The Constitution of the Divided States of ‘Murica is akin to The Bible, in that republicans worship it despite a nearly complete inability to understand any of the meaningful bits. Thou shalt not Teabag? I believe, post 9/11, the Constitution died. Rest In Parchment? My message then, to anyone who would listen, was this: the 2008 presidential election signaled a shift from an inauguration to a coronation, so forgive me if constitutional indiscretions seem passé. Post 9/11 our checks and balances collapsed at the feet of an imperial presidency and, yes Pokey, I make no apologies for showing some relief in the fact our current monarch has an IQ above that of a turnip. I realize this is an affront to those citizens of Turnipsylvania.

The collapse of our Constitutional rights came, not at the hands of the Dems but at the hands of those constitution-lovin’-dipshits among us (CLDs), although I will admit expansions and the institutionalization of executive powers have occurred under Obama, here. There are inherent costs in having the likes of the Tea Party and Sean Hannity champion this important document, aka, I’m starting to miss it already.

Despite his modus propagandi, Hannity and his ilk would have fared much better in 1930s Germany than colonial America. Founding Faterland? I know this doesn’t register with you, Pokey, but the GOP remains the major stumbling block of our time. This phenomenon I keep covering will also be a key focus of history and will likely play heavily into our pending collapse. Future bloggers will marvel at this profound shit-show amidst the so-called Age of Information, thus my endless Comical Cyclical Redundancies (CCRs). Bad Meme rising?

I remember what my father said after 9/11, “Don’t ever bring your girlfriend back to this house! She stole all of your mother’s pain medication again!”

Wait, uh, that other thing he said after 9/11:

 “As bad a day as this was, the problem will be our response.”

—Papa Zano, September 12th, 2001 (or thereabouts)

I shared my father’s concern at the time—that chick really was bad news. But remember, Glenn Beck had some important thoughts on 9/12 as well, after he sniffed some glue. These days the difference between prophetic or pathetic comes down to your political affiliation. This is why nothing you predict will likely come to pass, Pokey. You live in an alternate political reality.

It’s funny to hear Pokey defending the Constitution when circa 2003 to 2006 he had a hard time wrapping his head around what was happening. Essentially post 9/11 Bush looked at the Bill of Rights and said, naaah. But, hey, those are only the first ten amendments of that Constitution thingie, right?

“Amendments? Who needs amendments to the Constitution? Why mess with perfection?”

—John Q. Republican

I don’t want to rehash this shit, suffice to say essentially at some point post 9/11 Bush politicized the Justice Department and soon after big bro could read your mail, your email, and listen to your phone conversations (all without a warrant). They could then pick you up, detain you without due process, torture you (abroad and then eventually here) all for the low low price of just declaring you an “enemy combatant”. No trial necessary, but on the bright side Bush eventually did learn how to say and spell “combatant” properly which does make it constitutional—ish. If that weren’t disturbing enough, there’s even evidence Cheney had secret prisons, here, and was working on a secret police.

I also remember arguing with you one night many year ago—one of our most heated arguments ever, in fact—at Ye Old College Diner in State College, PA. It happened just after Zeno’s Pub closed for the night… Fine, they threw us out. But this conversation has been pokeyphrased and the names have been changed to protect the delinquent:

Pokey: They’re not picking Americans up off the street without a warrant and torturing them.

Zano: Yes they are.

Pokey: Name one person. One person!

Zano: Jose Padilla! JOSE PADILLA!!

(A guy from Brooklyn who we now know was tortured to the point of irreversible mental illness.)

Obama: Zano’s right, we tortured some folks.

Zano: Hey, while you’re here, Mr. President, can you pick up the tab?

Obama: I think we should all share the burden equally.

Pokey: There he goes again.

Forgive me, Pokey, if I’m not as concerned about a guy elected twice on the issue of expanding healthcare coverage to more Americans and then…uh, he expands healthcare coverage to more Americans. Wrong, maybe, but comparatively?

