On The Fact That Poor People (AKA Lucky Duckies) Are Not Paying Their Fair Share In Taxes

Yes, it is a fact that the bottom quintile gets 5.5 times as much in government benefits as they pay in taxes. This while the top quintile pays 3.5 times as much in taxes as they get back in government benefits.

So who's not paying their "fair share" again? Please, remind me. Clearly it's these lucky duckies. Not that I wish that I was poor and could loaf (sit on the couch eating cheetos and hot pockets, drinking Mountain Dew while watching "Game of Thrones" on my 4K big screen UHDTV). But I'm a Maker and not a lazy Taker.

But if you are poor and a lazy piece of shit (the two go hand in hand, btw, with the vast majority of poors being lazy fuckers who want to smoke weed and collect welfare)? Then, thanks to Liberals (who can only get elected by buying votes via free stuff paid for by over-taxing moderately well-to-do Makers like myself) then you surely are a "lucky ducky".

What explains this outrage? According to the Leftist publication "Mother Jones", many in the bottom quintile pay NO taxes!

...the federal tax code is designed not to tax the poor, the elderly, or low-income families with children, and there are more of these in America than you'd think. One way or another, it turns out, this accounts for about 40% of the country. (Breaking Down the Lucky Duckies).

Obviously SOME in the bottom quintile must pay taxes (while MANY don't). And, when you average it out, the result is that the bottom quintile gets 5.5 times as much in government benefits as they pay in taxes. Which I say is WRONG. If you're not paying in I say you should get NOTHING. As Ayn Rand put it, if these lazy loafers STILL refuse to work after their free stuff is removed, "nature will take it's course". And the poor loser will die.

Which I support 100% (that if lazy loafers refuse to work they SHOULD die. Good riddance, I say). And, NO, I don't give a shit if they're elderly or disabled. Or "can't work" for some other reason. No excuses, no exceptions. You don't work, you die.

Keeping these parasites alive at the expense of the rich man is an OUTRAGE! Frankly I think we need to abolish the victim class. Sadly, it will only come about via force (and by force I don't mean through violence but rather by changing our policies, allowing nature to take it's course, etc.) in that most folks are just too scared to be held responsible. And there's just way too much power and money at stake (government bureaucrats/programs, special interest groups, etc.) for a voluntary conclusion to occur. Hopefully it doesn't get too get ugly along the way.

By which I mean some kind of uprising. Get to work or die (if that is your choice). And, a poor man dying in the gutter isn't "ugly" at all. In fact I'd say it's poetic justice. By-the-way, if the poors were to rise up (after the elimination of their freebies), then I'd be OK with the State putting them to death. Looters should be shot (an instant death penalty that would be totally justified). As Mayor Daley said "shoot to kill".

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-258.

Liberty & Integrity: Too Concepts No Longer in America

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Freedom & Liberty As Defined by Ayn Rand & Lying Lester

What is "Freedom" according to the great philosopher Ayn Rand? What is the basic, the essential, the crucial principle that differentiates freedom from slavery? It is the principle of voluntary action versus physical coercion or compulsion.

Freedom, in a political context, has only one meaning: the absence of physical coercion. The most essential component of freedom, according to Rand and according to myself, is to be free from the burden of taxation. In that respect the ONLY way complete freedom can be achieved is through anarchy (no government).

But of course SOME government is needed to enforce contracts (legal system), but also to keep people from stealing (police and military). The police are mainly needed to keep the Poors in line, and the military to stop other countries from stealing our land our resources. Beyond those core functions, however, the gOvernment should do little else. If we want to maximize Liberty, that is.

However, as we all know, our gOvernment does MUCH more (much of it unconstitutional). And, in order to pay for all the gOvernment spending (much of it wasteful), taxes must be high. And, who pays these high taxes? Those with the money of course. In that sense, America's wealthy class and Big Business constitute America's Persecuted Minority.

