On HRC Being Convicted Of Treason For Sending/Receiving Classified Info Via eMail And Being Sentenced To Prison Before The Election

It is absolutely going to happen.

No wait, the fix is in. Barack Obama commanded the justice department not to indict her. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Why didn't I think of this before when I said it was likely HRC would be forced to run her campaign from a prison cell?

Surely the reason there appears to be no indictment of Miss Hillary forthcoming couldn't be because "plenty of people in Democratic and Republican administrations made some mistakes in following protocol for emails [but, as per] the recent report released by the inspector general of the State Department... there is no Clinton email scandal".

Because if this were true, it would mean I was totally full of shit before. And me being CONVINCED that HRC was going to be charged was due to nothing but my misogynistic hate for HRC.

Sorry, but no. That was not the reason! Ronald Kessler (a 2-time winner of the Peabody award and an individual who has consistently criticized presidents from both parties) said that FBI director Jim Comey is a man of great integrity and would indict Hillary even if Obama didn't want him to.

I guess Obama got to him!

Byline: This commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of unfacts. LLIN-267.

On The Fact That Barack Obama Is A Traitor (Only Question Now? Hang Him Or Imprison Him For Life?)

That Obama released five top Taliban operatives (in exchange for Sargent Bergdahl) at a time when we were still technically at war in Afghanistan was clearly a dereliction of duty. In fact I'd say it was quite traitorous.

Obama should have told the Taliban to behead Bergdahl, IMO. Although, if he had done that some might called Obama coward for letting the letter of the law stand in his way to save Bergdahl and probably called for his impeachment for dereliction of duty to protect US soldiers. Others say that because Bergdahl was a prisoner of war, a status that granted President Obama constitutional authority to secure his release.

But I don't agree with any of that. According to the Right Obama is a traitor for bringing Bergdahl home. They say that this is a soldier that we should have left behind. And I'm with them on this one. Because I often parrot Conservative talking points while pretending to be "Moderate".

Additionally, Obama kinda got Clintonian with Congress, too; saying that the White House wasn't in "direct" communication with the Taliban on a prisoner exchange when they were in fact working through the Qataris (so, not "Clintonian" at all. That just sounded like a cool bash, so I threw it in).

Maybe Obama will join Hillary Clinton behind bars? I'm talking about the fact that the bitch is going to jail for sending classified info on her private email server. Dereliction of duty has got to be worse. As for Barack Obama being imprisoned (Gitmo?) or hanged... I'm just asking.

Byline: This inane commentary was authored by Willis "I Love Strawmen" Hart. Purveyor of agreeing with Conservative BS. LLIN-229.

Lying Lester Discusses Blundering Obama's Big Blunder

On Sunday, leaders representing Europe, Israel, Africa, Russia, and the Middle East linked arms and marched together down Place de la Concorde in Paris. Unfortunately and most conspicuously our own pResident chose not to attend.

The decision by the pResident of the United States of America to not be present, or at the very least send his Vie President, has been most troubling. Obama may have had his reasons but in politics and governance perception can be everything.

Certainly the perceptions of many, if not most on this important issue is not a positive one. The White House belatedly recognizing the error in judgment has acknowledged the mistake while at the same time spinning to put the best face possible on the snafu.

On this issue LLIN finds itself behind Senator Ted Cruz. At issue is the growth of, and the threat radicalized extremist Islam present the civilized world.

President Obama should have been there. Our president ought to have known this instinctively. It is of course now water under the bridge. Mistakes happen. This one never should have.

But, back to Senator Cruz, a potential 2016 presidential candidate who wrote the following in a TIME magazine op-ed...

Ted Cruz: The absence is symbolic of the lack of American leadership on the world stage, and it is dangerous. ... Many of our allies gathered together in Paris yesterday in an admirable display of determination. Our President should have been there (Link).

Dangerous! Dangerous that the feckless leading-from-behind Obama was not in attendance. That is Cruz's opinion, and the opinion of Lying Lester as well. Perhaps oBama did not attend due to his being a stereotypical lazy Black man?

But in regards to the danger... the danger is that the sub human terrorist killers see weakness in oBama's actions. Or even agreement with their goals. Given the fact that some believe oBama may be a sleeper mUslim terrorist who ran to bring down America from within. Not that Lying Lester agrees with this assessment. Although, as Senator Cruz points out "the failure of Obama to lead the free world in this way encourages radical Islamic terrorists" (source).