As I’ve said before I wish the republicans had focused on the individual mandate instead of all those senseless appeals. Opportunity lost. In the 21st century there is no opportunity the Republican Party hasn’t squandered, thus the Dems lingering shot in the midterms. This should be a blow out—at least historically—but control of the Senate remains a tossup because one group remains dangerously incompetent.

Oh, and the Supremes have ruled your biggest beef with Obamacare Constitutional. I agree with you, though, it’s a stretch. Most people who own shit have to pay for garbage, or property tax or a slew of other things, but I agree asking the terminally disenfranchised to pay for their emergency room visits—well, there are plenty of alternatives. How about instead of allowing insurance companies to make one thousand percent profit, let’s knock that down a point or two? That should more than cover this relatively small tab for those poor peeps just out of the Medicaid Expansion range. Meanwhile, you say healthcare coverage is not an inalienable right, so pay the fine or sign the Zano waiver and forgo any emergency room visits. Your choice.

Pokey: What’s that I hear?

Zano: That Pokey is the sweet sound of freedom, aka, you bleeding out in the ER lobby.

Good luck with that.  What I want to see rolled back is Bush’s expansion of executive power, in particular surveillance of Americans, arrests of Americans without due process, torture, and the ability of the president to wage war without congressional approval. These are very important points. We do have a similar understanding of the Constitution, we don’t have a similar idea on the fix. You want Mr. Smith to go to Washington, only your Mr. Smith is Ted Cruz and he can’t find Washington, or his own ass with both hands. The Tea People voted for Bush, twice, and are so detached from reality that even W himself has reservations about their obstructionism, their partisanship and their approach.  Republican thought is already at the edge of the solar system so the Tea Party’s ideology is beyond our current technology’s ability to even map, or:

I think this is an accurate ideological map.

I know your brand’s complete descent into madness is “besides the point” but I couldn’t disagree more…well, I could but I might strain something. I don’t know how you propose to restore shit. We shredded the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights almost unanimously during a nebulous, forever War on Error. I understood even then how future leaders would likely expand, not roll back these powers. Meanwhile, your views are inherently contradictory, Pokey. You want freedom, the freedom to follow a set of specific religious tenants.

“Like religion, conservatives demand strict obedience from all members of society making it incompatible with democracy or a free society. For the past four-and-a-half years, Americans have been besieged by an axis of fundamentalist groups who exemplify anti-democratic ideology and between corporatists, evangelical fundamentalists, and conservatives, the nation risks drifting toward fascism and if not thwarted spells the end of American democracy.”

—Politicus, USA

I know I’ve said this before, but I attended an official Tea Party Express rally…uh, only because I thought the bus said Tea/Espresso. Sad but true, full story here. This group is wholly incapable of getting elected and, your God help us if they do. These people have no understanding of the Constitution or recent history.

We currently have only two choices in this country, dumb and dumber, and at the moment I’ll take dumb.  I don’t think I’m giving dumb a free pass, I simply have a host of other criticisms based on reality. Sadly, these so-called libertarians on your side of the aisle are totally under the control of the super-rich. Makes sense. But that’s okay, because they think libertarians are people who like to read in that place with all the books. They’re terminally misinformed at this point and their prognosis is poor.  This is continually driven home for me after each and every news cycle.

The Constitution is a great framework, but it’s open to interpretation. It was designed to be a living document that grows with the times. That’s why our judicial system can reverse-engineer it through legalese to forever come up with a ruling that’s exactly in tune with their personal ideology. It’s not some infallible document handed down in tablet from to Noah at the top of Mount Rushmore. See? And you said I never read the Bible.

I think you missed the point when it mattered, over a decade ago. But we do need a group that emerges who can champion the restoration of the rule of law. Dems are not up for the task and our other two choices are unconscionable.

