Pokey McDooris

Pokey McDooris

Pokey is The Discord's chief theologian and philosopher. Pokey performs an important function here at The Discord, namely by annoying the living shit out of Zano, whenever he submits something.

Argumentative Deficiencies and the Zano Doctrine

All right, Zano, it’s time for me to present a quarterly assessment all your logical fallacies and argumentative deficiencies. This should give you another ideal opportunity to avoid, distract, and otherwise dance around the principled points and positions—namely mine—in the guise of something that remotely resembles humor. You’re funny, Zano, but not “Ha, Ha” funny.

From Common Core to Common CAIR

Pokey McDooris

There’s been a noticeable change in the content of textbooks used in American public schools in relationship to Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Over the past twenty years, Islam has been increasingly shown in a positive light, while Christianity and Judaism have been ignored or shown in a negative one. Is this change based on the objective findings of genuine history or on the basis of political pressure? Libviticus?

I think we know the answer to this. Coincidently (or not) the speech of our government leaders have also shown Islam in a more positive light (as a peace-loving religion), while showing Christianity and Judaism in a negative light. Don’t forget about the Crusades, Christian slave owners, and those who cling to God and guns. I “hope” that we can all agree that this “change” in our political dialogue has no basis in honest history but is rather totally due to a twisted version of political correctness.

“I am waging a ‘bloodless’ revolution, promoting world cultures and faiths in America’s classrooms.”

—Shabbir Marsuri (Council of Islamic Education)

“I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the U.S. to be Islamic sometime in the future. But I’m not going to do anything violent to promote that. I’m going to do it through education.”

—Ibraham Hooper (of CAIR)

The American Textbook Council, founded in 1989, has studied the issue and concluded that current American textbooks:

1) Intentionally avoid showing Christianity and Judaism in a positive light.

2) Intentionally present disputed definitions and claims as established facts that shine positively on Islam.

3) Ignore or delete facts of history that cause people to view Islam negatively.

5) Avoid conflict and bloodshed in describing Islam’s “migration” into the Mediterranean world.

6) Christian behavior toward Muslims are often referred to as “violent attacks;” Christians themselves are referred to as “invaders;” while Muslim conquests of Europe are called “migrations.”

7) Islam is described as spreading smoothly without conflict, while Christian response to Muslim expansion is described as violent and genocidal.

8) Of course, the word “terrorism” is never used in relationship to Islam.

John Wood, a parent of an 11th grader at La Plata High School in Maryland, discovered that his daughter was being coerced in class to write that “Allah is the same god that is worshipped in Christianity and Judaism,” and that “the Quran is the word of Allah revealed to Mohammad in the same way that the Torah and the Gospels were revealed to Moses and the New Testament writers.” Her grades depend upon her writing that “the Prophet Mohammad was visited by the angel Gabriel and that Mohammad is the messenger of Allah and the Quran is a holy text.” She has been coerced into affirming that “There is no god but Allah.” The Thomas More Law Center has taken up the legal case against the school. Uh, but not because of that, because the school didn’t block access to The Daily Discord. Disgusting.

Throughout our nation our textbooks are watering down definitions of Jihad to mean “self-improvement by resisting temptation and evil” and Sharia to mean “a system of law promoting virtuous family life, moral conduct, and ethical business affairs.” What next? Will beheadings become part of a free and speedy weight loss program?

The future common core curriculum promises to show the Islamic influence in the American revolution, shared foundational principles between the constitution and Sharia as well as similarities between the Boston Tea Party and the 9/11 freedom fight. The transforming of our nation’s history will also include a learning about crusades as genocide. Recently uncovered quotes from our nation’s founding Imams, such as “I only regret that I have but one life to give to my Allah,” and “No education without indoctrination.” Fun filled Prayer Rug Pledge of Allegiance and Mosque Worship field trips. Students will be tickled to learn how the Prophet Mohammad was a forerunner in the Women’s Liberation movement. Recent research shows that if Mohammad were alive today he would be a militant supporter of a woman’s right to choose and same sex marriage. 

We are in a battlefield of ideas waged with our words, Zano. Our words do matter. You say they don’t. I say our words are all that matters. When a man loses his word he loses his soul. This war of ideas waged with our words points to a greater spiritual war of our soul’s eternal destiny. The truth will set us free. But, if we compromise, the Truth to appease the politically correct Kingdom’s of the World we’ll face more than some Daily Discord.