It is under sOcialism that these two minorities are shackled with the chains of slavery, bound in servitude to greedy power-hungry politicians and to the worthless parasitical Takers who vote for them... in return for goodies purchased via the "tax" money stolen from them by way of gOvernmental physical coercion.

What is "Liberty" according to the great philosopher Ayn Rand? Ayn Rand says Totalitarianism is collectivism. Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group — whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called "the common good".

That is why the so-called sOcial sAfety nEt MUST be shredded or done away with completely, as it diminishes freedom, erodes liberty, and is leading us down the road to enslavement (of the wealthy). And, as we all know, slavery is evil. Allow the Poors to die in the streets, Ayn Rand argues, and Lying Lester agrees. One should expect death when one refuses to work.

So, not only is this the right and Just course to take, it is the moral one, as it avoids enslaving the Makers to pay for the parasitical Takers to loaf (play video games on their big screen TVs while reclining in their easy chairs eating Cheetos and drinking Mountain Dew).

Although, when we stop paying for the Poors to loaf and those who still refuse to work start dying (in their homes and on the streets), the bodies must be disposed of in order that disease not be spread. In that case Lying Lester supports some kind of voluntary tax to employ people to collect the bodies and incinerate them. I suggest we get some other Poors to do the work for an extremely low wage.

Lying Lester would be OK with that, but only if the tax is voluntary. If nobody pays and disease sweeps though the country? Well, Lying Lester thinks the wealthy, being smarter than the rAbble will pay... voluntarily. Or some will, and hopefully it will be enough. If not, then surely many will perish, including some of the "good ones" (ie Rich Makers).

But if any Rich Makers (as well as worthless Poors) die? That is a price Lying Lester is willing to pay in order to maximize Freedom and Liberty and avoid the tyranny of cOllectivism. Lying Lester would even be willing to risk the destruction of our civilization. Surely some worthy Makers would survive in a bunker somewhere... and those Makers would enjoy the greatest Freedom and Liberty any Man has known in this country for quite some time.

Byline: This commentary concerning freedom and liberty was written by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of freedom and liberty. LLIN-075.

Stand With Lying Lester In Opposing pRogressive cOllectivist Tyranny!

In less than 900 days Americans will go to the polls to elect a new POTUS. As we prepare to celebrate our unique and exceptional history, the nation is engaged in a great and profound battle for its very soul. We stand at the ultimate crossroads. The road we ultimately choose will determine whether this nation survives with our founding principals as the guiding light for future generations of free people.

After several days of visiting progressive blogs and contemplating their message and mission it became clear the battle lines have been drawn, and who is most responsible for drawing the invisible in the sand. It also became clear how profound and fundamental the differences are between lIberal pRogressives and conservatives or Libertarians.

While one can point to, and argue many specifics, the fundamental differences lie in the opposing values of Individualism and cOllectivism. Our nation was founded on the belief in the rights of the wealthy White individuals and not the cOllective "will of The People" (ie the Poors or lower classes). The Constitution was written to insure the rights of the Individual White wealthy Man would be protected against the tyranny of the majority or cOllective "will of The People". The simple beauty of the experiment called America was that it became a nation of laws promulgated to protect the wealthy White individual.

Today the rights of wealthy individuals, no matter their ethnicity are protected. What is important is that these men (and sometimes women) are wealthy Makers and not worthless parasitical Takers (who should have considerably fewer rights).

In so long as the Individual respected the rights of all other Individuals (excepting pOor iNdividuals), and observed the laws enacted to protect the rights of all Rich Individuals society functioned well. Thus for the first time in history a nation was governed by laws and not by men. A truly radical and progressive system in the I800's (the good kind of "progressive"). It remains so today in the judgment of Lying Lester, although (given the election of the sOcialist oBama) just barely.

