Day By Day

Comments

  • I was hoping for a tiny elephant nailed to the bottom of a birdcage…

  • JTC

    “…we’d better replace it then.”

    No need for all that, guvnah…it’s being co-opted as we speak, next it’ll be ‘ouse cleanin’ time, all that dead wood replaced with oaken timber! All at the behest of The Donald as they call ‘im, ‘e’ll be trumpin’ up the charges and puttin’ ’em to rest, as stiffs and fossils oughta, and leavin’ the Ol’ Party to be Grand again, with a warm place for all them that’s been out in the cold so long, and with room to take in more that sees the Right way is the only way, not splittin’ up them that’s been loyal in spite of the rot in the branches, but nurturin’ the roots that’s always been strong but hidden in the soil.

    If you gotta make a new name to fit the new life, make it the Right Republican Party. Yeah now, that’s the Right way, m’lad!

    • H_B

      I keep waiting for Hillary to refer to the email and Benghazi questions as an “inquisition”.

      • nadadhimmi

        Ta duh! NOBODY expects a Benghazi Inquisition!

  • Outstanding, Chris! Well done! The replacement offered, if I recall, was a slug, wich wasn’t a good substitute.

    In the interest of accuracy it should be “kipping,” not “keeping.” “Having a kip” is UK slang for taking a nap:

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=kip

    • Tennessee Budd

      Thank you, Mr. Evans. I went to the comments to point out that it’s “..prefers kippin’ on its back”, but you had done it for me.

      • Bill G

        On the back, legs spread, is a common position for getting screwed.

  • Bill

    Were all the Cleese & Palin fans eaten by a Python?

  • Arkelk

    Nicely done.

  • Pamela

    Any Constitutionalists in the building?
    Maybe a party title Guardians of the Covenant

  • Boobie the Rocket Dog

    Now, I know Walt Kelly is deceased, but this was written in a very POGO-like style. I can see Pogo and Albert discussing this subject in the Okeefenokee swamp right now.

  • HB

    Best option is to PRIMARY OUT the likes of liein Ryno and all the others like him with angry tea party members.

    BUT if that doesnt work—-vote for the DemonRat that runs against him in the general election. If Ryno is going to vote like a demonrat….might as well get the real thing.

    These aholes only get fearful when they are thrown out of office.

    Beyond the ballot box….there are other kinds of boxes we can use.

    • Drumwaster

      The four boxes to keep a Democracy honest: 1) soap; 2) ballot; 3) jury, and 4) ammo.

      • steveb919

        So True

      • Alas, too many people are too ready to skip the proper steps and jump right to #4, but that’s not how things are done in a legitimate country. It’s no better than the dirty hippies in Che shirts screaming “revolution now!”

  • Drumwaster

    Not to pick nits, but the phrase isn’t “keepin’ on its back”, it’s “kippin’ “(the British version of “sleeping” ). Of course, the GOP prefers keeping on its back, so you might mean exactly what you wrote…

  • JavaMan

    I was waiting for the “It’s only mostly dead” Miracle Max part … but well done. I like the “Guardians of the Covenant” name, but I fear it would be to close to “religious” for some.

    • Pamela

      JavaMan

      The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a Covenant.
      A Covenant is an Agreement, a Contract, an Undertaking, a Commitment, a Guarantee, a Pledge, a Promise, a Bond, a Pact, an Understanding.

      We hold the Truths to be self-evident, and I for one am tired of being lied to by the people who swore to God to uphold this Covenant.

      • JavaMan

        Pamela,

        My original comment was not in disagreement with you … I agree, it IS a covenant. However, far too many people in society today view “Covenant” as a religious thing. More specifically, as a “Christian” thing – what with books like “Covenant Marriage” and such by Christian authors. I fear that name would have the same effectiveness as “Republican” on the other side of the aisle.

        I also think that it SHOULD be a religion of sorts to defend and uphold the constitution and it’s original meaning/intent.

        Now, personally, I would like someone to try to explain the phrase, “…and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” Especially that “Creator” part. And like you, I’d like them to stop denying their oath to that Creator

        An unpopular view these days, I know. But that’s just to bad.

