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.

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.”


“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!

Artificial Self-Esteem Bolstering for Dummies

Pokey McDooris

Data collected from a recent questionnaire given to freshmen college students suggests the self-esteem of our nation’s young people is rising, while their merits and achievements are steadily declining. Consider the implications: increased self-esteem accompanied by decreased test scores and marketable skills equals…well, just peruse the better part of the Daily Discord contributor list.

Let’s consider a case study of our own Little Johnny, a normal all-American child with an idyllic upbringing. Johnny’s parents taught him that he was a very special child. Under the guidance of social workers, his parents made their whole world revolve around Johnny. He was very well provided for–whatever Johnny wanted, Johnny got.

Good job, Johnny.

Johnny’s psychologist told his parents and teachers that Johnny’s anxiety and anger were triggered by unusually harsh demands being placed on him and by being told “no”, the other “n” word as Johnny’s parents now refer to it. Johnny’s school stopped imposing consequences on Johnny for his aggressive outbursts; instead his teachers now give him stickers, prizes, and toys, whenever Johnny goes an hour without assaulting anyone.

Good job, Johnny.

The school no longer uses the word ‘teacher’ when describing their relationship with Johnny. You see, the word ‘teacher’ implies that this person is hierarchically ‘better’ than Johnny. This phrasing could hurt Johnny’s feelings by making him feel inferior. In order to best bolster Johnny’s self-esteem, whenever we document or discuss our interactions with Johnny we will now be replacing the phrase ‘Johnny refused to follow his teacher’s directions’ with ‘Johnny chose to reconsider his associate’s suggestions.’

Good job, Johnny.

Other refined words and phrases:

Old School New School
Johnny broke the rules Johnny chose to explore alternative options
Johnny lied Johnny spoke words inconsistent with reality
Johnny punched a peer Johnny coordinated his motions in such a way as to interfere with another’s comfort
Johnny threatened a peer Johnny spoke words foreshadowing an ill-fated future for another
Johnny told the teacher “fuck you” Johnny expressed a desire to develop a deeper intimacy with his associate

Johnny’s school doesn’t believe in failure, or the “f” word as his teachers now refer to it, so Johnny will be graduating high school with honors even though he can’t construct a grammatically correct sentence or add without using a calculator.

Good job, Johnny.

And Johnny’s a great athlete. He sits on his bean bag chair for hours playing football, boxing, baseball, and hockey. He’s destined for greatness. Johnny’s also a Navy Seal, a Ninja, a Supreme Allied Commander, and sometimes even a grand auto thief.

Good job, Johnny.

On Facebook Johnny is the producer, director, and star of his very own personal reality TV show called ‘Everybody Loves Johnny.’ He’s very popular. He has thousands of friends.

Good job, Johnny.

Johnny’s extraordinary talents don’t translate well into the normal workforce. A person of Johnny’s caliber doesn’t perform well when other people tell him what to do. Good thing that Johnny can make more money by not working. Johnny’s caseworker is helping him obtain social service benefits, medical assistance, behavioral health coverage and welfare. Johnny might even find a scholarship for college. I think that Johnny will be very successful.

Good job, Johnny.

Johnny’s story should inspire us all. No longer do we need to be burdened over stressful standards of achievement and personal responsibility. Just like Johnny, we’re entitled to access all the glories of greatness without ever having to leave the comforts of our government subsidized home.

Good job, society.

Read Between the Lies

Pokey McDooris

All right Zano, it’s been a while since I responded to your political musings, but it’s taken me nearly a week to get that last bad post of yours out of my mouth. Thank you, Tums! So if the government uses tax money to engage in activities that conflict with a tax payer’s conscience, they should be legally compelled to give birth control to employees? …or bake cakes for gay weddings? …or purchase health insurance? Really? And to make matters worse, all these things happened last weekend at your hacienda of hedonism! I’m sure my lack of an invitation was an oversight on your part. But I see you invited my sister, dick.

You also argue that the IRS violated no laws in targeting conservative groups. You said they should have expected such treatment since ‘teaparty’ groups sought to shut down the IRS. So you say that it doesn’t matter what the administration calls “terrorists” just so long as they kill them? I had another point about your Walmart midget comment, but I will save that for another post. Onward to the main three!

Point 1: The government spends tax money on activities that may well conflict with one’s conscience.