So, while oBama may not be a mUslim himself (or at least a radical one), he ENCOURAGES the radical Islamic terrorists (though his action... or inaction). Gee, Lying Lester has to wonder if bArack hUssein oBama has a flea or two? He might, if he's too lazy to take a shower.

Byline: This insightful commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-156.

Lying Lester Says iSlam Is The rEligion of Pure Evil

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lying Lester Ponders: Is oBama The Laziest Black pResident Ever?

Lying Lester says oBama should be ashamed for living up to the stereotype! And, while some lIberal pRogressives might call Lying Lester "racist" for pointing this out, the fact is oBama IS lazy and Lying Lester is not "racist" for acknowledging the truth.

Looking at the first picture, it seems that oBama also enjoys fried chicken and drinking his 40. Where is the watermelon, I wonder? He's probably having that for desert... and washing it down with some grape Koolaide.

Byline: This truthfull and non-racist commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-121.

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.

dEmocrats Looking To Midterms And 2016 Presidential Election Distancing Themselves From pResident oBbama

I am generally not a supporter of the dEmocratic agenda, it being way too progressive and starry eyed for me. I mean, dEmocrats believe they're elected to represent The People, as opposed to the people who matter. The rich ones, that is. This silly notion makes Lying Lester laugh.

But dEmocrats of late are distancing themselves from our sOcialist POTUS fearing he will hurt rather than help their election or reelection chances in 2016. Could this mean the dEmocratic party is really more conservative than the pResident whose whose whose whose choice for the democratic nomination in 2016 is Senator Elizabeth Warren, the ultra progressive senator from Massachusetts?

Or does it mean the party base is becoming even more pRogressive and believe (rightly or wrongly) America wants a president more pRogressive than Obama has been? Lying Lester says NO.

According to a recent McClatchy-Marist poll the President is hurting democrats because of his lIberal as well as inconsistence policies. And this very good news for rEpublicans going into the 2014 midterm elections makes Lying Lester smile.

Smile because Libertarians aren't even running for many of these positions and Lying Lester is a realist, and admits that a rEpublican is preferable to a dEmocrat. WAY preferable. Although, personally, I'm still backing Gary Johnson for president in 2016 (if he runs), even though I realize Gary has absolutely no chance at all (there is a ZERO percent possibility that Gary Johnson could be elected president. NONE).

Given this unfortunate reality, a rEpublican POTUS would be preferable to ANY dEmocratic candidate - and ABSOLUTELY preferable to the sOcialist Warren. Which is why Lying Lester pushes this (more than likely false) rumor of oBama backing Warren.

It has the effect of making oBama look more lIberal than he actually is (oBama, in reality being a Conservative Blue Dog dEmocrat). But Lying Lester LIKES (very much) the lie that oBama is a far lEft sOcialist lIberal.

And, the rIght has done an excellent job of brainwashing the public into believing that they too could be rich, and therefore they don't want taxes on rich folks to be high. Because they too could be rich one day (HA!).

Or taxing the "job creators" will destroy jobs because taxes that are too high will disincentivize the rich from hiring. Why bother hiring workers and making more money if doing so will only make you richer instead of super rich? Or whatever reason sounds good for keeping taxes on rich people low. The Poors seem to buy this BS. But then, they aren't that smart, are they? If they were they wouldn't be poor.

In any case, something tells me this could be why President Obama is hitting the links so often and likely keeping the ibuprofen or aleve close at hand. He realizes the lies and ongoing obstruction are working.

That, and he's a stereotypical lazy Black man. BTW, how much you want to bet that some PC lIberal reading my accurate comment about the laziness of Blacks might respond by calling Lying Lester a "racist"?

It isn't racist if it's true. And Lying Lester is a White Man who has the BALLS to acknowledge the TRUTH. Just as I acknowledge the truth about Muslims being lice and flea infested.

Byline: This excellent and totally non-racist commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-110.

A Lying Lester False Narrative Regarding dEmocrats and Impeachment Talk

Just wondering how many individuals realized that, according to The Hill, "Congressional Democrats have talked about the impeachment of President Obama 20 times more than Republicans have on the House and Senate floors".

I'm willing to bet not many. I know I didn't. So, it appears the democrats view keeping talk of impeachment on the front burner to be a great way to snag those donor dollars and ignite, or perhaps incense is a better word, the lEftist base of the dEmocrat party.

I guess when there ain't all that much positive going for your party going into an election year you take what you can get. In any case, I gotta give credit where credit is due, and the dEms seem more effective of late at exploiting the absurd.