        I’ll stop now, as it’s late, and I need to not get spun up before bed!

        • Pamela

          JavaMan

          Ah yes, their egos and sense of selves with anything harking of a Religious nature. Their own omnipotence is at risk should they acknowledge their very existence is owed to a Higher Power, and that they have trashed their sacred honor and are Oath-breakers. In the past, didn’t we shun men who broke their oaths as being untrustworthy and unreliable?

      • Erik

        As a rather interesting gentleman said back in the mid-19th century, before even the New Deal:

        “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” – Lysander Spooner.

        It’s a harsh judgement, but he’s right. Government cannot restrain itself. Republicanism (small-r) leads to democracy which leads to socialism – because government will always wind up buying votes. Heck, the Republican Party hasn’t done anything significant to shrink government since the Harding administration (while Harding was a corrupt jerk in some areas, he was a badass at cutting spending) – nearly 100 years of making government bigger and they still have their supporters playing Charlier Brown to their budgetary football.

        • Otto Didact

          No written document can control anything. No law, no “covenant”, no rule, nothing of that sort has ever been or ever will be more than words on paper. Words on paper do not – AND CANNOT – control human behavior. The Founders knew this and tried their best to craft a system which might last. But they knew that, in the end, it was a futile gesture. The only thing which affects behavior is force. Every /edict/dictate/injunction to do – or not do – something is only as strong as someone’s will to enFORCE said dictate.

          In the final analysis it is a simple proposition. As my Grandpa used to say, “Boy” (that’s what he always called me – not 100%certain he knew my name) “Boy, do you know why a hound dog licks himself?” To which I would reply, “No, Granddaddy, why does a hound dog lick himself?” “‘Cause he CAN, boy. ‘Cause he can.” I expect that’s why most people do what they do. ‘Cause they can. I figure that what Jefferson was talking about with his statement about the tree of liberty needing to be refreshed from time to time. When the servants of the people get uppity and start considering themselves better than the rest of us, they need to be brought down a peg – or three or TEN! Such bringing down a peg is the source of the tree of liberty’s “natural manure” as Jefferson called it.

          Something tells me that before the end of Hildabeast’s 2nd term (Come on. We all know that’s how it’s gonna play out come November next.) the tree of liberty is gonna get a heck of a fertilizing.

    • PaulS

      “but I fear it would be to close to “religious” for some.”
      THEY can stuff it up their ass! Oh wait, they already do.
      I’ve often wondered;
      Exactly how far does the head have to be shoved up the ass to see shit the way they do?

      • Pamela

        PaulS

        The blind do not see, and I fear their other senses are sadly lacking to divine the many facets of excrement up the old whazoo.

  • David M

    Pining for the Fjords indeed matey…

    …Blooming demised…

    So sad… I miss America…

    Lincoln is spinning in his grave…

    • Otto Didact

      David M wrote:
      “Lincoln is spinning in his grave”

      Horse Hockey! He is the one who really began to dismantle the constitution. He was the one who declared war upon a sovereign nation without any constitutional authority to do so. Hell! He waged war upon a nation he didn’t even recognize as BEING sovereign! He had no authority to forcibly return the CSA member states to the fold. He just DID it. In my estimation, Lincoln was almost as big a traitor as Obama.

      • CitizenOutkast

        That’s because he was a traitor. The list of Constitutional rights he violated makes him a tyrant, but since his side won, they could rewrite history however they wanted.

  • Corvette

    Surprised nobody has given Monty Python the credit it is due for its inspiration of this toon. “This bird is dead!”

    Corvette

  • WayneM

    ‘Ello Pubbies!! I’ve got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show any sign of life…

  • writeby

    See: “Career Republicans Killed Their Party; Not Donald Trump”
    https://drhurd.com/category/daily-dose-of-reason/

    “Whether you cheer or decry Donald Trump, you have to agree: He’s the byproduct of a Republican Party that’s dying, or perhaps already long since dead.

