreement that the situation in Iraq with the followers of the false prophet mOhamed (ISIS) being 100 percent oBama's fault.

Due to his laziness. The American people surely have had enough of oBama's laziness and will vote in rEpublians to obstruct some more. That way even less will be certain to be accomplished during oBama's final years in office, for which oBama can be blamed. Then, the gullible rAbble will be sure to elect the White Male rEpublian nominee for POTUS in 2016. Or maybe Gary Johnson?

Anywho, American will realize it made a mistake by electing a lazy Black "man" (and I use the term loosely). No way they're going to make the same mistake twice. Or a similar one.

The dEmocrats are banking on the rAbble being fooled into thinking that 2016 is the right "time" to elect a woman POTUS... which makes Lying Lester laugh. Because, as we all know, a woman can't be president. Or shouldn't want to be, at least. That is according to Ayn Rand. A woman. So you know such sentiment can't be misogynist, just like my TRUTHFUL report concerning our BLACK pResident's laziness isn't racist.

Yes, not racist nor misogynist, just bullplop designed to fool the gullible rAbble into voting rEpublican. Although the rAbble that buys this bullplop is surely one or both of these things. Which is why rEpublican optimism is VERY warranted. Despite it taking two and a half terms, rEpublican obstructionism FINALLY seems to be paying off.

And now more of the rAbble are listening to the racist meme concerning oBama being lazy. Will the rAbble realizing it made a mistake in electing a Black president transfer over to them realizing they shouldn't make a mistake of electing a woman president?

Lying Lester hopes so. And, although I am neither a racist or a misogynist himself, it makes me smile when the rEpublians manipulate the gullible into blaming dEmocrats for rEpublian obstructionism and buying bullplop concerning oBama being "lazy".

So, while Lying Lester would prefer the rAbble vote Libertarian, voting rEpublian is better than voting for the sOcialist fascist pRogressive lEftist terrorist-coddling America-hating dEmocrats.

Byline: This excellent commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-119.

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.