The Civil Wrong Movement

Pokey McDooris

The point from my last feature that Zano continues to ignore is how Beck recognized that “yes” radical Islam was getting out of hand. He did this as our President was doing victory dances, pulling troops out of the Middle East, and calling the Islamic radicals “the JV Team”. Obama has a host of actions that make little sense when one considers the context of the rise of a terrorist network, globally peddling their wares. Kora-Amway?

Our President encouraged the “Arab Spring” in Egypt that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power. He invited representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House and provided them with aid. History tells us that the Muslim Brotherhood is the source of Al-Qaida, Hamas, and ISIS, and all Islamic Jihadists, but our President continues to promote a foreign policy that promotes the Muslim Brotherhood and their interests.

Oh yeah, our President and Mrs. Clinton supported the overthrow of Kaddafi, which led to the empowerment of more Islamic Jihadists. The President is encouraging a deal with Iran (Islamic Jihadists) that will encourage their empowerment in the region. And at a time when Christian persecution from Islamists is at an all-time high, this administration never, to my recollection, ever uses the term “Islamic extremists” or “Islamic radicals” or “Islamic meanies” or any other reference to Islam. Obama’s message? Muslims are all loving folks who have endured Islamophobia from insensitive conservative Christians who cling to God and guns.” And how about the term “Christian victim” or “Jewish victim?” Don’t you think it’s odd that this administration never acknowledges the religious targeting of Christians and Jews? Oh but he’s quick to mention the “black victims” and the “whitish assailants.”

That’s what stinks with this Ferguson deal being connected to the Civil Rights movement. If I didn’t know better, I’d say that enemies to our nation, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and their satellite branches, were funding this PR campaign that shows the world how “racist” the conservative Christians who cling to their guns and God are, so that they may gain support from alienated blacks within the United States. That’s a great strategy. First, strip our nation from all principled values so that our children become increasingly immoral, frustrated, and purposeless (See: Zano’s college career). Next you show the United States to be a racist satanic monster, then you recruit “Islamic terrorists” from the confused and frustrated youth within the United States.

Whether what’s going on arrives in a caliphate form or not, those individuals in the Middle East who call themselves Islamists—and who kill Christians, Jews, and even satirists—are purposefully trying to bring about Armageddon. And those who share in their worldview, whether they are united or not, are filtering into Europe as the Jews are being pushed out of Europe; and they plan on destroying Israel; and they are already organized in every state of our union. They are indoctrinating the young and the ignorant from around the world, for their message is simple and glorious: Allah wills Islam to rule the world through the might of the sword, and those who are courageous enough to wage this war for Allah will live joyfully in heaven forever, with lots of chicks, dental plans, free Wi-Fi etc. The brochure is tempting.

The way to defeat a worldview is by confronting it with a better worldview. That’s what it seems like President Obama is trying to do with his (and your) humanistic, atheistic, progressive spiritualistic hodgepodge. But the Islamists aint buying it. Humanism only emboldens Islam as they become further convinced that our hyper-secular, hyper-sexual-pornographic, hyper-liberated-abortive, hyper-technical push the button bombs, and hyper-commercial humanistic society is indeed Satanic (See: Zano’s post college career).

There are only two ways to confront the radical Islamic worldview:

1.) Truth.

Jesus Christ is not a mere prophet, but Jesus is God incarnate, and only through Christ’s sacrifice is forgiveness and redemption gained.

2.) Action.

Their military success shows them that Allah is on their side, so we must show them in no uncertain terms that Allah is not on their side.

Those who hold this “Islamic Jihadist” worldview want to bring about Armageddon/WWIII. It is a barbaric/hateful/racist worldview that realistically threatens the entire world. Meanwhile our Executive administration does not call them out for what they are. They are too busy highlighting the “evils” of our own nation in the form of: homophobia, to a war on women, to a systematic racism or highlighting an oppression of the poor.

“Evil only triumphs when good men do nothing.”

—Edmund Burke

Although, I am not in any way suggesting you’re a good man, Zano. Is that a retraction? Sorry, I’m new at this.

Oh, I kid the Zanster.

That Which We Call a Radical by Any Other Name

Pokey McDooris

Some random thoughts struck me this week, Zano, like squirrels on water skis, honey badger, and that hot barista over at Starbucks. Then some relevant thoughts struck me, but, since you have no answers, I thought I would list them all in an attempt to continue to annoy the crap out of you. First off, stop the placating! Start to join the voices condemning Islam as irrational, hateful, and just plain wrong. Quit encouraging these bullies and let’s start our own academic Jihad! Then more squirrels on water skis.