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

Whereas history tends to repeat itself, one necessary element in this process is the time required to forget shit. Typically there are decades or even centuries between identical historical blunders (IHBs) as that’s how the whole eventually-shit-is-cyclical thing is supposed to work. But Republicans are like that guy who gets three DUIs in a 24hr period and then decides to drive to a bar. They’re insisting on F-ing everything up again, not in 2050, but by the end of their next news cycle. Quantdumb?

As we approach the midterms, the GOP’s warp-speed idiocy maximization project (WSIMP) is percolating nicely. Regardless of what you think of Barack Obama, it does not somehow vindicate the W shit-show. According to our local alternate universe, all this country needs is a return to a Bush-style economic plan and a Bush-style foreign policy. I’m not making this up…What’s the worst that could happen? And the far right is somehow becoming the authority on issues again, which is disturbing if you’re forced to live on Earth.

                               

“So the party that was primarily responsible for the years of grinding, bankrupting war, a descent into torture, and an evisceration of many core liberties is now regarded as superior to the man originally tasked with trying to recover from that experience?”

—Andrew Sullivan

This week the Wall Street Journal brings us this gem:

“Real median household income rebounded smartly in the middle of the last decade. That rebound occurred after the Bush tax cuts on capital income and marginal income-tax rates became law in 2003. What’s needed now is a return to policies that put growth as the country’s highest economic priority.”

Smartly? A Bush policy ended smartly? Is this supposed to be followed by canned laughter? If this guy worked for The Discord I’d fire him. Hey, that’s it! Maybe Fox News had a canned laughter machine but they cut funding for it…that would make their segments make more sense—ish.

Dear Wall Street Journal dude, waaaay more jobs were created under Clinton and he approached this problem from the exact opposite direction. There’s no evidence Bush’s tactics created jobs, none. It did create a global economic recession; I do seem to remember something about that…or:

Meanwhile, now that all economic indicators are improving, our President is slipping even further in the polls. Obama-hate is at an all-time high, higher than even Bush or Clinton, here. Am I missing something? Fox News would say yes, but that’s your first clue I’m not. Obama is beating Reagan on private job growth, here, and overall unemployment is way down, here. All economic criteria are improving, final, so I guess it’s time to F shit up again. Why can’t we connect good news with approval ratings anymore?

Dear Foxeteers,

History will judge Obama’s predecessor much, much more harshly. Funny thing about scholars and historians, they tend to be scholarly and historical.  But luck on your next bullshit news cycle.

Sincerely,

Reality

P.S. And you’re supposed to wait a few decades before making the same mistakes. History is supposed to be cyclical, not news-cyclical. And some of you may now want to look up the word predecessor.

But now that we’re starting another trillion dollar campaign in the Middle East we can recreate the circumstances that existed just prior to the last economic collapse. Awesome! If that’s not cool enough, there are also calls to return to a more Bush-style foreign policy, and by that I mean Obama should invade Ebola.

How did we track from chicken hawk to war weary and then back again to chicken hawk in five minutes? In the republican universe, the Iraq War was essentially all but won until Obama managed to botch the withdrawal which sent the Middle East into a tailspin. And now the right feels somehow vindicated because of Panetta and a growing laundry list foreign affairs complainers.

Hint of the Day:

No one that discusses ISIS has the same idea how we should handle this situation. There are no two identical plans in or outside of Washington. Why? Because there are no good answers, unless you build a time machine and….hmmm, Bush or Bin Laden? 

Yes, Pokey, Obama should have gone to Congress for his little ISIS venture, but I understand the desire to keep the buffoons out of it, especially when the buffoons go, uh, we don’t want a vote, keep us out of it, here. Well, we elected them—okay, not really—they were gerrymandered into their positions by Constitution-loving voter suppressors (CLVS). That makes sense. Besides, it’s legal. Today on NPR General Wesley Clark reminded us how Bush’s requests to wage war on terror were too broad. Giving the executive branch the ability to unilaterally wage war was a mistake—one of many as it turns out.