Take the Iraq War, for instance…no really, take it. We must expect that the government can legally force a person to violate their conscience. I’m glad you brought this point up, because it requires clarification. The government cannot force a person to directly violate their conscience. It can take tax money from me to be used to wage a war that I find immoral, but the government cannot force me to directly engage in the fighting of this war. They may draft me and force me to help in the efforts, say as a medic or a chaplain, and the same thing goes for birth control. Although I would not agree with this policy, it would not be unconstitutional to collect taxes and use that money to pay for birth control and abortions; however, the government does not have the right to force me to directly pay for birth control or abortions. They do not have the right to force me to directly contribute to a gay wedding through cake baking, musical performance, or catering. And although this point is slightly different, I would argue the government has a constitutional right to collect tax money to pay for health insurance for people, but they do not have the right to force me to directly purchase health insurance under the threat of penalty of law. If you recall, the Obama administration bent over backward to assure us that the “penalty” was not a “tax”, even though the IRS collects the penalty.

Point 2: The IRS Targeted Republican Groups:

Speaking of the IRS, you flippantly justified their agents targeting conservative groups by writing, “It’s group wanted to shut down the agency that I work for and they were looking for a tax break to do it, ‘Uh, oops what happened to that application?”

The same thing probably happened to those emails. This statement of yours, Zano, shows your argument’s flaw and the essential the flaw in your evaluation of the Obama administration. The Tea Party didn’t just want to shut down the IRS, it wanted to shut down the Obama Presidency as a whole. So by your very “reasoning” (quotes added to incite annoyance), you would look the other way (which you are obviously doing). There is real wrongdoing if the Obama Administration gave the signal to its thugs to target his political adversaries, since they were looking to shut him down.

Point 3: Let’s Placate the Terrorists

My point was not to complain about Obama’s refusal to call a “terrorist” a “terrorist”, although that is an issue, it’s not my issue; and you, by making it my issue have sidetracked my point. I complained that by blaming the terrorist attack on a video, the administration emboldened our enemies, which we have obviously been doing throughout the Obama Presidency. The Obama Administration was directed to blame the attack on the video rather than the people who did the attacking. The video was “hateful and offensive” (Susan Rice), “reprehensible and disgusting” (Jay Carney), “disgusting and reprehensible” (Hillary Clinton, who should have used a thesaurus), and “two thumbs down” (Siskel and Ebert). And these are just the responses to your last post, Zano (ba dum bump).

The administration should not have ever mentioned the video as being a fault in the attack. That’s making an excuse. What was the cause of the Benghazi attack? Plain and simple, it was Islamic fascists. I don’t care how they justify their violence–Israeli apartheid, the great Satan’s U.S. foreign policy, a reprehensible novel, an offensive cartoon maker, or even the Ghetto Shaman’s The Tao of Skullfucking (although I stand by parts of chapter four). It’s all just an excuse, perpetuated by our leaders who are pushing this narrative that ultimately emboldens terrorism.

I have speculated that the Obama Administration has embraced the “reprehensible movie” narrative for its own self-serving reasons. I realize that this is just speculation, but it makes the most sense to me. Leading up to the 2012 elections, President Obama was promoting his “we’ve greatly weakened terrorism throughout the world” theme as a prime selling point for his upcoming election. A terrorist attack on the anniversary of 9/11 didn’t fit his PR campaign so he got everybody on board to blame the attack on the video rather than the terrorists. That’s the point Zano, and you’re refusal to accept this point makes you a “denier.”

More importantly, my sister is not going to your next party unless I am invited. Her words, not mine.

Total (Over) Lording Deniers

Pokey McDooris

The evidence is conclusive. All of today’s best minds have reached a consensus that the current administration is demonstrating totalitarian tendencies that clearly violate its constitutional limitations. If these totalitarian tendencies are not addressed, we are in jeopardy of experiencing rising lies, increased tumultuous social storms, and global warring that threatens to destroy our republic. Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria.

But even when confronted with all of the obvious evidence, there is still a significant number of pseudo-rational individuals who deny the totalitarian over-lording that operates from within our government.

What is this evidence?

Let’s start with the IRS scandal. Oh, I can hear the deniers now: “This is all just manufactured lies from the racist right-wing conspirators who slander poor President Obama because they’re all jealous of how good a job he’s doing.”