The absurdity of the obstructing rEpublican congress actually impeaching Obama, as many within the Tea Party wish to do, or the absurdity of Lying Lester suggesting that Tea Partiers actually suggesting impeachment should NOT be talked about by the dEmocrats.

One of these is actually absurd and the other is not. But Lying Lester chooses (as he always does) to push the false narrative on his other blog, rAtional nAtion uSA.

But are the American people dumb enough to fall for this false narrative? Lying Lester hopes they are, and oBama's falling poll number seriously suggest that they are. All good news in this Libertarian blogger's opinion.

Because the more false narratives and total bullshit regarding our current POTUS that the American people can be sold, the greater the likelihood that our next President will not be a dEmocrat.

And, while Lying Lester is pulling for Gary Johnson, or whomever the Libertarian candidate might be (Lying Lester, perhaps?), a rEpublican pResident would not be as bad as another sOcialist - and you know Ayn Rand would agree.

Byline: This false narrative was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-106.

Iraq and the oBama Almost Strategy

President Obama, in his signature style is taking quarter measures to prevent immediate genocide by the ISIS in Iraq. Neither pResident oBama or the western democracies are will to admit that the terrorist networks that adhere to the cult of iSlam are determined to take control of the mIddle eAst as well as the entire globe. Until they do, and take the necessary military action to crush every single one of the filthy lice ridden barbaric terrorist organizations this problem will forever be with us all.

Even democratic Senator Feinstein recognizes "It takes an army to defeat an army". However she stopped short of addressing the core of the problem or offering any serious alternatives to the pResident's response. And, even though Lying Lester opposed the initial invasion of Iraq, he must admit now that the only serious alternative that now exits would be to re-invade iRaq.

That, or simply nuke it... although the world community would likely condemn the US for such an action and label oBama a "war criminal"... and, although US presidents have a history of getting away with war crimes, this "war crime" is likely one that the rest of the world would not tolerate.

So, the only answer appears to be going back to iRaq and occupying it again. Although, short of nuking them, I'm sure we could get away with a little SHOCK & AWE before our troops hit the ground and start slaughtering every Muzzie they see! What I'm saying is that I think we need to KILL KILL KILL as many of these dirty flea-infested towel-headed goat-f*cking camel-jockey sand-monkeys as we possibly can using conventional weapons.

Frankly, and in all honesty, Lying Lester would like to see these mOhamed-worshiping vermin wiped from the face of the earth, and that INCLUDES the so-called "innocents". Hell, Lying Lester would strangle an "innocent" Muzzie baby in it's crib with his bare hands if given the opportunity! Or, I'd take a machine gun and mow down as many "innocent" Muzzie females in their beekeeper's getups I could target!

But our current lEftist pResident obviously does not have the balls to do what needs to be done. Which would be to re-invade with the objective of putting down as many of these rabid flea and lice infested Osama-loving carpet-piloting Abduls as possible.

Byline: This excellent and totally non-bigoted commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Islamaphobia. LLIN-103.

Lying Lester Suspects $619 Billion oBama Heist

$619 billion in greenbacks missing from the federal budget. That is to say just how the $619 billion, covering 320 federal programs was spent is a mystery. There apparently exists no accounting of the $619 billion.

Where did this money go? Could it be that our pResident, the man (and I use the term loosely) known as bArack hUssein oBama be behind the disappearance of this money?

Could it be - and this is just a theory - that our dEmocrat pResident does not us to know where this money went because he handed it out to his cronies? Perhaps when this pResident leaves office he will be getting some of it back when he is "hired" for a no work job by one of those grateful cronies?

Surely these plutocratic cronies are pumping money into dEmocrat campaigns as we speak. It is a tit-for-tat that they expect. Not that rEpublicans do not do the same... but on this scale? Surely this level of corruption is unprecedented.

That is, if this is simply not a case of negligent accounting. But Lying Lester thinks that it might very well be the case that it is the other thing. That is, to say, this money has been stolen. Which, if that IS what is going on, would make this one of the largest heists in history.

And, although this is a major issue, or at the very least it should be considered as such, does the fact it MIGHT have happened really surprise anyone? When the federal government views it's taxpaying citizens as a never ending and bottomless money pit isn't this the kind of corruption we should expect?

And, did not Ayn Rand warn us of this kind of thing? It is government by the parasites and for the parasites! What to do? Lying Lester strongly suggests voting for Gary Johnson in the next presidential election. I know that's what I'm going to do.