    “Republicans, as we know them, simply do not matter.

    Whether they control part, all or none of the government, nothing they claim to believe in ever gets anywhere.

    “Taxes rise; government regulation grows; socialized medicine and government-run schooling expand; non-defense spending skyrockets and the national debt grows with no end in sight.

    “Read any Ronald Reagan speech on the evils of expansive government. It has all come to pass, as much under Republican reigns (George Bush I, George Bush II, John Boehner’s and Mitch McConnell’s Congress) as Democratic ones.

    “Instead of shrieking about Donald Trump, career Republicans would do well to consider why so many in their party want nothing whatsoever to do with them.

    “If you want yet another indication of what’s wrong with the moribund Republican party, consider the words of Paul Ryan, the present Speaker of the House.

    “Ryan, 45, the Wisconsin Republican and 2014 vice presidential nominee, told The New York Times on Friday, “If we try to play our own version of identity politics and try to fuel ourselves based on darker emotions, that’s not productive.”

    “’I believe in an agenda that’s inspirational, that’s inclusive, that’s optimistic,’ he said.

    “If Paul Ryan and other Republicans really believed in inclusion and optimism, they’d stop serving as collaborative hacks for the expanding welfare state and instead call for its demise.

    “[And w]hat’s more inclusive than individual rights?”

  • H_B

    Is this up perhaps a little early?

  • writeby

    Proposed new poilitical party: The Individualist Party

    • MasterDiver

      How about L. Neil Smith’s Propertarian Party?

  • Damn if my buddy Chris doesn’t make me think the GOP is part of a Monty Python skit. Though I think they might might be the black night all bluster and no real fight left.

  • bob in houston

    I’d like to think that a new party would change things but even then, We’d still have the News Media, the Entertainment industry, the Education System and a generation or two of people that have been totally brainwashed into the leftist idealogy, things might eventually change but I seriously doubt it will be in my remaining lifetime.

  • Exactly the way I feel about the Democrats.

  • Paul

    As Teddy Roosevelt said when pissed off at Cuba and Spain,

    “They told me when mad for me to count to TEN. Well, By Jingo,.. I’m up to SEVEN now!!!” (and for us.. we are up to NINE and 1/2!)

  • “See: “Career Republicans Killed Their Party; Not Donald Trump”
    https://drhurd.com/category/daily-dose-of-reason/” you don’t suppose that the dhimocrapts , press, media, educational system, unions, and the stupid gentlemanly sense of turning the other cheek – therefore ignoring all the crap generated bu the formerly mentioned group of grifetrs and rent seekers also had something to do with its demise? Read JTCs post. He is right. Anything else leaves us outside looking in for 50 years. Leaves us stripped to slavery. We can’t afford blood in the streets this time (well maybe a little selective blood, but not general blood.)

  • LifeofTheMind

    If you think that this is bad, just wait.
    It will get worse.

    For that which we are about to receive Oh Lord, we thank Thee.

  • I think the career of “politician” needs to be regulated. Every other profession seems to be regulated, licensed, taxed, inspected, audited and soaked for graft. High time that was turned around.

    Since legislative positions are the most commonly elected and used as jumping off points for other elected positions, I will focus on those first.

    I propose first that all legislative terms be doubled. The first half shall be the active phase. The second half is the inactive phase. If an elected official resigns, the inactive phase begins immediately.

    During the entire term, active and inactive, a politician shall be forbidden the following behaviors: a) holding an position of trust in any political party or private organization b) solicit funds or speak on the behalf of any organization or individual or policial campaign c) run or be nominated for for any other public office the term of which begins during their current term d) receive any income other than the salary of their elected position, or in exchange for their actual labor, or from investments made before their term and held in escrow e) shall not discuss matters related to the office with anyone who is not a qualified voter in their district unless the conversation is recorded or witnessed by an independent party, including their own office staff f) solicit anyone to do on their behalf anything they are forbidden to do under these regulations

    I’m sure I can come up with more, but the end goal is this: you get to serve your elected legislative term, and then you are OUT OF THE GAME for an equal amount of time. We get to see everything you were up to. You can try for another elected office after you’ve lived for a time under the same rules as the rest of us.