“In retrospect, what the country needed was a radical break from the Bush/Cheney national security policies: A reestablishment of American moral integrity; a rejection of decision-making based on fear (of terrorism, or of political blowback); a reassertion of the international laws of war; and a national reckoning. Instead, the hopes for any change are slim.”

—Dan Froomkin

In the same article, Froomkin blames Obama for institutionalizing Bush-era atrocities. Pokey recently uttered a similar sentiment, but I don’t think it’s a fair estimation.

As I’ve already said Alert:

Obama was never going to restore the rule of law, in fact, it was naïve to think he would. When Cheney told Obama, “You need to use these new tools to combat terror” and, “You’ll thank me some day” (paraphrased). The implication was, Oh, and if we get hit again and you role this shit back, history will nail you to the fucking wall, bitch, which is probably the only relevant thing Dick Cheney ever said.

But there’s no defense for defending torturers, which is Obama’s true failing, here. Obama should be impeached for this and Bush should hang. But the truth has no place on Fox News, so the only real argument for impeachment will remain on a spoof news site…BENGHAZI!!

Besides the aforementioned torture part, if I were in Obama’s shoes I would have done most of the same things. Does it fly in the face of the Constitution? Sure. Should we be concerned? Yes…especially if we are ever shortsighted enough to hand these tools back over to republicans. They would then use them to torture walruses for colluding with Al Gore on Climate Change and then nuke Canada.

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

—George Orwell (snagged from a Sean McElwee feature)

There is no event republicans can’t spin and there is no lesson from history too basic for them to misinterpret. We are currently losing this game called reality to a pack of crazy, no-nothing sociopaths. We cannot let this happen. The future you save may be your own.

“Rage, rage against the lying of the right!”

—Dylan Zano

Vintage musings on multiverse theory here.

So Pokey, I’m brainwashed? I understand Obama’s Muslim strategy and I commend it. In fact, I suggested it years ago…to you. Our more savvy administrations will forever attempt to separate radical Muslims from those moderates as conflating the two would prove catastrophic. This is some of the Benghazi nuance you are calling a scandal. I call it don’t taunt Happy Fun Ball (SNL 1991). Obama will strike what needs striking but will, more importantly, support and foster any and all moderate Muslim voices that might emerge from this Middle East shit-show. He may well back some to a fault. [Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah joke beheaded by the editor.]

There are two paths:

1. Containment of radical groups through drone, airstrikes, and special ops while supporting the rise of Muslim moderates, or:

2. Wider military campaigns that will prove ineffective and will ultimately bankrupt our country.

Obama understands these two choices but will President Clinton? See, I talk about stuff that’s going to happen and try to give recommendations in real time. Solutions are strangely missing from Foxeteer country, aside from the occasional Nuke the Towelheads! comment and other such deductive gems. Not only do Republicans have nothing relevant to add in the moment, they have mastered a form of advanced revisionist-history via glue-sniffing (ARHvGS). You should take note of this and put down the glue, Pokey.

Onward to BEN-GAZZARA! Yes, I made this joke two months after the attack, here, and Maher just used it, like, last week (Real Time with two year old Zano jokes?)

Benghazi Summary Alert (please skip this paragraph, for f*&^’s sake):

Obama called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism the next day in the Rose Garden.  And, if you think the attack on Benghazi spontaneously happened the same day along with dozens of other attacks across the Muslim world, Obama’s bullshit makes more sense than your “truth”. The mastermind behind the attack, in captivity, allegedly moved up the date because of the video protests. I notice you have no comment on this. Perhaps you should explain to the attacker, why his motivations were wrong.  If there were no wide-spread video protests the same day and no connection to the attack, then Obama lied. And, yes, these radicals were planning this attack, but not on the anniversary of 9/11, because they moved up the date to take advantage of ensuing video chaos, or like this guy said:

“So, of course, the attacks were linked to the dozens of other embassies overrun on the same day. If the GOP can’t connect those dots, we’re going to need some bigger dots. That is why the attack fell right on movie-trailer night. They used the riots as an excuse…you know, to do the old fake yawn and reach around thing. You think this just happened at the precise moment all of those other embassies burst into flames?”