Frankly, electing Gary is the ONLY hope our great nation has of staying great. And by "staying great", I mean isn't it great that those at the top have most of the money? And don't we all want things to STAY that way?

Not that the Obama heist threatens this too much. I mean, these cronies Obama is distributing OUR money to are rich, after all. But Lying Lester still disapproves. This is NOT the Libertarian way. The Libertarian way involves the gOvernment getting out of the way so the Wealthy can rape and pillage and screw workers.

The Libertarian way does NOT involve the gOvernment acting as a middleman between the workers or environment to be raped and the wealthy rapists. These are things our wealthy overlords can do withOUT any help, thank you.

The only reason those in gOvernment want to interject themselves is because they want a piece of the action and the only way they can get it (our pOliticians) is because they couldn't make it in the business world.

These pOliticians are Takers; lice and parasites no better than those who line up for the free goodies they distribute! "Free" goodies paid for with the tax dollars of those of us who WORK... people like Lying Lester!

Which is why it is so important that us Makers vote for Gary Johnson the next time out. Vote for Gary or surrender to the parasites. Ayn Rand would vote for Gary and so should you. If you're not a Taker, that is.

Byline: This excellent commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of Untruth. LLIN-100.

The Least Hard Working President... And Other Lies

There is something to be said for hard work and dedication to achieving results, even when it means schmoozing with those you disagree with and compromising when necessary. Especially when you are the leader. President Ronald Reagan and President William Jefferson Clinton knew this. So have all other effective presidents.

I wonder why President Barack Obama doesn't get about the hard work and all the other stuff as well... Or, that is the meme I have been hearing over and over from dishonest Conservatives... and I LIKE it. Which is why I have decided to repeat it, despite the fact that it is completely false.

Much like the meme that Obama is "inexperienced", or the one that says Congressional Republicans AREN'T obstructing. Obama simply can't sell his agenda, due to it being bad and/or not being a good convincer... both due to his lack of experience.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I LOVE it! rEpublicans obstruct the pResident, preventing him from accomplishing anything... then they blame oBama for not accomplishing anything... and the gullible eat it up! I am quite hopeful that this duplicitous strategy pays off in 2016. I mean, if the American people are dumb enough to buy this garbage, perhaps they're dumb enough to vote for Gary Johnson?

Shhhh... what the real purpose of this "lazy oBama" bullshit is - is to counter the actual reality of the rEpublican Congress doing nothing. This is just the rEpublicans (and their brain dead supporters) saying "nuh-uh" in defiance of obvious truths. That they are the lazy ones.

BTW, I posted about this on my other blog, and I've already got one gulible commenter agreeing with me on this nonsense!

Not only that, but he throws in some racist dog whistles as well, referring to our pResident as an "indolent and lazy man, who shows passion for few causes other than really nasty ones (like his attempt to abolish the secret ballot for union elections)".

Cool beans. While not a racist like this commenter, Lying Lester still very much appreciates race being used as a cudgel against this pResident, which is why he lied about the pResident being "lazy". ANYTHING to stymie his agenda is OK with me.

I do not believe you achieve the level of success that Mr. oBama has by being "lazy". Only a total idiot would agree with this unbelievably stupid meme. But, as the commenter I just quoted shows, there are people who are that stupid. And those people are usually racist to boot.

Hopefully this will help my side when it comes to the 2016 election. Will Gary Johnson run? Will the racists (like the commenter above) vote Johnson? Oddly enough, they might. Even though Johnson presents himself as being opposed to racism.

But these racists are the kind of racists who think they aren't racists. If that makes any sense. But very few people who are racists will actually admit it. And of course Gary's agenda would GREATLY empower the plutocrats... so someone who agrees with that agenda - even if they have a buttload of unconscious racism - might vote for Gary anyway.

I mean, surely no dEmocrat and even no rEpublican would, if elected president, be as STRONG a champion for the wealthy as Gary. I know that's why I'm voting for him. If he runs. If not, I might just run myself.

Surely I would be a excellent alternative if Gary decides not to run. I am, after all, very much in favor of the Libertarian agenda of concentrating wealth at the top... just like Gary.

And I'd lie about it like all Libertarians do. Deregulating and cutting the social safety net will be good for everyone (wink, wink). And I'll lie about oBama being "lazy" as well. If it furthers the cause - there is, frankly, no lie I won't tell. Even ones that dog whistle to the racists.

Byline: This post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of dog whistles (such as calling a Black man lazy). LLIN-098.