I have stated the invisible drawn in the sand by the lIberal pRogressives it is the line separating Individualism from cOllectivism. The pRogressives ultimate goal is to bring cOllectivism to America in a way the Marxist Utopian ideal that gOvernment should take from those with the greatest means, and redistribute to those with the greatest need is achieved... or to do the "will of The People", some might say. Of course never attempting to identify and understand that that rich people DESERVE to have most of the wealth of our nation.

Or, I could fib and spew some baloney about how "at some point there will be few with means and a great number with extreme need", as if higher taxes on rich people would cause them to become poor and also in "great need". Actually, I have lied about this in the past and will continue to do so. Taxing the wealthy will impoverish us all (that was a lie just there).

The pRogressives desire to replace Individualism with cOllectivism is nothing more than the desire to level the human playing field so everyone becomes entitled to that which their neighbor possess (another lie, actually pRogressives believe both individualism and collectivism are necessary for society to function). "Equal prosperity for all" is another lie wealthy-worshiping dipshits like me buy into and promulgate on our moronic blogs (like rAtional nAtion uSA).

The issues of effort, ability, motivation, hard work, and perseverance are of no concern to the pRogressive or cOllectivist (yet another lie). Only the appearance of mass economic equality is important (or so the lie goes). Of course the only way the pRogressive cOllectivist (fictional) dream can be realized is through gOvernment oversight, deep taxation, and intrusive control over one's personal and business life. The driving force behind the pRogressive cOllectivist is the desire and need for power (for The People). Power over the wealthy Man's (or less frequently, wealthy woman's) life.

The Individualist is one who values the life of the wealthy Man (or woman), Individuality, and (most importantly) property/wealth. By their very nature these exceptional Individuals value liberty and understand it is right to value the Rights and Liberties of their fellow worthy Men and women (and disrespect the "rights" of the Poors). They recognize that limiting the role of gOvernment results in the greatest Liberty and ultimately prosperity for Rich people (be as it may at the expense of the general population and nation). The Individualist also recognizes the inherent tendency for evil to exit with government by The People.

The pRogressive cOllectivist by contrast sees rich people not as Individuals but rather merely as a very small part of a greater whole. Their belief system says the Individual is relatively unimportant and should set aside their desires and goals (sacrifice) to the goals and agreed upon desires of the larger sOciety... The whole (which is of course complete rubbish, but for the purposes of this commentary I will pretend it as true... another of my lies, in other words).

It is then only natural the pRogressive cOllectivist belief system desires bigger and a more intrusive government (or a gOvernment big enough to do the will of The People. As for "intrusive", that is where Conservatives come in and not pRogressives... so this can be chalked up to another of my lies). The pRogressive cOllectivist economic and sOcial system requires large government to survive.

And so the battle between Individualism (rights for the wealthy) and pRogressive cOllectivism (rights for everyone) will likely be the defining moment in our modern history. Either we will choose the road to Individuality, Liberty, and prosperity for the wealthy, or we will equivocate, abandon our reason and be lead down the road to collectivism, loss of liberty, reduced prosperity, or and as Hayek might say, down "The Road To Serfdom".

Not that that is a bad thing, but in this case it is "serfdom" for the wealthy (in that they will be paying a little more in terms of taxes)... as opposed to serfdom for the Poors and mIddle cLass, which would be a good thing. And so I am back. I will stand with the philosophy and principals of Ayn Rand and all those on the side of reason, limited government, and who believe in our Constitution "as written" (or how the Makers decide what "is written" means), and not how some libtards professor or lawyer wishes to interpret it for the good of The People.

And so, as stated above, I shall stand by these and I invite all who love liberty for the rich (and for the rich alone) and concentrating wealth at the top - to stand with me in bowing down to our wealthy rulers (and not the rUlers elected by The People). A tyranny of the rich or a tyranny of, by and for The People - which will you choose? Lying Lester thinks the choice is easy. Hint: it's a tyranny of the wealthy, if you believe allowing the rich to rule is "tyranny", which Lying Lester does not.