This week Rudy Giuliana said he didn’t believe that Barack Obama loved this country but, when challenged, Giuliana didn’t give a very strong defense of his statement and essentially backed down. Glenn Beck, however, did have a good response. Beck asked the question, “Is it possible for a person to want to ‘fundamentally change this country’ and still love this country?” I believe that to be a fair challenge. I know you have nothing but contempt for Mr. Beck, but back in 2013 Beck claimed that ISIS was forming a Caliphate. At this time our president was referring to ISIS as “the JV team.”

Then, this week, President Obama said, “Islam is woven into the fabric of the foundation of the United Sates” (paraphrased). This is totally false. Islam had absolutely nothing to do with the foundation of the United States, and it wasn’t until the 1890s that the 1st Islamic center was built in New York. In the 1700s, if there were such a person on this land who had even suggested Sharia law, they would have been rightly executed.

“We need to transform our history.”

—Barack Obama

President Obama said that ISIS is not Islamic, but rather a “hijacking of Islam.” This is also false. ISIS is not a deviation from Islam. ISIS has a coherent theology rooted in the Koran. ISIS is as Islamic as Muhammad; it might make us feel good to say otherwise, but if anything, ISIS is a ‘Reformation’ of the barbaric, yet theologically rooted, foundation of Islam.

The central message of the Koran is for the community of believers to spread its message through violence. Those people who truly believe that Muhamad is the last Prophet of Allah and that the Koran comes from God are at war with us, whether we like it, believe it, speak of it, or not.

By not addressing the reality of what is actually occurring in ISIS, Islam, and the Middle East, we are putting our heads in the sand as our enemy grows stronger and is emboldened by our feeble signs of weakness.

To say ISIS is not Islamic is like saying that the Nazis were not fascist. Let me start by contrasting the “racist slayings” in the U.S. with the real bigoted slayings going on around the globe like in Syria, France, Africa, etc. Our President and Al Sharpton and you too, Zano, ought to be rallying protests against the bigoted ideology—yes, “Islam.” Say it with me, kids. Isssslaaaaaam. What’s the capitol of Pakistan, kids? Islamisbad. I’m here til Friday. Is this thing on?

Those on the left have been tiptoeing around these bullies for too long. Call it what it is: Islam is a religion of intolerance—no, not just radical Islam, Islam itself. Read the Koran, look at the history. A Moderate Muslim is a person who doesn’t really believe that Muhammad is a prophet and doesn’t really believe that the Koran is from God.  Anybody who really believes that Muhammad is a prophet and that the Koran is really from God is a radical Muslim. 

We, that is reasonable Western thinking democracies, must expose Islam for what it is, no holds barred. Islam is a religion of intolerance. Oh, I know not all Islamic people are violent, but all true believing Islamists are tolerant of the violent worldwide jihad which is right not being waged against you and I.

Oh, and Zano, the only thing separating the Islamic State from you and me is conservative Christians. It sure isn’t the Democratic Party. Those same folks who work tirelessly to undermine, weaken and ridicule, Conservative Christians, kind of forget about Islam. Boo hoo, a reprehensible cartoon depiction of Muhammad, a reprehensible video, a reprehensible book, a reprehensible blog, blah, blah, blah. Yes, your blog is reprehensible but for decidedly different reasons.

I’m tired of these guys making everybody tip toe around them. Oh, be careful not to offend Abdul, kids. No really, he’s wearing a suicide vest.

Oh yeah, and the President will encourage the showing of the ‘Interview’ as a sign of patriotism? Well, let’s paste those cartoons on every newspaper and news station across the world. Oh no, that would be incendiary. What is more reprehensible to joke about the killing of present day world leader, or the satirical depiction of a false prophet who’s been dead for 1400 years?

Next installment: rethinking the virtues of the Holy Crusades…

Our ‘Unalienable Rights’ Have Nothing to Do With Ancient Aliens, Zano

Pokey McDooris

I’ve recently read one of your articles on the Discord, Zano, where you acknowledge that the individual mandate is wrong, but you still argue that Obamacare is overall good for the nation. Perhaps Obamacare is an overall benefit to the nation. I don’t believe that it is, but I will hypothetically grant you the point—my problem with Obamacare is that it is unconstitutional and my problems with you go much deeper.