Lying Lester's Rational Hatred For The Invading Illegals

What is Lying Lester's opinion in regards to the crisis at the border? I am positive that Lying Lester's fans are dying to know. Truth be told, Lying Lester has no hate in his hart at all for Brown people. Because I am not a racist or bigot in any way, shape or form.

With one exception. That exception would be in regards to justified "bigotry". Lying Lester LOATHES lAzy Poors that want to go on the dole and steal from hard working Americans such as himself.

Worse are lAzy Poors who aren't even American citizens. Many illegals work hard, although that does not mean Lying Lester admires those illegals. NO. They are lawbreakers who illegally entered/invaded our country and Lying Lester thinks SAYS they should all be deported.

But in this instance we are talking about illegal kids. Or illegal teens who are affiliated with gangs. The illegal children were sent by lazy Brown parents who wanted Nanny Obama to care for them. The illegal teens want to invade our country and, while at the same time line up for the free goodies nanny Obama is handing out, commit crimes and gang violence.

Lying Lester thinks these illegal kid and teen invaders should be sent home ASAP. Nanny Obama wants billions of dollars to hand out to prove we're good people. But Lying Lester is NOT a good person. Lying Lester is a RATIONAL person, and Lying Lester realizes that we can't afford to take in the world's moochers. We have enough moochers of our own!

Lazy Poors who want to mooch and invading illegals who want to mooch and commit crimes; Lying Lester hates them all - and is completely justified in his hate. Because Lying Lester is a hard working American whose ancestors emigrated to this nation LEGALLY - and Lying Lester does not want his tax money to be handed out like candy by Nanny Obama.

Is that unreasonable? Lying Lester KNOWS that it is not. What is unreasonable are the lEftist lIberals who act on eMotion and delusions of superiority - and use their pretzel logic to justify their socialist agenda. A sOcialist agenda that involves stealing from their betters AND borrowing us into bankruptcy.

These people - the lEftist lIberals and mooching invader kids - are both examples of the lice and parasites detested by Ayn Rand. And like Ayn Rand, Lying Lester detests these parasites.

Here is an idea... how about we give them one chance. The first time they are caught we brand them with a large "I" on the forehead and ship them back. The next time we catch them they're executed.

Sound harsh? Perhaps, but I doubt many will be killed. The word will quickly spread that we're not taking in the moochers any longer (we're killing them). Then they'll stop coming.

That, or we could just ignore the problem while pretending we care about it (bloviate a bunch about "illegals" and "securing the border"). That way we get to have our cake and eat it too.

The cake being Brown people who will work for low wages (and, in doing so, drive down wages for American working Poors); and the "eating it too" being whipping up rEpublicans to get out and vote by pandering to their xenophobia.

Sound good? I think so. Except in regards to the invading kids. If they're too young to work for low wages then what good are they? They should most assuredly be sent back. Now, the lIberals call those of us who do not care if they are rapped or murdered "hartless"... and they're right!

But, in regards to that, Lying Lester simply does not care. He does not care what you think about him, nor does he give a shit what happens to any of these kids. Does he want them to be murdered or raped? Of course not. But is he willing to do diddly to prevent it? Hell no!

Why not? Because I don't want to pay for it. In any case, if these kids are raped or murdered after we send them back - Lying Lester will never know. What is out of site is out of mind. As it should be.

And, anything that will help our wealthy overlords to have more of the money and everyone else (the undeserving rAbble) to have less of it... Well, anything that furthers that goal is a GOOD thing in Lying Lester's opinion.

And I am positive that Ayn Rand would agree.

Post Author: Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lyle Lester). Purveyor of purveying. LLIN-095.

Lying Lester's Deep Thoughts On oBama & sTatism

Self determination and self governance... dEmocratic sOcialists seek to fundamentally transform our capitalism-based society via elections. Obama, the man - and I use the term loosely - is a product of the "dEmocratic sOcialist" movement. I often dissemble and use the term "sTatist" which essentially means a belief that the sTate The People through their elected representatives and senators have the power to determine the nation's course (which Lying Lester opposes).

As society has grown, along with it has grown the demands placed on the sTate by The People. Keep in mind the response to the Great Depression by FDR and the "New Dealers". Add to that John Kennedy's "New Frontier" and Lyndon Johnson's "gReat sOciety" and the stage was set long ago has been trending in the natural course one would and should expect.