Lying Lester foolishly believes it is "freedom and liberty". Are you as foolish as Lying Lester? I surely hope you are... and that (due to your foolishness and love for the wealthy) you will vote for for Gary Johnson in 2016.

Byline: This feebleminded commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of foolishness. LLIN-073.

The Hate Filled lEft: No Tolerance For Lying Lester's Bullsh!t

After a week of liberal bashing from a prominent pRogressive/sOcialist/Leninist blogger of note who runs a relatively successful pRogressive/sOcialist/Leninist site I have NOW become a firm believer pRogressives present the most dangerous threat to freedom of speech and liberty there is or ever was.

Why you may ask do I say this? A fair and reasonable question. The answer to this fair and reasonable question lies in the following individual's comments made on a lIberal blog I visit fairly often. Following is an example why there can be no reasonable dialogue or bi-partisanship with the far out emotional lEft.

pRogressive-lIberal As$hole: I read the comment of Lester Nation and recalled his relentless 'liberal-bashing', as if this kind of stereotyping is somehow different from outright bullying and abuse. It is not. It is just as inflammatory and defamatory and abusive as every other kind of bullying we are forced to endure online, and his intellectual dishonesty makes me sick. Here is the arsonist trying to make everyone think he is putting out the fire. Bullshit in extremis. (Link).

OK, so these criticisms might be 100 percent accurate, but does that mean I have to like them? No way, Jose! lIberals pointing out the truth - and having no tolerance for my intolerance and intellectual dishonesty... truthful statements such as the one above are deemed by me to be propaganda from the misguided, angry, and hateful lEft. As a purveyor of poop as well as an independent conservative with strong Libertarian leanings I trust you will understand my aMazement at the obvious hatred for untruths the far extreme lEft has at it's core.

Do I not have the right to spew my own hateful drivel and falsehoods without being called on it? Some might call this attitude of mine (I can lie but won't tolerate being called on my lies) ridiculous, but I say this exemplifies the liberality extremis. As in Leninist/Stalinist ideology extreme.

The lEft is, and always has been, the first at labeling those who disagree with their progressive/socialist/Leninist ideology as UN American, racist, homophobic. and UN Patriotic. They have a lot of nerve telling the truth about fools such as myself. The logical question is this... Who is really these things?

The lEft, who believes everyone should vote, including the Poors - who will only vote themselves more unearned gifts from the gOvernment (paid for by raising taxes on successful people like Lying Lester), or fiscal conservatives like myself - people with the intelligence to realize that the wealthy SHOULD have most of the wealth of our nation?

Obviously if you're a rational individual you agree with Lying Lester about the Right of the wealthy to reign supreme. F*ck the Will of The People, Lying Lester says. gOvernment by mob rule is the wrong way to go in my informed opinion. gOvernment needs to get out of the way and allow the wealthy job creators to do their thing, which is to work toward concentrating wealth at the top.

Also, to further impoverish the mIddle cLass and the wOrking Poors... and, isn't that what we all want?

Byline: This hate-filled commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of lEftist intolerance for my intolerance. LLIN-065.

On Entrepreneurship Not Being For Those of A Lesser Stock

As Lying Lester explained in a previous post, entrepreneurship should be discouraged, as a common man striking out on his own and succeeding is a theft from his former employer - as now all the fruits of his labor go to him, with the former employer completely cut out of the equation.

So, entrepreneurship is actually a form of wealth rEdistribution, which, as we all know, is evil. But discouraging entrepreneurship also cuts down on number of losers who might attempt to try going into business for themselves. These are the kind of scaredy-cats who worry they (or a family member) might get sick (or seriously ill)... and for that reason they decide they can't risk losing their employer-provided health insurance.

And therefore they stay put. And their EMPLOYER can keep a healthy cut of the fruits of the employee's labor. But Lying Lester believes some entrepreneurship is good. I mean, if you're more intelligent and have more drive than the average person; AND you have the intestinal fortitude to risk it all; well, then Lying Lester says give it a shot.