    • PaulS

      Body cams for politicians, 100% real time access for their employers, all material can be used as evidence. I know, some material would not be suitable for viewing, but it is a tough job that needs to be done.

    • Wood

      Cap salaries at $40k. It’s public service and duty, not get rich quick. Only the worst kind of scum are attracted to these jobs when they can vote themselves special privileges.

      • JSStryker

        I’d prefer a senator’s salary be capped at the average income of his state, a representative’s pay be capped by the average income of his district and the president’s pay capped by the average income of the United States. Then they might start looking out for the people they represent.

        • Doo-Dah, Doo-Dah

          Not a bad idea. After the Revolution, when we’re deciding on what modifications to make to Constitution 2.0 to keep this past 60-years’-worth of crap from happening again, that’ll be a nice discussion point!

        • Rey

          Great suggestions all, but guess what? The same people that would be negatively impacted by those laws are the same whom would have to pass them. Guess what? Not happening.

    • Otto Didact

      A, Tirno, you DO realize you are wizzing on a forest fire, don’t you. There is no system you can devise that cannot be subverted. And no amount of rule-making can change that.

      It is entirely to be expected. Nothing in this universe lasts forever. As a physics teacher I knew (he’s gone to his reward now.) was wont to say, “Even protons decay.” Solomon knew the right of it. “To everything there is a season and time for every purpose under the heavens.)

  • Henry

    And now for something completely different…

  • Subotai Bahadur

    Well played sir, well played. Paul “Dhimmikrati al-Spendi” Ryan has removed any doubt that we are a one-party state. There are no reasons to vote for Republicans any more, regardless of their promises. It always ends in giving the Democrats everything.

    Buraq Hussein promises to start issuing Executive Orders on the subject of the Second Amendment when he returns from his Hawaiian vacation. One can wonder about the legitimacy of orders from a government with no consent of the governed. And the proper response. That response will have to be up to us, as we can no longer doubt that the Republicans will do as they are told by Obama.

    I suspect that there is much that will have to be endured by many before we can get around to establishing a SECOND party, so naming it may be premature. But I am partial to the name “Oathkeepers”, as it fits so many of us.

  • nadadhimmi

    The original Python bit was about a Norwegian Blue Parrot…..Blue..Republican..Norwegian…Quisling…..By God, that’s it. Republicans are Quislings.. The logic is irrefutable.

  • Jorge_Banner

    The history of our freedom is going to end like the battle of Isandlwana while we talk and talk about what we are going to do.

    The only advice you can give to someone confronted by cannibals is to start killing the cannibals before his whole group ends up as cannibal s#!t.

    If the Founding Fathers had had our . . . I’ll be kind and call it “patience” . . . they would still be debating whether to carry out a revolution or what.

    If asked to make a prediction I would put it that we are more likely going to be on the “what” side.

  • Jean

    My husband and I were vendors at a gun show today. We were directly across from the Trump table. The show was jam packed with people, and we had the best location in the building, because it was down right lively in front of us. I talked to two young men who wanted Rand, but they admitted he didn’t have a chance. It seemed that 70 % of the attendees were Trumpinistas! Yee-haa! The Trump folks were two old non-charismatic guys, and it wasn’t them causing the Trump Jump. Just sayin’.

  • Spin Drift

    Since our “party” is doing the opposite of what we want, we must be in NOTLOB. Mighty fine parody of a parody Chris. “I’m a lumber Jack and I’m ok.”

    Spin
    Carpe Scrotum (Seize them by the balls)
    Molon Labe
    War Damn Eagle

  • CitizenOutkast

    First, yes, you will have to draw a picture for some people. Too many still scream “you gotta vote for the lesser of two evils” like some lunatic that can’t stop listening to the voices in his head telling him what to do.