—Mick Zano, Nov 2012

After catching the mastermind and interrogating him, my theory is all but confirmed, which means I’m wrong. So I’m protecting Obama from relaying a valid point. Keep in mind, the real story is this: if Pokey’s narrative proved true, I still wouldn’t understand his point.

And now back to our regularly scheduled blog post:

One third of the world identifies as Muslim, so if we declare war on them all, the way our Christian soldiers insist, then we’ve played right into Bin Laden’s hands. And, if we go broke through a series of ill-fated Bush-style military campaigns, ditto. If we employ either of these approaches, we should probably start brushing up on our Farsi. I am already quite adept at Farcey, but I’m being told that’s different. The ultimate answer lies with Muslims themselves. If they further radicalize and too many remain at this dangerously sick level of consciousness, in the immortal words of Bill Paxton from Aliens, Game over, man! Obama understands this, so he’s opting for containment strategies while encouraging and supporting the rise of moderate Muslim voices. He is also trying to get the rest of the world on the same page, which is very hard post Bush. Obama’s is the best approach, even if you and your ilk can’t seem to wrap your [edited]  around it. (Damn…beheaded again.)

“The problem is not the problem. The problem is your attitude about the problem. Do you understand?”

—Captain Jack Sparrow

On the flip side, Republicans assume all liberals can’t seem to wrap their heads around extremism. This is true as they tend to side with republicans on military interventions waaaaaay too much. See any vote on war ever. This is what worries me about Hillary 2016.

Perspective: Wouldn’t It Be Nice If the GOP Had Some?

Oh, and did I mention any investigations should be focused on that big circle of cluster fuckage called Why-the-F- We-Invaded-Iraq-in-the-1st-Place? The fact we’ve had 426 Benghazi investigations and no investigations on the lead up to the Iraq War is a testament to our collective ignorance. I stand by all my important spoof news Benghazi coverage here, here and here.

Although I guess I should warn everyone, the Discord was just added to the internet Hoax of Fame list here. I call bullshit! I AM A REAL JOURNALIST (cough)…well I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

Pokey, my friend, your entire argument revolves around a ratio of the impetus behind the attack and whether or not we called them bad men or bad religious men. Benghazi was caused by extremists who will kill Americans whenever they get the chance and whether the impetus for the attack was more video, more 9/11, or more of a protest on Fox’s decision to cancel Glee—

“What does it matter at this point?”

—Hillary Clinton

One of Hillary’s biggest election challenges will be to overcome this quote. Of course, it’s true, but truth has no place on Bullshit Mountain. Obama never denied these were bad peeps, he just never called them the right kind of bad peeps. Impeach! I don’t want Sharia Law in America either, I just want our leaders to employ an approach that decreases the likelihood of this eventuality. Going broke through a series of military blunders is the opposite of helping.

Benghazi Hint of the Day:

As for the lead up to the attack, the handling of the attack, and the spin the next day, no wrong doing has been found by any of these investigative committees.

This latest committee promises to look at security issues, which was suggested by a Dem, here. Let me save you some time and money—this one is true.  Dems tend to investigate things related to reality, which is why at the moment they have my support. This committee will find security issues and preventing the next Benghazi is the only relevant part of this Foxudrama. And the blame for security will ultimately rest with those who defunded embassy security. Hint: it rhymes with re-goblin-kings. Yes, the committee will find everything I already mentioned in my first article, two years ago, for the low, low price of 147-million tax dollars. One spoof news blogger beats every republican, every time. Three cheers for fiscal conservatism! Three cheers—wait, I’m being told Congress cut funding, so we’re down to two cheers. Bastards!