If you fail and end up in the gutter (or dead), then that's the way it was meant to be. And the rest of us are likely better off as a result. If you succeed; well, then you've earned it. Which is what Lying Lester did when he went into business for himself as a personal fitness expert.

So, Lying Lester risked it all. But Lying Lester still does not believe that any gOvernment sAfety nEt program should be there to catch him if he fails. Why? Because Lying Lester KNOWS he will not fail. Failing is for losers and Lying Lester is a WINNER. He is far more intelligent and has more drive than those of a lesser stock; a "higher ordered person", if you will. And he DEFINITELY has the intestinal fortitude.

Yes, Lying Lester recognizes he is a superior person cut from a superior cloth (a pure silk/high thread count cloth, for example), and that I deserve and will therefore achieve success.

What we don't need - and this is why Lying Lester opposes our gOvernment encouraging entrepreneurship - are losers who are bound to fail attempting to become entrepreneurs. Because they will fail and then expect the sAfety nEt to catch them. This, of course, means that winners such as myself will have to pick up the tab for the losers.

As a fiscal Conservative who believes taxes should be kept low, Lying Lester thinks catching the losers and paying for them to be parasites is a bad idea. The solution, in Lying Lester's superior opinion, is to reward winners (like Lying Lester) by letting them do their thing (win) and not by burdening them with higher taxes to pay for the losers to relax in a gOvernment provided social sAfety nEt hammock.

Ayn Rand would most certainly agree.

Byline: This winning polemic was brilliantly composed by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of winning and NOT losing. LLIN-055.

On The MSM Being In the Tank For Obummer

As everyone knows the majority of journalists are dEmocrats and sOcialists who are on board with the pResident's plan to transform this great country of ours into a sOciaist hell hole. But the percentages that are was surprising, even to me. The shift away from a more conservative or middle of the road 3rd estate to a more lIberal or pRogressive (and compliant) one explains at least in part why oBama and dEmocratic candidates running for office are generally given softball questions (and hummers). It also explains why the administration gets as many passes as it does from the MSM.

Unfortunately this trend is likely to continues unless and until the conservative movement and the rEpublican party gets it's act together and puts forth a positive, sensible, and realistic vision for America in the 21st century, such as abolishing our nanny state social "safety net" programs. Americans is not happy with the dEmocratic leadership just as it is unhappy with the current rEpublican leadership, although they are clearly more unhappy with the Dems, and for good reason.

This provides an opportunity for conservatives and rEpublicans to formulate a nonsensical agenda of fiscal conservatism, a social agenda that addresses the concerns of the middle and lower economic strata (by cutting them severely, thus fumigating the parasites), and changing the party to truly a party of inclusion in which all non-mooching citizens are welcomed.

It's time for the rEpublican party to shed it militaristic love for the MIC and realize we should no more break the bank with war machine spending than we should break the bank with domestic spending. Both need to be cut to the bone. Oh, and to believe you can continue to cut, cut, ct, ct taxes and provide the kind of society that the MAJORITY of Americans want is just insane, but Lying Lester is convinced that it needs to be done if our goal is to exterminate the Takers, as I strongly believe it should be (in accordance with the principals as defined by the great Ayn Rand).

Byline: The author of this surprising commentary is Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-043.

Lying Lester Believes That Voting Is Not A Right

Lying Lester asks that you consider Ayn Rand's take on Representative Government and then ask yourself: should voting be a "right" or a "privilege"?