I know that you are going to find this redundant, but it is the central point that you refuse to acknowledge—the difference between a quantitative argument and a “principled” qualitative argument. It’s not that the individual mandate is one of the few problems with the legislation and that the virtues of the law so out-weigh the problems that Obamacare should be supported. You seem to recognize that the ‘Individual Mandate’ is unconstitutional, because it deprives Pokey McDooris of his unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, yet you still support it? This is the height of hypocrisy and I’m used to just dealing with your usual depths of depravity.

When a person recognizes that a legislation is unconstitutional, they do not have the right to support such legislation, as a matter of fact, they have an obligation to oppose it. You realize that the individual mandate is unconstitutional (and the 20 plus executive amendments to Obamacare are also unconstitutional). This is the principled flaw of your position, of which you have not addressed.

Here’s my ‘angle’ on the principles of our constitutional rights, and the possible differences we have on this subject:

1) All human being are endowed by their Creator by certain unalienable rights, among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

It’s important to recognize that our constitutional rights are given to each and every human being as a gift from their Creator. These rights are not dependent upon human beings. Certain governments recognize my unalienable rights, and certain governments don’t recognize my unalienable rights; but no human power can take away my unalienable rights.

The core difference between our views on constitutional rights relates to our understanding of where those rights come from. I claim they are given to us by God; but you deny a God who grants us rights. So this is your problem, Zano. I know that you believe in Constitutional rights, but where do they come from? If you deny a Creator, then you are forced to either ignore the issue or admit that our constitutional rights are merely granted to us by human beings, and therefore they cease to be ‘unalienable,’ since human beings can in fact take those rights away. If fickle human beings grant us our rights, then fickle human beings do in fact have the “right” to take our rights away. Because if God doesn’t exist, then all things are permissible, um, except the things you do in your spare time.

Lucky for you, Zano, that God does indeed exist and not knowing the truth does not stop the truth from being true. It’s a choice between ‘power or truth’. The kingdoms of the world indoctrinate us to submit our rights to the powers that be; the Kingdom of God assures us that we have been specially created by God Himself, and that God has granted us certain rights, regardless of what the kingdoms of the world decide.

This is the core difference in everything, both religion and politics, that we debate. So answer me Zano, from where do we get our constitutinal rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I’m waiting….

Final Thoughts on the Culture War Zano Debate

Pokey McDooris

If you missed the first part of the deboc…er, the debate, check it out here.

When all is said and done, history will suggest how the Fort Hood tragedy was the result of a reprehensible video pertaining to workplace violence. The real tragedy is how our general population has succumbed to this disingenuous narrating of events that so easily sacrifices truth and integrity for the whims of political ideology. The peaceful protestors in Ferguson and throughout this nation don’t show any concern for what actually occurred. Their leaders haven’t given them any role models or much incentive to even care. It’s like Mr. Winslow’s Christmas gifts.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Islamic State and the American Communist Party were funding the Ferguson protests. There are forces in this nation and abroad who gain political leverage by keeping Americans divided on the basis of race, sex, class, citizenship, and sexual orientation, and these enemies of our nation push those issues to the forefront so that we won’t focus on the real racism in the world, the real oppression of women in the world, real state-induced poverty, and the real persecution of gays.

Yes, I believe in Truth, something actually occurred in Ferguson and I believe with some effort and honesty we can get to the bottom of many of these incidents. Some people say that a white racist cop shot and murdered a defenseless black boy who surrendered with his hands in the air. When reading through the Grand Jury transcripts, the truth becomes apparent. But there are people who don’t care about the truth; they simply wish to use the Ferguson tragedy to promote their political ideology, so they orchestrate a narrative that involves powerful racist white people killing poor defenseless black boys.

Eyewitness Piaget Crenshaw said, after it was publically confirmed that Brown was inside the police car, “Well, from my point of view, I could not tell exactly what was goin’ on, but it just looked as if, um, he was tryna’ to pull ‘im into the car.”

Or:

“It just looked like he was tryna’ do such a, you know, um Brown bein’ a bigger folk, he, that didn’t seem to have been workin’ (sob) so he got away and it just seemed to have upset the officer.”

From my point of view, I can tell that Piaget is, well, tryna’ to lie to the Grand Jury and deserves, um, jail time.