We're on a steady march toward sOcialism, in other words. But the dEmocrats are not alone in their desire to use the power of the sTate to do The People's will and better the lives of our citizens. rEpublicans, specifically the "neo-cons" (new conservatives) are just as sTatist and interested in setting the agenda and controlling the people rAbble through the power of the state as are the "democratic socialists" (who are actually interested in rEpresenting The People by carrying out THEIR agenda, but, about this, I will continue to dissemble as always).

The difference lies only in that which they wish to control. I am known for saying the difference in the rEpublican and dEmocrat statist is merely the color and shape of their respective mascots, but that is only more dissembling.

The fact of the matter is that the dEms work on behalf of The People (the citizenry at large), while the rEpublicans work on behalf of the Rich and powerful, which, while a good thing, still falls short. I agree with the rEpublicans on this, but they go wrong when they try to insert themselves into the personal lives of people, and, of course, when they capitulate to the spending demanded by the dEmocrats (or, spending to better the lives of The People demanded by The People via their elected rEpresentatives, if you will).

Add on top of this the spending demanded by the rEpubs and the interests of the wealthy they represent. Mainly I speak of the MIC and corporate welfare. Although, perhaps, the dEms are more guilty of this with their support for the greenscammers and the bailing out of financial institutions that engaged in risky behavior (mortgages to losers who did not deserve them).

In any case, it is my belief that as bad as Obama is for this nation, it could have possibly been far worse with either Santorum or Gingrich. Romney would have been, in my opinion, on a par with Obama. So had he elected president it would be a wash. Although he would have keep taxes low, which would have been good. But he would have made up the difference by taking on more debt, which would have been bad (so, a wash like I said).

Keep in mind here I am referring specifically to sTatism and my dissembling regarding both dEms and rEpublicans believing that the state should control the reins the power rather than the people (when it is actually only the rEpubs who believe this).

But, back to Obama and "dEmocratic sOcialism", which Obama certainly personifies, what with his belief in the democratic process of voting and in the rule of law, which Lying Lester rejects. Obama is no Mao, however his dEmocratic sOcialist beliefs guide him in the direction of cOllectivism as being a ultimately superior economic system to Libertarian-style capitalism (under which the rich rule, which Lying Lester embraces).

But the rAbble still seek Self-governance and likely always will. That is, until people wise up and start voting Libertarian. Then the rAbble can finally be crushed under the oppressive boot heel of the rich and powerful. So, the reality is that self-governance is likely unattainable, as the Galts of the world and their stooges (people like Lying Lester) will continue to fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

Which is why we see lies like dEmocratic sOcialism (as it exists in Europe) leading to
what we currently see in countries such as Portugal and Greece being told by people on my side. That such a thing could happen is, of course, complete horseshit, but the gullible eat up that kind of ridiculous equating and it keeps them voting rEpublican (the lesser of two evils) or Libertarian (under which the rich rule, as they should).

Obama is the culmination of many many years of both dEmocratic and rEpublican trough feeding if you will. As we continue towards the economic abyss, and the continuing erosion of the liberty of the wealthy to not be overtaxed - there is much blame to be passed around. Obama is the rightful recipient of much of this blame.

This is why self-governance is bad in Lying Lester's opinion. It gets corrupted by those who want to use it to enrich themselves. But, instead of enriching themselves via gOvernment, the wealthy should be enriching themselves on their own by abusing and taking advantage of wOrkers.

Obviously the correct solution here is to weaken government (or cut off it's balls), so the wealthy have free reign to do as they please, which would lead to the utopia Lying Lester desires. I could say much more but this is it for now.

Byline: These deep thoughts sprung from the superior mind of Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of deep thoughts. LLIN-082.

oBama The Narcissist

Lying Lester believes that oBama is a narcissist in the clinical sense. Being a narcissist himself Lying Lester is well aware of the signs. All things are judged in relation to him. All criticism is personal and unwarranted. All praise is justified and expected. All achievement is by his doing. All failure is somebody else's fault. Argument is to be crushed. oBama's way or the highway. True empathy or altruism does not exist for him. He must get something out of every exchange and he must always be the one that gets the better part of the deal.

These are all bad qualities for a pResident to possess, or course, except for the lack of empathy or a desire to be altruistic. As any devotee of Ayn Rand would tell you, both empathy and altruism are negative character traits. But obviously the negatives outweigh the positives with oBama.

The scary part of this is that narcissism is the common trait among all tyrants throughout history. the SAD part is that if our media wasn't so PARTISAN, they would have sounded the alarm before he ever made pResident and certainly before he got a second term! Had the media done their self-professed job (watchdog of the people), America would have been too frightened to re-elect him (and, who knows, maybe Gary Johnson might have had a shot?).

