Archive for July, 2016
Contributed by Scud Langley
Clandestine, Ohio – With all of the chaos that has erupted around the country recently, many politicians have attempted to speak of unity and togetherness and have taken every opportunity to denounce rhetoric that they say is “harsh” and “divisive”. In toning down this destructive rhetoric, they believe they can unite the country and usher in an era of peace and tolerance.
While at a campaign stop for local and statewide candidates in Clandestine, Ohio, the President offered up his thoughts on the matter:
“Look, there’s no doubt that folks are angry right now and there is a lot of built up frustration and I believe we all have some responsibility here. Tensions are high and we have to do everything we can to bring healing and unity to our communities. That’s why I am asking for lawmakers and presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle to tone down their rhetoric and to look for ways to bring unity instead of divisiveness… (applause)… Unfortunately, however, this kind of divisiveness tends to come from one side of the aisle more than the other. Look, when folks from the other side of the aisle spend more time attacking me and their political opponents and spewing hatred than they do talking about unity, we all suffer… (applause)… They don’t have a plan! They don’t have a plan to move us forward because their bigotry blinds their thought process. That kind of thinking will never bring unity. That will only move us backwards towards restrictive policies like Jim Crow. But from the sounds of things, that’s something they would support… (boos)… I know. I know… I would love for us to be able to talk about love and unity and common ground but that’s impossible when all they can do is insult their opponents, trash their ideas, and inspire hatred. How can we be a unified country when there are so many bigots and carnival barkers from the other party who do nothing more than name-call and incite fear? That kind of extremism is more dangerous than terrorism in some cases!”
The president spent the next hour speaking about how bigoted politicians on the right use hateful rhetoric as a distraction from the real issues.
Contributed by Scud Langley
Cleveland, OH – In a lesser covered event last week at the Republican National Convention, presidential nominee Donald Trump implemented a fairly unconventional method of weeding out attendees who were not behind him 100%.
As Mr. Trump walked onto the stage with the aid of a fog machine, he pressed a button on the podium that opened a sliding panel on the wall behind him that revealed what looked like a large furnace with golden inlays. As the applause began to die down, Mr. Trump addressed the crowd and said,
“Now that I have accepted the nomination for president of the United States, we have to unite to defeat Crooked Hillary (TM)!… (applause)… However, frankly there are some Republicans out there who have not been treating me very fairly ok? I’ve heard that there are some losers who would rather vote for some failed career politician instead of me… (boos)… I know… I know… That’s no way to win, so here’s what we’re gonna do: I had this magnificent furnace built by some wonderful people and let me tell you, it’s really terrific. We will ask everyone to pledge loyalty to the campaign and whoever decides they still don’t want to be loyal to us, which would not be very smart, will be escorted into the furnace… (applause)… Thank you… Thank you… We’re gonna win, that I can tell you!”
There were no reported attendees thrown into the furnace towards the end of the convention, but after Senator Ted Cruz spoke and refused to offer a full-throated endorsement of the Trump campaign, a few large men in black suits came up and began escorting him towards the furnace. Though it is unclear exactly how, Senator Cruz managed to survive the ordeal. Some witnesses claim that they saw something like a son of man standing next to Cruz as he began to walk into the furnace but these reports have been unverified as of the writing of this article.
Contributed by Scud Langley
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – Though the debate about gun rights in the United States seems to be a recent phenomenon, new evidence has shown that there has been disagreement about the 2nd amendment from the very beginning. Though many of the founders often wrote in supportive terms of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a recent discovery in Wayne, Pennsylvania, which is just outside of Philadelphia, has given new insight into the debate that was waged even when the Bill of Rights was first being considered.
Local man Jim Hollaway was digging through his shed and found an old box that contained pieces of several letters written in fine script that were close to crumbling. Not sure what they were, he took them to an antique shop to have them evaluated and discovered that they were dated to around 1782-1783 and were contributed to a man named Anson Tremble. Though the letters were not fully intact, it was clear through several sections that Mr. Tremble was no fan of the proposed 2nd amendment and was quite forceful in his desire to see it eliminated. An intended recipient could not be found as the letters were somewhat ragged, but an excerpt from one of the partial sections reads:
“… and though it may be incumbent upon me to voice my displeasure of the proposal, I shall not but present several unquestionable points that should be taken into consideration before ratification is to be presented, and furthermore, I shall not be silen[ced] in this endeavour. That any man would or should need such an arm as the British Land Pattern [Mus]ket (what we now know as “Brown Bess”) is beyond reasonabal [sic] and should not be taken in a serious manner, as this device… [and] is no more than a killing [machine] designed for the sole purpose of taking away the life of man. The .75 caliber ball which fires forth from the muzzle is a horrendous piece of artill[ery] and is capable of more than incapacitating anything in its path. This is not the weapon of an husbandman intent on defending his flock… It is true that I have taken up the arm and have fired it upon an open field and I shall say without any shame to my honour that [the] explosion that proceeded forth was deafening, the spark and flash that shot out from the contact of the flint to the frizzen was disorienting and unsettling, and the pain and numbness caused to my shoulder from the stock slamming backwards after the discharge has yet to begin healing. The bellowing smoke that lingered from that awful black power was caught up in my lungs after the shot and I dare say that I may never brea[th] the same again… No, this is no hunting weapon and should not be [con]sidered…”
Though it has been difficult to nail down just how much influence Mr. Tremble held in the debate and who his intellectual peers were, a single reference to a “Mr. Anson” as a “gormless nancy-boy” was found amongst the journal entries of Josiah Bartlett, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, but it is unclear if this is a direct reference to Anson Tremble. Nevertheless, this finding has managed to shed a little more light on the debate that has seemingly raged on since the dawning of the Bill of Rights.