It all comes back to our religion debate, Zano. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, what does it really mean to lie? The above eyewitness is presenting a testimony that encourages much needed attention to the plight of black people in this country, so her “inconsistencies with reality” should be commended for advancing progressive policies.

Other witnesses acknowledged changing their stories to fit published details about the autopsy (see Zano’s critique of the individual mandate and executive directed immigration reform) or witnesses who admitted that they did not see the shooting at all (see vanishing IRS emails).

Many witnesses to the shooting of Michael Brown made statements inconsistent with other statements. Let’s put that in what Zano likes to call the “historical context”:

Obama’s “sacred union between one man and one woman,” which often conflict with the physical evidence “you can keep your health care plan.”  Some accounts were completely refuted by the physical evidence.

“I take the constitution very seriously but the biggest problems we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power to the executive branch and not go through Congress at all.”

Then, the most reliable witness turned out to be the “white racist killer cop.” The cop who lost his job at the threat of an orchestrated mob.

Here are my predictions:

1) President Obama will further expand his executive power beyond its constitutional limits, including the bypassing of Congress to establish “reasonable” gun regulations, and there will be increased vocal and visible protests against such expansion.

2) There will be increased visible and vocal protests against: racism (stop the police brutality), sexism (equal pay for women), classism (raise the minimum wage), and citizenism (amnesty for illegals).

3) The Obama administration, with the help of major media sources, will create a narrative that shows one group as freedom-and-fairness-loving patriots speaking their mind against an imperialistic tyranny; and the Obama administration will create a narrative that shows the other group as racist/sexist/homophobic/gun-crazed terrorists spewing hate-speech.

4) This little culture war will begin looking more-and-more like a civil war that will threaten to tear the very fabric of this nation apart.

5) Mick Zano will blame it all on George Bush.

Yes, I do blame the President, and you Zano, for promoting an attitude that sacrifices truth and integrity for ideological advancement. That’s what all these witnesses share in common. The movement that you have aligned yourself with has justified doing and saying anything to promote the means of progressive policies of single payer universal healthcare, gay marriage, amnesty to illegal immigrants, climate change regulations, gun control or whatever whim awaits the future (mandated surgically implanted Access Cards with medical records.)

It all starts the same, as small little lies:

“You can keep your doctor.”

“It’s just for the hardworking undocumented immigrants who have been here for five years”

“We’ll just regulate coal.”

“Sensible background checks.”

But you don’t even deny it anymore, once your side gets its foot inside Pandora’s Box, you keep pryin’ that box open like a roofied Cosby playboy model, until there’s only one payer, all gayers, No habla Ingles sayers, total business regulators, bow and arrow Hunger Gamers, and Access Implant indoctrinators. 

“Look out kid, you’re gonna get hit, by losers, cheaters, six-time users, hang around the theaters. Girl by the whirlpool, lookin’ for a new fool, don’t follow leaders and watch the parkin’ meters.”

—Bob Dylan

The Ebola Spring

Pokey McDooris

There’s been a lot of hate speech directed at the Ebola Virus lately, and I think it’s time for people to stand up for the rights of the Unrepresented Parasiticals. We Americans are so human-centric, talking about containing the Ebola, fighting Ebola, and eradicating Ebola. We’re arming doctors, who seem to know no borders. They are nothing but mercenaries who should pick on someone their own size. The question I want all of you anthropomorphs to consider is this: doesn’t the Ebola Virus have rights to?

Who are we to pass policies of genocide against this virus simply because it’s different than us? Simply because we don’t understand it? Too many Americans have Germicidal tendencies. Citizens of the United States are always looking for a scapegoat so that we can avoid the real problems threatening mankind, like climate change.

How much climate change do you think Ebola is responsible for? None, zip, zero. Truth be told, Ebola fights climate change, and since all scientists agree that Climate Change is the most dangerous threat to our national security, we oughta be investing in the further the spread of Ebola. We should all do our duty as citizens of the planet and fly to Africa and lick an infected Liberian. Traviralocity? The Ebola virus is actually Mother Nature’s defense mechanism against the real virus of those carbon exhaling homo-sapiens.

So now everybody’s jumping on the bandwagon to wipe out Ebola, but who will speak for the viruses? Where’s the ACLU on this one?

“No eradication without representation!”

Who are these hatemongers who suggest that people with Ebola should be banned from flying on planes or riding on buses? This is human racism.