    Second, what’s even worse is that many still believe the GOP is filled with lazy, or stupid, or “out of touch” types that just need to be woken up or, maybe, replaced. That’s not it. The GOP is filled with highly intelligent and active *traitors* that know exactly what they are doing and how best to accomplish that. They aren’t cowards, they are malicious cancers that actively want to destroy those who elected them in favor of retaining personal power. To say they are anything less than traitors is to give them benefit of the doubt and to excuse their behavior.

    The GOP needs to be dumped. Entirely. It’s just a shame that while leftists can work, rally, and bring this country to its knees, conservatives can’t even get enough support to boycott a business and keep it from donating to immoral causes. No wonder the left is kicking ass and taking names.

    • H_B

      I gotta wonder if any Republican Party or Presidential Campaign executives read over things like the comments section here, and if they do what their actual reaction is. Does the active antipathy voiced in their direction here chill them, or do they think “meh, those people don’t matter…”?

    • GWB

      Those who insist on voting for the lesser of two weevils fetishize democracy over freedom and the principles that uphold the democracy.

      We see this in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, where we allowed “the people” to write an anti-freedom constitution, and when they held their purple fingers up after the first vote, the vote-fetishists all hollered, “Voila! A democracy!” And they considered all the work had been done.

      • PaulS

        So voting for the greater of two evils is better? That doesn’t seem right.
        What is the option, other than avoiding responsibility all together and not casting a vote?

        • CitizenOutkast

          Voting for a real conservative, no matter what “party” he is in. If and when enough conservatives learn to stop handing their votes over to the GOP, we could get a decent person in office. But too many are too scared and not enough (yet) even care to know what’s going on to stop voting GOP.

    • JTC

      So smash the silver pitcher instead of emptying it of its poison, leaving us with no tenable vessel to carry the fresh sweet nectar of freedom going forward? Pour out the poison, excise the evil and kill the traitors who have betrayed and/or sabotaged the intent and desire of the many who trusted them for their own selfish gain or to serve their true masters.

      Replace them with those of like mind and unwavering (and unbuyable) intent. That is a process that is one year away from fruition, God willing.

      The Right Republican party, represented by its first Presidential ticket:
      Trump/Cruz ’12

  • Pamela

    So, what does it take to start a new Party, and I don’t mean the get down and boogie stab everyone in the back how much can we betray then rip off before getting bounced out on their skanky asses party…

    • H_B

      Well, in the winner-take-all, non-parliamentary system we have (thank heavens!) you basically have to have an existing party decay into irrelevance before being immediately replaced by a successor. The best precedent we have for that is the Republican Party’s replacement of the Whigs in the early 1850s. It’s really kind of an interesting story…

      The Whigs were essentially founded during the 1830s in opposition to Andrew Jackson’s exercises of executive power. They could be described as a “small government” and “capitalist” group in their context, and opposed the Democrat party of the time for what they saw as elitist, Jacksonian legal over-reach outside the Constitution’s balance of power and Jeffersonian economic policies which they viewed as dooming the nation to future ignorance and poverty.

      The Whigs had quite a bit of success for several decades, but ultimately “lost their base” due to leadership weakness on the slavery issue. Basically, under the Whig ideology slavery was viewed as not just a moral vice, but an economic and political cancer on the nation. The modernizing-prosperity that the Whigs wanted to promote was being threatened by utilization of essentially cost-free labor that also served as a guaranteed vote-source for grandee slave owners (at 3/5ths of the slave population by Article 1 of the Constitution). Unfortunately, the institution of slavery was vigorously defended, and even expanded, at every turn by the southern elite who profited and maintained their power by it. The Whig leadership (some of whom were slave-owners themselves) ultimately had little stomach for the protracted political fight against the slavers and slave-traffickers, and resorted to “throwing bones” to the party voter-base without substantively pursuing the issue.

      The final nail came when President Taylor (who opposed permitting slavery in the new formerly-Mexican territories) died suddenly and was succeeded by VP Millard Fillmore (who “worked across the aisle” to hammer out the Compromise of 1850 with the Democrats; allowing the Mexican-territories to be slave-legal). In 1852, the party-members rebelled against this betrayal, denying Fillmore the party’s Presidential nomination, and fractured into ineffectiveness.