Via The Ayn Rand Lexicon... The theory of representative government rests on the principle that man is a rational being, i.e., that he is able to perceive the facts of reality, to evaluate them, to form rational judgments, to make his own choices, and to bear responsibility for the course of his life. Politically, this principle is implemented by a man's right to choose his own agents, i.e., those whom he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. To represent him, in this context, means to represent his views in terms of political principles. Thus the government of a free country derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed". (For the basis of this discussion, see "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) As a corroboration of the link between man's rational faculty and a representative form of government, observe that those who are demonstrably (or physiologically) incapable of rational judgment cannot exercise the right to vote. (Voting is a derivative, not a fundamental, right; it is derived from the right to life, as a political implementation of the requirements of a rational being's survival.) Children do not vote, because they have not acquired the knowledge necessary to form a rational judgment on political issues; neither do the feeble-minded or the insane, who have lost or never developed their rational faculty. (The possession of a rational faculty does not guarantee that a man will use it, only that he is able to use it and is, therefore, responsible for his actions). (Link).

Hm... The last sentence kind of sums it up and is why I do not believe that everyone should be allowed to vote. Lying Lester thinks some kind of test should be applicable when deciding if a person should be allowed to vote or not. The kind of test, IMHO, should have something to do with the level of success attained by said individual.

I mean, if the individual seeking the privilege to vote is a loser who has nothing, then the likelyhood of them voting for a representative who favors parasitical redistributive laws and policies is quite high. Take, for example, the election of bArack oBama, a sOcialist who enticed individuals - slackers who refused to take personal responsibility and WORK for what they need to get by in life - into voting for him by promising them free goodies.

Surely if these loathsome individuals had been denied the privilege to vote for a man, and I use the term loosely, who bought them off by stealing from their betters to give to them... well, obviously Mittens Romney would be president right now.

And, while Lying Lester is no fan of Mittens, if he were president we certainly would have a fairer tax code. One that did not steal from those who EARN what they have in order to give to those who do not deserve such freebies.

With those facts in mind, I think that anyone who earns less than what they would need to in order to qualify as Middle Class should not be allowed to vote. These people will, in all likelihood, only vote to steal from those of us who work hard for what we have, which, in Lying Lester's opinion is evil.

Hey, here is an idea for all the parasites out there... if you want what we have... why not work hard yourselves? And if they refuse? Keep them OUT of the voting booths I say!

Byline: This insiteful commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of insites. LLIN-042.

Cutting Off Government's Balls

If you're like me, Lying Lester, you worry frequently about America becoming a plutocracy. And, if you're a fool like me you think the answer is to neuter government. You see, the problem isn't that ultra-rich people are creating monopolies and forcing workers to accept low pay... no, those are both good things.

Lying Lester only has a problem when these ultra-rich people use their money to influence government. But cut off government's balls (by taking away all it's power to do anything) and these rich people won't bother buying off our elected officials (as they will have no power).

Then us ordinary folk with average wages will be able to stand up to the rich corporations. I mean, we COULD reform government so that it represented WE THE PEOPLE instead of the rich influence peddlers (via campaign finance reform, for example), but that would be a bad idea in Lying Lester's opinion.

Why? Because, as a nation of individuals, we're weaker when we join together. Just like the corporations who aggregate resources and thus become weaker. Take government out of the equation and we'll overcome our oppressors easily, because only then will the average citizen be on an equal footing with the mega rich and transnational corporations.

Yeah, that might sound counterintuitive, but it's the foundational principle of Objectivism and Libertarianism that dupes like me subscribe to. So, bring on the plutocracy, I say. Lying Lester can't wait to bow down to and serve the coming aristocracy of wealth.

But get government out of the way and off our backs (and the backs of the wealthy) FIRST. Because Lying Lester believes in survival of the fittest, and our new masters will be weak masters if government helped them achieve their wealth. They must do it without government's help. Only then will we know they are fit to rule.

One thing is for certain, however, and that is that WE THE PEOPLE are NOT fit to rule. This is why Lying Lester hates, and I mean absolutely LOATHES democracy. Democracy is, in the opinion of Lying Lester, rule by the parasites. Be they rich parasites buying influence, or poor parasites voting for the politicos who offer them the most free goodies (like the parasites who voted for Obama). That is why I always say the sooner we abolish democracy the better.

Byline: This ballsey LLIN commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth and possessor of extremely LARGE balls. LLIN-028.