I commend the President for not restricting flights for the Ebola Virus. He has not caved-in to the hate mongers who want to take away the rights of the contagious diseases. It’s time that he passes an executive order granting a pathway to citizenship for all contagious diseases. We can call it, Germnesty. Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Is the Constitution Obsolete in This Zano Nation?

Pokey McDooris

You and I have a different idea of the nature of the constitution. The purpose of the constitution is to ensure the defense the individual against the government. Our forefathers broke away from the King of England to create a republic that recognized that all individuals were endowed by their creator with inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. All powers not granted specifically to the federal gov’t fall to the state. All powers not granted specifically to the Fed or State fall to the local gov’t and all powers not granted specifically to any gov’t fall to The Daily Discord.

The Obama administration began in 2008 in an economic crisis—I’m sure you agree so far—when a bipartisan agreement granted the federal gov’t the power to spend trillions of dollars to stimulate the economy. This action was constitutionally controversial, but because both major political parties agreed and convinced the vast majority of citizens of the crisis, it was passed without serious constitutional challenge. I couldn’t and can’t argue with it. Then came Universal Healthcare, the largest gov’t legislation in the history of our nation.  I think, if I’m wrong, name something bigger. [Winslow’s note: Um, federal income tax?] (Wait, I retract that question to avoid another feeble attempt at humor.) But the size and scope of universal healthcare is monstrous and the real problem came when the administration and Congressional Democrats rushed the 2,000 page legislation through Congress with no bipartisan support. The law made people, like yours truly, legally mandated to purchase healthcare.

Where in the constitution is there any suggestion that the federal government has such power to force an individual to purchase health insurance? Thus the Tea Party was founded, with my support, to put a stop to this obvious constitutional violation called Obamacare. The Tea Party, with the rallying cry of constitutional limitations on the federal gov’t, made a strong showing in the 2010 election. Then the Obama administration, rather than declaring war against radical Islam, turned a blind eye allowing Jihadists to rape and impregnate Christians with future Jihadists. This has been instituted as any person with a Muslim dad is not permitted to leave Islam. Wait, didn’t President Obama have a Muslim dad? Hold on… I think Donald Trump is calling. So the Obama Administration decided instead to attack “his real enemies” the Tea Party and limited government groups.

Since Obamacare has become the law of the land, the executive branch has changed the law without going to Congress at least twenty times, including:

1.) A one year delay of the requirement that employers must report to their employees on their W-2 forms the full cost of their employer-provided healthcare (Jan. 1 2012).

2.) Administration ordered an advance draw on funds from a Medicare bonus program in order to provide extra payments to Medicare Advance plans, in an effort to temporarily forestall cuts in benefits and therefore delay early exodus on MA plans from the program (April 19, 2012).

3.) Federal exchanges for small businesses that will not be ready by the 2014 statutory deadline, delayed to 2015.

4.) Employer mandate delay (July 2, 2013) 5) Congressional opt-out offer employer contributions to members of Congress and their staff when they purchase insurance on the exchange created by the ACA a subsidy the law does not permit. (Sept. 30, 2013) 6) delay of individual mandate.

Where does the Constitution give the President the executive authority to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws? President Obama’s answer, “In a normal environment it would have been easier to call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn’t change the essence of the law, but we’re not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare so I’ll just rewrite the law myself.” That’s obviously unconstitutional. You know it is, Zano. Obama’s stance is yours, “Republicans don’t understand. They’re dangerously ignorant. Meanwhile, the President has to violate the constitution in order to do what he knows is best.”

It’s not a matter of the Democrats are better than the Republicans. It’s a matter of principle–constitutional principles that I know and directly ‘feel’ being violated right now as we speak. You give him a pass, because, “He’s better than the alternative.”

How am I’m wrong?

“Anyone who would choose a little security in exchange for a little liberty deserves neither and will lose both.”

—Benjamin Franklin

Battle Beneath the Planet of Benghazi

Pokey McDooris

On September 12th 2012, I said, “A terrorist attack was orchestrated against our nation by Islamic Jihadists who murdered four Americans on the anniversary of 9/11.” I spoke these words to anybody who would listen.  You wouldn’t, Zano. I realize the coffee, the beer, and all the coffee-flavored beer is at this point a great distraction to you. So let’s just blame the hops, the barley and the coffee beans for your ignorance on this matter.