      The Whigs lost the 1852 and 1856 elections, but their ideological voters coalesced around the new, more strident Republican party and its quirky, goofy, shockingly plainspoken, yet oddly charismatic figurehead of Abraham Linc….

      …..Hey wait a minute!!

      The more things change…no?

      • Unca Walt

        Awesome. Thank you.

      • JTC

        Sir, did you just intimate that the Lincoln Republican party effectively won support and the CW based on his opposition to slavery?

        If so, some Lincoln quotes and writings that have been used in this space before would be appropriate.

        “Slavery was to the CW as tea was to the RW.”

        • H_B

          I was more trying to communicate that he was viewed as a “ridiculous”, un-electable figure who said things in public that horrified the elite powers-that-be of the time – yet managed to get elected on his personal charisma. But yes, that too.

          Personally, I’m partial to the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Douglas’ central argument was that the country was a democracy and thus what the people voted for (even if that was chattel slavery) was all well and good. Lincoln responded that there was a natural, objective Morality to the world, and to borrow words from Epaminondas of Thebes, in this world “nature hath made no man a slave”.

          • JTC

            Your comparison to the unlikely rise of DT is apt, but Lincoln used slavery as merely a carrot to his only real goal of forcing states who wished and voted for independence to be forced to keep their assets under federal control, and said as much many times; his of injection of morality was just a crass gambit.

            Trump OTOH is effectively eschewing progressives’ plan for a continuance of a form of slavery which their elite devised and utilize to control the enslaved masses, through virtue of importing new slaves who will perpetuate that control.

            Slavery as it existed in the 1860’s was already giving way to paid labor and mechanization, and left to capitalism and marketing’s own device would have naturally evolved to that within a similar timespan and without the horrific loss of life and destruction that the CW incurred. And there might right now be a very strong and real Constitutional Republic instead of the self-serving sewer of democracy as it exists in Washington D.C.

          • H_B

            I respectfully disagree with you.

            On Lincoln’s character: While a craftier politician than he is lionized as (see George MacDonald Fraser’s depiction in Flash for Freedom), he has a history of abolitionism in his legal cases and support for the Underground Railroad. His actions, not just his words, speak to his actual character.

            As to slavery’s “slow and natural demise”, one way or another that would have been violently opposed in exactly the way that it was. A grandee elite will fight to hold onto its privilege and position through any extreme necessary (“that’s my Bread and Butter you’re messing with there…”). It was always going to end in bloodshed.

            In our current situation, the disproportion in violent agency available to the two sides (“we’re armed and they’re not”) is the only thing that has prevented bloodshed in the debate so far. (Though I’m pretty sure The Donald has put on several pounds [of kevlar] in the past few months.)

          • JTC

            That’s good, disagreement is essential to productive civil discourse.

            But my perception of history in this case is that like politicians now, hiding their avarice behind a smokescreen of the downtrodden and “the children”, Lincoln used slavery to divide and conquer to achieve his true ends, adjusting his rhetoric as necessary to fit the occasion and the audience; his words and letters claiming no hard and fast conviction as to abolishing slavery were just as seemingly heartfelt as when vilifying it, but are much less known and quoted since it does not serve the narrative. Sound familiar?

            History is like that; easily and often rewritten or edited depending on the point being made and the point of view of the maker. My primary point was that slavery being used as a flashpoint, distraction, and rallying cry a century and a half ago is eerily similar to the constant cries of RACISM! that emanate every time truth is harsh spoken, as illustrated in Chris/Sam’s cracker ‘toon a few days back. It was and is used to silence legitimate dissent and discussion, and also similarly amplified and selectively reported by the owned media, then as now.

            The owning of humans for forced labor has always been abhorrent; in the context of that time it was less so. But even then forced labor was being replaced with pay for service, sharecropping, and mechanization…these trends would have continued due to unrest, efficiency, and yes, morality.

            But that would not have served the real purpose of the nationalization of personal and state assets that were so coveted as to be worth the sacrifice of so many thousands of Americans at the hands of each other, but to enrich and empower the eastern elites and their political and industrial empires.