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.

I have taken a turn for the worse after my visit to West Africa.  I have fatigue, headaches, and I’m bleeding out of every orifice in/on my body…and that’s just because I write for the Discord.  Actually, I shook hands with a previously infected doctor who attributed his recovery to his Christian God rather than to medical science.  Color me stunned!  With docs like that, Africa is in for a thrill ride on the exponential Ebola train to Shitsville, which I also believe is a Monkees’ song.

I am requesting that you use your resources to have me parachuted into ISIS territory where – before I lose consciousness and while equipped with several WiFi accessible GoPros – I might generously shake hands with the knife-wielding beheading guy known as “John”.  John might later kneel with his friends in a confined space and in obedience to his supernatural figment, spreading my molecular goodness to others, and on and on and on.  My sacrifice may be better than targeted nuclear strikes in affirming the world’s response of an aversion to slicing throats in the service of a political statement.

I have found that beer may be a cure for the Ebola virus, though I’m still crunching the numbers re: octane vs bleeding, but I do think I have enough time remaining to make the flight and drop to John’s doorstep.  I will forgo my next bar crawl to become part of Obama’s Coalition of the Falling. Please help me make this important meeting with John before I bleed out or get too drunk to take my case to him.  The Rolling Stones tell us “only women bleed”, but I beg to differ. In fact, I’m going through gauze like a dog goes through bones, like an Imam goes through verses, like a chef goes through garnish.  My existential nature demands more of me, and so I bleed on your mercy to help me turn the tide in Iraq – the right way!

Do you remember as a kid when you lit that bag of dog poop on fire and rang that doorbell? Yeah? Ding dong, John. I am that flaming bag of poop.

Despite the recent successes of some moderate republican candidates, I don’t believe it accurately reflects the larger political trend. The GOP will likely track further right and within a decade we will start hearing the words “radicalized republicans.” Bozo Haram? I know, I know, it’s like the time I commissioned a bust from that OCD sculptor, I’m getting a head of myself, again.

Andrew Sullivan would likely nominate my last statement for one of his over-the-top Moore Awards, but it doesn’t make it any less true. Sully doesn’t have to live in the trenches, like Arizona. Conservative types are becoming dangerously deluded. I’m predicting our future may well consist of the Clive Bundys of the world uniting, form of misinformed militias. I want a revolution too, but one based on reality. Sure I have my doubts about our future, but forgive me if I’m reluctant to climb into the bunker with the rest of the Schmuck Dynasty.

“You know this is all Obama’s fault, right? Want a can of chick peas, fella?”

I can hardly wait. Time to reiterate: I’ve never been a huge fan of the Dems, but I would rather see Michael Vick head of the ASPCA or Ray Rice head a domestic violence taskforce than see a republican president in 2016. My total liberal shift, at least vote-wise, has nothing to do with Democrats.

Ideology check: If, with the aid of a stool and the Hubble friggin’ telescope, you still can’t see some scant reflection of reality, you may be a republican.

The Foxeteers hate this president and they will likely hate the next several and, lest we forget, they’re the ones with most of the guns. You say you want a revolution?  …well, you know, we’d all love to see the Rand.

Why hate Obama? What are the specifics? All we ever get are kernels of drivel from this Scheissgiest of theirs. Do you hate the successful implementation of a version of the Romney healthcare model? Do you hate having the best economic recovery in the west? Do you hate avoiding ground wars in the Middle East?  Hint: attacking ISIS may cost another trillion, while Obamacare is thus far cutting healthcare costs. There’s nothing remotely fiscally conservative about fiscal conservatives. Someone get Paul Ryan a calculator.  Atlas Buggered?

Summary Alert: Bush’s faults were of the San Andreas variety and Obama’s of the fictional variety.