Just humor me. Starting back in 2010, the IRS began flagging applications from groups with political references in their name like “we the people,” “take back the country,” “tea party,” and “patriot.” Strictly bi-partisan, of course. When Lois Lerner was asked if the IRS had targeted liberal groups, she said, “I don’t have any information on that.” Why thank you, that’s very helpful. Now, these flagged groups were given a more rigorous review than those not flagged. Former IRS commissioner, Douglas Shulman, initially denied that his agency was targeting conservatives. “Why we would never dream of doing such a thing.” Then he promptly retired.

The recent information that Congress has finally obtained from the IRS shows that after the “flagged” groups provided their information to the IRS, 1 out of 10 was subjected to auditing. That’s ten times the rate of the average citizen.

The message is loud and clear–be careful what you say and who you support. The big question remains: is the IRS auditing connected to the White House? I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that they have drones and don’t even have sufficient wall insulation. What we do know is that the former IRS commissioner, Douglas Shulman, visited the White House (at least 147 times) more than any of the most trusted members of the President’s cabinet. Shulman initially spoke words inconsistent with reality (lied) about the targeting, and Louis Lerner at the Congressional hearing has so famously refused to answer questions on the matter. I know what you’re thinking, “What difference does all that make now?” I don’t know, but that brings us to our next piece of evidence.

The Benghazi attack took place on the nine year anniversary to the World Trade Center terrorist attacks, yet for many months after the attack had taken place, a large portion of the American population believed that the attack was caused by “a heinous and offensive video.” Now listen up you deniers, even if the people who attacked the Benghazi base were angered by an anti-Muslim movie, SO WHAT! Why does our administration feel compelled to seek an excuse for people who commit acts of violence against innocent people? When if I started killing people after reading “a heinous and offensive parody website?” Would I be justified? Well, in the case of the Discord, maybe.  Would the website be at fault? Would it be accurate to report that the “offensive website” caused the violence? People, the answer is “no.” There is no excuse for unprovoked violence, so when our President and his helpers make these kinds of excuses, they embolden such violence and weaken our security. And that’s my job.

After Salman Rushdie wrote The Satanic Verses, what if our leaders had reported that the 6 million dollar price placed on Rushdie’s head was caused by an “offensive book.” Well, make no mistake about it, that’s how Islamic fascists saw it–they were justified to kill Rushdie for his “offensive book,” just like they were justified in attacking Benghazi because of the “offensive video,” and they were equally justified in attacking the world trade center because of the United States’ “offensive foreign policy.”

There is a current trend in our culture to embolden irrational rebellion. For example, I’ve noticed that many public school teachers have been taught flawed methods for addressing defiant behavior in our youth. This method is played out something like this: “Now Johnny, what have we done to make you so angry? Why do you want to tear up your homework and throw it in my face? Now, if you keep attacking the teachers, you won’t earn your stickers and prizes.”

Many of our elected officials have been taught these same flawed methods for addressing the defiant behavior of our mortal enemies. This method plays out something like this: Now Abdul, what have we done to make you so angry? Why do you want to burn our flag? Is it Zano again? He is thoughtless some times. If you keep killing our ambassadors, we’re gonna have to cut off your billions of dollars in aid.”

Now, I want you all to open up your minds real wide. What if…I know this is gonna sound crazy, but what if Benghazi wasn’t just an overcritical movie review (thumbs way down)? What if the Obama administration, along with the CIA, knowingly crafted a false narrative in order to cover up the real happenings at Benghazi? No, really, I think it’s possible. I also think that, just maybe, the CIA was shipping arms from the facilities in Benghazi to al Qaeda mercenaries in Syria. Yeah, I know that it’s against the law to provide weapons to known terrorist groups, but sometimes I think that the President doesn’t care about the law. Why did the administration lie about the terrorist attack? That’s a good question. I think that if all the information was uncovered, it would have jeopardized President Obama’s chances for re-election. Yeah, I know that would have been dishonest, but I think that maybe President Obama is not really as trustworthy as he appears.

Oh yeah, and I don’t think that Fort Hood incident was really ‘workplace violence’ either, and what happened at the Boston race was more than just an athletic injury. And the incident at the last Discord Christmas party was not just…well, that was workplace violence.