As it is, the media hides, deflects, or ignores oBama's considerable psychopathy. Very scary indeed. This just emboldens him and gives him more confidence. Most dictators don't start out to be dictators but lack of accountability fuels their notion of specialness until at some point they think that they have a manifest destiny to rule over all.

Sorry my pRogressive friends, but you are brainwashed. When a person becomes brainwashed to believe a particular lie, they will repeat it with conviction and reject any evidence or proof to the contrary, just as the pRogressive lIberal supporters of oBama have and continue to do, and just as the lIeberal media has and continues to.

Byline: The lickable Man who authored this commentary consisting of extremely likable ideas was Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of pointing out that Obama is a narcissist. LLIN-053.

bArack oBama: The man (And I Use The Term Loosely)

Lying Lester believes bArack oBama is a political animal in this maelstrom which is our once great nation on the decline, and, although he is not the only politician quilty of being so, he is absolutely the smirkiest, most crass and most classless one. He acts like he's still a street punk in Chicago shaking down bankers. The man is a disgrace.

oBama's handlers have advised him on what course to take and he does follow orders. He has learned they know best because how else would a no-name, no experience, no accomplishment individual obtain the pResidency?

Obama is all about attacking and nothing about leading. He creates class warfare because it is in his best interest. He is positioning the failure of his takeover of healthcare to blame the GOP. If you look at his performance when he was a community organizer, he never lead people to seek more, he just attacked those having more.

Disagree? Go back to drinking your partisan pRogressive utopian la-la juice. pRogressive is not a left-right thing. It is a sTate vs individual liberty thing. And, as Ayn Rand warned us it would, the sTate has been ever expanding, infringing upon the liberties of us all.

Or, the liberties of all us non-parasites, at least (admittedly a shrinking percentage of the US population). As far as the parasites are concerned their "liberty" involves stealing from working people in order that they might loaf. This are the people oBama caters to. His "base", if you will.

In any case, real men work for what they have. They earn it. They don't advocate stealing from others (in the form of overly high tAxes) so they don't have to work - as oBama has (and continues to).

This is why, when I refer to oBama as a MAN, I use the term LOOSELY.

Byline: This excellent commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of untruth. LLIN-052.

Our sTatist POTUS bArack oBama Encouraging Thievery!

A Common man takes a risk when he attempts to become an entrepreneur. If he steps out on his own and becomes his own boss one of the largest consequences is that he loses his employer-provided health insurance. One of the benefits of the ACA is that entrepreneurs risking it all don't have to risk their health as well. With the ACA affordable health care is still available to them.

Other social sAfety nEt programs are there to catch people if they fail, thus encouraging more to become entrepreneurs; and shouldn't our government encourage entrepreneurship? Our sTatist president thinks so...

President Barack Obama, 12/4/2013: The idea that together we build this safety-net, this base of support – that allows all of us to take risks, and try new things, maybe try – get a new job – because we know that there's this base that we can rely on. (An excerpt from "Remarks by the President on Economic Mobility").

This is a very good thing in the eyes of rational people, but Lying Lester is not rational. The way I see it, the problem with social sAfety nEts is that they encourage risky behavior. When you remove consequences, society's actions can become irresponsible.

Our sTatist pResident who is obviously in love with the idea of the sTate providing a sense of security for all it's citizens, at the expense of the liberty of our wealthy aristocracy, of course.

I mean, the way things are now people are afraid to leave their jobs and lose their health care. They could actually endanger their lives, or the lives or their loved ones. Binding someone to a job out of fear is a good thing in Lying Lester's opinion.

Why? Because if workers suddenly think they can take a risk and start their own business, then their employers lose a worker and potentially gain a competitor. This would, of course, make the goal of concentrating wealth at the top a little more difficult.

We need workers afraid and (therefore) compliant. We do NOT need thousands of entrepreneurs creating wealth stealing from the large corporations by becoming competitors!

The way to keep workers afraid and compliant is to get rid of as much of the gOvernment provided social sAfety nEt as possible. Then employers can take advantage of workers (lower wages, cut benefits, etc) without fear of employees who want to "be their own boss".

That is why, if any worker should seek to become an entrepreneur, they should be risking their very lives. But this foolish man, and I use the term loosely, thinks it should be encouraged by the sTate promising to catch them if they fall?