What’s most disturbing is how even our president is forced to factor in this rightwing hysteria and fantasy into his algorithms. This is part of why he’s starting to falter.  San Andreas falter? This week we find nearly one in four Foxeteers want to secede from the union, here. Nearly one quarter of the country! And this group is not going to settle down after losing more elections. They were created out of fear and propaganda as part of a rightwing ratings scheme and at this point the damage is done. I predict republicans will have several opportunities to realign themselves with reality but they will miss all of these windows.  Defenestration Nation? Sultans of Squeegee?  Sorry.

People are in the middle, Zano. They’re not as polarized as Fox and MSNBC would have us believe.

That may have once been true, but no longer. Republicans are ready for a revolution. They don’t understand or acknowledge any of the real challenges our nation faces—with the exception of islamofascism, which they overhype—and they have no idea how we got here. 2000 to 2008 has been plucked from their collective hippocampus like some political lobotomy. Electro Conservative Therapy?

Our real problems remain: The growing disparity of wealth, overpopulation, pollution, the failure to shift to sustainable communities and energies, and the perils of accelerating climate change. These will all go unnoticed until it’s too late. Oh, and wait until our radical friends start bombing mosques. That’ll help. The Blather Underground?  Bozo Haram? Did I use that one already? How about Ailes-Qaeda? No? Okay, I’ll work on that one.

Of course the left will go lefter, but I‘m cool with that. Oh no! …thoughtful social libertarians! People who don’t worship the Koch Brothers, people not as ready to placate Wall Street or invade the wrong country! People who want to at least try to save the planet. Nooooo, everything will go to pot! I wish.

Hint of the Day: big business will be just find in the 21^st century, but you won’t be.

It’s almost fanatical how today’s conservatives rail against any truths that might surface. Whack a maxim? I attended a Tea Party Express rally once, here, and yikes. Since that evening I have been patiently waiting for the inevitable collapse of the Republican Party. I called for reform for over a decade before giving up. We needed a healthy GOP to help balance the budget, to help reign in spending, to improve Obamacare. We’re getting nothing from this clunker, so it’s time for the scrap heap.

Why, during a time when the GOP may claim both chambers of congress can you talk about the right’s inevitable demise?

First off, they haven’t won anything yet. I broke from guru Nate Silver when republicans had an 85% chance to take the Senate and it is now down to 65%. Never underestimate their incompetence. Look, if you’re only pandering to white, old, angry, uneducated males, I’m afraid your future is tenuous at best. But don’t worry, so is everyone else’s. If The GOP wins the Senate it will only prolong their demise. I don’t have the patience, so I’ve used the Zano model to ensure the Dems hold on. Hint: it involves a headless chicken, burning sage, and some pin cushions.

“Political conservatives are the greatest threat to the nation.”

—President Barack Obama

This should be hyperbole, but I’m afraid it’s not. Someone immediately posted on Facebook, “How is this statement defensible?” Uh, read Zano. Just remember where you heard it first. Believe me, masses of delusionally misinformed, sociopathic citizens will eventually spell our demise; they’ll spell it wrong, of course.

“Republicans endanger civilization.”

—Nancy Pelosi

Only we can destroy ourselves. Bin Laden knew as much. If only Bush had been half as smart as that bastard.

“I know we’ve become used to this – and the press has found a way to write about the GOP as if they are not a reckless, know-nothing, post-modern fantasy machine. But it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t remain capable of shock and anger at this pathetic excuse for a political party, at the unique idiocy of this party of the right in the Western world.”

—Andrew Sullivan

Obama has had some missteps as well as some moments of brilliance, but republicans only have one thing on the agenda, another Benghazi hearing. Hell, I never understood the first fifteen. I want to debate the perils facing our country and our planet—the one I have to live and blog on.  If republicans want to storm the Bastille—oh, wait, too French (insert your own metaphor). I don’t care what they want to do, I don’t want any part of it.

Okay, Cleetus, hand over the chick peas, but first I’m going to tell you a little story about Keynesian economics and the series of unfortunate events that led us to see if it could work.