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….

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.

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

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.

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!

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.