The words that came from our nation’s executive leadership the day after the attack were very different from mine: “A reprehensible and offensive video caused a spontaneous protest that led to an unfortunate tragedy involving the death of four Americans” (paraphrased for your enjoyment). Neither statement is factually false, but there is a clear difference. One statement clarifies the essential significance of the historical event, so that the listener (or reader) would understand the relevance of the event. The other statement obscures understanding and leads to a distortion as to the essential truth of what actually occurred.  For similar examples read ANY Zano post.

It appeared to me then, as it does now, the President’s administration had orchestrated a PR campaign to purposefully deceive the American public by conveying a false impression as to what actually occurred on 9/11/2012. That would be called “lying.” A lie as defined by Webster’s dictionary as “to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly with intent to deceive; to express what is false or convey a false impression.” Yep, that pretty much sums up what the Obama Administration did, and is still doing.

Why did the Obama administration propagate such a false narrative? I will say that if every American understood clearly that “a terrorist attack was orchestrated against our nation by Islamic Jihadists who murdered four Americans on the anniversary of 9/11” at the time of the Presidential election, it very well may have turned out differently. And Zano’s voter suppression efforts “Streaking for Drone Striking” also did not go unnoticed, by the Flagstaff Police Department.

Remember that President Obama was peddling his “we’ve killed Bin Laden” narrative so “we’ve greatly weakened terrorists.” This didn’t fit in with his PR campaign blitz.

There have been many conspiracy theories proposed as to the full story behind the President’s false narrative—and Zano has focused his attention on exposing the conspiracy speculations as “lies,” but Zano still refuses to acknowledge that the Obama administration “lied” from the get go and continues to lie on this issue. Zano would have us believe that Susan Rice was heroically presenting the truth of the offensive video that caused the attacks while under persecution from the evil right wing conspiracy that threatened to suppress such truth about the reprehensible video. This is what it means to be brainwashed. I ask you–am I lying to say that “a terrorist attack was orchestrated against our nation by Islamic Jihadists who murdered four Americans on the anniversary of 9/11?” Because if that statement is true, then any watered-down version presented by our “leadership” deceptively conveyed a false impression. And Zano, I’ve watched as you call everybody a “liar” who speaks against the Obama Administration on this issue, everybody, that is, except the ones who uttered the primary “lie” upon which all the speculation was based.  So, Mr. Zano, the coffee-flavored, imperial boozy stout is in your corner.

Who’s More Serious About Climate Change? ISIS IS!

Pokey McDooris

These sissy environmentalists are all talk and no action. It’s time to save this planet! The scientific consensus agrees that Climate Change is the greatest crisis threatening the world. President Obama promises to violate the Constitution by bypassing Congress to sign a UN Treaty to curb carbon emissions. I say it’s time to stop pussy footin’ around the subject. Let’s get to the root of the problem by employing ISIS’s five steps to Beat Climate Change.

I believe Obama’s plan to save the world will not be nearly as effective as what ISIS has in store for mankind. Let’s combat our warming world through the magic of Sharia Law!

1) Sex-Slave Auction/Fundraisers

Many may not realize the meaty market for young sex slaves. On a good day healthy young 12-year-olds can attract five digits, maybe even a six! And ISIS promises that 50% of all proceeds will be donated to the funding of green energy powered WMDs.

2) Reduction of Automobile Use by 51%

We hereby pass worldwide legislation that outlaws women from driving automobiles. By eliminating women drivers we will put a serious dent on the world’s carbon footprint. The legislation will further fight climate change by sentencing those found guilty of such an offense to community service in the Sex-Slave Auction/Fundraiser.  That’s not even counting the ones we’ll stone for adultery!

3) Slave Labor to replace carbon based energy

We propose Infidel powered windmills (IPWs) without the need of wind; scientific consensus agrees that infidels, horses and camels can power any Jihad, so Gitteeup!

4) Massive Population Reduction

Much of the global warming problem stems from the fact there’s just too many damn people. Birth control and abortion haven’t worked, so it’s time to get serious. We propose an exponential increase in beheadings. Let’s save the planet, one dismemberment at a time. I want our kids to get a behead.

5) Destroy Western Civilization

Who can deny that Western Civilization is the root cause of all global warming/climate change? Without Western Civilization there would be no such thing as a greenhouse gas problem. The Great Satan has the biggest carbon footprint ever. Talk about a Bigfoot sighting. We have you in our sights! And it’s time to take that hairy bastard down.

Makes perfect sense. You’re either with us or against us. Hey, let’s freeze some of those severed heads and make some ISISicles!