            “The more things change, etc.” was a very accurate observation…today’s slaves are kept in bondage with dole dollars that buy loyalty and ensure no way out. When there is too much progress and stability, unrest is fostered, fomented, and inflamed…and when that is not enough, replacements are bought and brought in to keep the protests, demands, and fears at the forefront, and the masters in place and in control…with the side benefit that the treasure expended to pay the ransom is extorted from the enemy.

            Slavery is slavery, whatever guise it takes and whatever agenda it is used to conceal. But if we don’t understand the truth about its history we won’t be able to recognize it in the present or defend against it in the future.

            Crap, another damn book…sorry Chris.

          • H_B

            I’ll refrain from replying in full. Suffice it to say that #1) I stand by my assertion that Lincoln’s actions speak to his true opinion, and his statements (which yes, I’ve read) that he would have retained slavery to preserve the nation were a reaction to the price paid by the Republic and stand against the idea he would have expanded power at any price. (I will happily concede to you discomfort over his suspension of habeas corpus.) #2) The Civil War broke out not because of Lincoln’s actions, but because he was elected. The slave holders had lost the national debate, lost the electoral conflict to the Republicans, lost the Judicial process to the backlash to Dred Scott, and “fight” was all they had left – so they used it. Even if the Republicans hadn’t taken a majority in 1860, being economically squeezed (slavery is always monetarily cheap but horribly inefficient method of production) and left no other options would have pushed them to exactly the same point: upend the game board and change the rules by secession.

            Aren’t these comment sections grand?

          • JTC

            “Aren’t these comment sections grand?”

            I don’t know about “these”, but this one is; I speak up here almost exclusively. Thanks Chris.

            Yes, the CW broke out when Lincoln was elected (by 40% of PV and the gerrymandered EC) and it was preordained that he would do, say, and sacrifice anything and everything to prevent a cohesive block of states from forming their own self-sufficient and self-determining country which he knew could survive and prosper without his but that his could not survive without them. Slavery was a convenient but incidental flashbang; in its simplest terms the CW was a perfect illustration of Maj. Caudill’s point that the failure of reason can be compensated with force if sufficient force exists and is exerted. It was.

            Again applying those lessons to our situation today, the failure to win with reason is fast heading the way of force, the new slavery/racism flashbang is being actively employed, and the only hesitation is the concern that the target of that force and oppression might just have sufficient ability to repel. And that right there is why the number. one. priority of the oppressors of today is to disarm you…and they will do, say, and sacrifice everything (except themselves of course) to achieve it.

            History most certainly can repeat itself, and will if allowed to. The oppressed fought back 150 years ago and gave it all they had, but they were outgunned. What about this time?

            Trump/Cruz ’12

      • Pamela

        Out of decay comes new growth.
        May it take root, thrive, be upright, steadfast and righteous in adherence to the Founding Principals of this Nation.

  • Within the first frame I knew where we were, but I did wonder how many others would. I am comfortably reassured.

  • Arkelk

    I forgot to compliment the use of associating (with the skit in mind) the republican party with blue again, as it had been before one of the national elections when the “media” switched the colors. (I think it was done to avoid the association of red communism and the democrat party. But many of the professional dems are communists, or at least socialists, so the red should have stayed with them.)

  • NotYetInACamp

    I now have felt as the French felt when the bought government let the Germans roll in and take France.

    The Free Republic is now the occupied Republic.

    The rebellion is assured.

  • Bill G

    No, further pictures of betrayal are not needed.
    They have been drawn very clearly by the Beltway Boys.

  • GWB

    *loud, raucous applause*
    Bravo Zulu, Chris.

  • Astroprisoner

    The problem with a two-party system is that neither party, no matter how badly they do, will ever do any worse than fall into second place….and they will be the only alternative when the party in power screws up.

    So, there’s really no reason to bother trying.

    • H_B

      I will accept a winner-take-all, two-party system over a parliamentary one every day, all day long. The system we have prevents the appearance of what I refer to as “Purple underwear on Tuesday” parties.