Lying Lester strongly objects. Entrepreneurship is a thing that should be discouraged, as a form of "wEalth rEdistribution". Redistribution, in that the gOvernment takes money from people who work to fund the sAfety nEt programs, but also redistributive in that a former employee might decide to become his own boss - and then "redistribute" money that would have gone to his employer to himself!

Think about it: if a worker becomes his own boss and succeeds... the fruits of his labor will be all his! The entrepreneur's success is therefore a theft from his former employer.

The bottom line is this: Stop entrepreneurship (or strongly discourage it by eliminating/gutting social sAfety nEt programs) and decrease thieving from the wealthy class.

That the sOcialist oBama wants the liberty of our wealthy citizens to not be stolen from infringed upon is shameful in Lying Lester's opinion.

Byline: This estimable blog post was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason, a devotee of the great philosopher Ayn Rand and an individual who also goes by the name "Lester Nation". A proud purveyor of untruth. LLIN-051.

Lying Lester Worries Greatly About sOcialist dIctators

Back in October of 2012 Lying Lester authored a post for rAtional nAtion uSA (my other blog) titled "Obama Eyeing Control Of CEO's Compensation By the Government".

The President is interested in dictating CEO's compensation. Government control of salary rather than market determination. First the CEO and executives of companies. How long one wonders before this President and his progressive dEmocrat party comes after salaries of the next echelon of managers. And so on. Remember, socialism takes many forms. One is called fascism. Like communism it subjugates the individual and individual initiative and success to the "collective good" of society. Or put another way what an all powerful government by the few decides is good.

Well, almost two years have passed and, as we know, nothing of the sort ever came to pass. Or was even proposed. So WTF was Lying Lester talking about? Turns out this was one of the many times I pranked my readers with bullpucky about "oBama the dIctator". Frankly it surprises me how gullible the people who read RNUSA can be.

Actually, this fearmongering concerning the pResident "dictating" came about as a reaction to a Rolling Stone interview in which the pResident said "the next important step for making the financial sector safer is to make sure executive pay is less closely tied to risky bets" and that "the single biggest thing that [he] would like to see is changing incentives on Wall Street and how people get compensated".

So, he said he'd LIKE to see CEOs not getting rewarded for risky behavior, but did he propose "dictating compensation"? In retrospect all this sounds like now is wishful thinking by oBama. Lying Lester would have egg on his face, but as I said earlier, I was playing a prank on my readers.

Now, this particular post did not get many responses, but one reader who loves the CEO aristocracy and fights (on his own blog) to defend their greed (one Willis Hart) said "I could see if the company in question had gotten some bailout money but, other than that, no way, Jose".

So, only one person fell for this utter nonsense, and it is a foolish individual who was inclined to believe that our wealthy "nobles" (or CEOs) stealing from workers with exorbitant pay for themselves is the natural order of things.

Although Lying Lester is very much in agreement with his friend Willis. What an outrage it would be if our wealthy overlords were to have their pay dictated to them by this sOcialist pRogressive POTUS? Sure, he only wished for CEO pay to not be based on reckless risk taking and never actually did much. BUT...

It could conceivably happen, and Lying Lester can absolutely not stand for this possibility (however unlikely) to be possible. Rich CEOs should remain the absolute authority when it comes to such matters. Yes, they are Gods among men and mere mortals (not even a POTUS) have the right to tell them how much compensation they should take out of their respective companies, nor how much risky behavior they should engage in.

If they make the right decisions they should be greatly rewarded, and if they make the wrong decisions they should be allowed to fail (no bAilouts). That is the beauty of capitalism, and sOcialists only muck it up when they attempt to rEgulate and (possibly worse) fix it when things go "wrong" by bailing out those who made bad decisions.

Could our economy run a lot smoother if we did things the lIberal pRogressive way and did not allow a small number of CEOs of large multinational companies to have so much power and control so much wealth? Absolutely. But that would mean more laws and more rEgulation, and that, my fRiends, is antithetical to liberty.

Sure, here we're only talking about the liberty of rich fu*ks to destroy our economy, but are not the rich deserving of liberty? Lying Lester says - nay he shouts - YES!! Yes they are. In fact Lying Lester asserts that the liberty of these rich fu*ks is far more valuable than the liberty of ordinary people.

Post Authorship Attribution: This revelation of a prank on the readers of RNUSA was made by a LOLing Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor pranking RNUSA readers (AKA my dupes). LLIN-049.

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.

The Ignorance and Arrogance of Lester Nation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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