      In a parliamentary system, you can get little micro-parties that represent a tiny fraction of the electorate and support something everyone else knows is hare-brained (like a law requiring everyone to wear purple underwear on Tuesdays). Yet, they can get into government by throwing in with another party (or parties) and vote with them so long as they get their one, weird issue addressed – allowing the rest of their coalition to also get the odd things they support implemented as well. All that is how Europe has gotten where it is today – government by a parade of fringe elements rather than debating towards a national consensus.

      If the US had a parliamentary system, then Al Sharpton, David Duke, Pat Buchanan, and Dennis Kucinich would all have their own parties and have a good chance of seeing portions of their political platforms implemented. For all its faults, I much prefer our current system where those people are patted on the head and told to go sit in the corner while the adults talk.

  • right_wing2

    Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant. Spot on!

  • right_wing2

    A question though. Okay, a new party. Not a bad idea, but one that will likely take a long time, at least at the national level.

    Do we work to take one of the existing conservative third parties, like the Constitution, Liberty or American Party? Or start a new one?

    What principles do we follow? Strictly economic conservatism? Economic & social issues? A mix? Where do we draw the line on any issue?

    How do we get the message out about the party? How (or do) we want to reach out to new voters, especially ones who haven’t traditionally voted Republican? Can we be sure that a conservative party won’t end up moving to the left like the Republican Party has? Can a conservative party even win at the national level when more & more people seem to be jumping on the ‘free cr@p’ bandwagon?

  • gruundehn

    For those speaking of a “New Second Party”; it already exists the Libertarian Party and it is doing well. I doubt you will agree with everything the Libertarians stand for, but we stand for something that you do agree with. And when we get elected, we actually keep campaign promises.

    Christopher Cole
    First Vice-Chair
    Pima County Libertarian Party

    • JTC

      “…when we get elected, we actually keep campaign promises.”

      Cites please?

  • Mike V

    Elect a Republican majority in Congress, they said. Govern conservatively we will, they said. Stand up to the evil Democrats we will, they said. How about Paul Ryan as Brave Sir Robin next time?

    By the way, this was BRILLIANT!!!!!

  • Bill

    Interesting technique.

  • Rey

    Hmm. And here, once again, we see the problem with party loyalty and voting for the lesser of two evils. The answer my friends is not thedonald, although I do like his bravado for the entertainment value, nor “throwing the bums out”; didn’t you voters do so again and again for the last, oh I don’t know, 20 years?

    The answer, my friends, is understanding that the basic problem is not which rascal is in office but the office itself. If you consent to another human being having power over you and your neighbors, especially one who does not, in any form, cares about your opinion, why are you surprised when he steals from you, bullies you and kills you and your family?

    Withdraw your consent. Stop obeying their orders. Ignore the clowns and they will perform to an empty hall. Live your life. Produce what you need, trade with your neighbors what you can’t produce for what you produce in excess.

    Our greatest goal should be to become so self sufficient we do not make enough reportable income to pay any taxes on. We should strive to find empty spaces and create a multitude of Galt Gulches, each ignoring the “authorities” and living by their own principles.

    Imagine one thousand new Mennonite or Amish like communities. Each adapting to the needs of their clan, each voluntarily trading with each other. All ignoring the Federal Beast.

    • Alaska Paul

      I think that small communities based upon shared good values, and less upon depending upon a runaway bankrupt political machine, will help us survive.

      That being said, we will not achieve our goals of living our values until the corrupt machine goes bankrupt and goes away. The machine has a knack of stealing everything that is not theirs to sustain the machine. We are at a tipping point in this country. Witness Paul Ryan allocating money we do not have. This is not sustainable. Any rational person knows that.

  • Hungry Joe

    Hello. I’d like to buy some cheese…..

  • JIMV

    I love it, the Monty Python dead parrot sketch! And used so well..

  • Rick

    IT’S DEAD.

    • silvergreycat

      Moment of death…when the party’s color changed from blue to red.

Trackbacks and Pingbacks