So This Lady is NUTS!

Revealed! The real Obama 'pride' month proclamation

Exclusive: Linda Harvey finds 1st draft of White House document on LGBT 'rights'

Okay, somebody need to let this Linda Harvey know that we've moved on to a new outrage du jour. Getting in a huff about gay rights is so 2013. Now we're all in a lather because Chaz Bono might need to pee.

Also, putting the words Pride and Rights in quotes? What's that about? Do you think that these folks




are experiencing some kind of faux-pride? Some pseudo-pride? What exactly are you trying to imply? I mean, I gret that you put the word Rights in quotes because you literally think that LGBT people should have no rights, but pride? You can't stop them fro, having that, no matter what punctuation marks you use.





So anyway, this Linda Harvey person proceeds to fart out what she seems to think is a clever parody of President Obama's Gay Pride Month declaration. Prepare to hold your sides!

Actually, baby, it's probably a bit juvenile for your tastes.

Presidential Proclamation – “Pride” Month 2016 (a parody)

Since our founding, America has advanced on an unending path toward becoming a more perfect Union. Unfortunately, my priorities are toward less perfection and more division, but I will keep up the pretense for the rest of my term, because I just like messing with people.

Ahahahaha! Zing! Take that, Mr. "President!"

Yes, since 1776, this nation has been on a steady and relentless pursuit of perfection. That's why we can boast of such landmark acheivements in the field of perfectness as: The Trail of Tears! The Chinese Exclusion Act! Stealing Hawaii! And the House Un-American Activities Committee! 

The fight for dignity and equality has been a little rough for people who engage in sodomy, as well as the gender defiant who want to have healthy body parts amputated while taxpayers pay for these elective, unnecessary surgeries.

Okay, I assume that by "people who engage in sodomy" you mean gay men, not every teenager who ever got oral in a backseat, so yes - that ssentence is a statement of fact. The fight for dignity and equality has certainly been rough for gay men. And women, although I don't know if the lesbians are lumped in as sodomy practicioners?  Or do you have a different term under which to hate them for no reason?

Also, are the taxpayers really paying for sex-change surgery? Has that really happened? Is that covered by Medicare? I mean, good on us if it is, but I think I would have heard about that. Anyway, I hope you're right.

Nevertheless, tireless dedication by these advocates and allies strives to forge a more allegedly inclusive society, which is actually becoming tyrannical, bigoted, depraved and anti-Christian.

Oh, I know. It's horrible how us cis/het people are persecuted every day. One time, I saw a man kissing a woman in public and then someone shouted "get a room!" Like what is this, Soviet Russia?

Honestly, if you're going to say that society is becoming "tyranical" and "despotic," you really ought o give some examples of the kinds of dictatorial, totalitarian laws that might have recently been enacted to take away the rights of Christians or whatever. Otherwise, someone could get the impression that you're just talking out of your ass and have no idea what you're talking about. 

These advocates have spurred sweeping progress by changing hearts, minds and bathroom behavior, and by insisting that boys shower with girls,

Nope. Never happened. No one is suggesting that boys should shower with girls.

Except for boys. Many boys have advocated this position. 

 

Especially these boys.

.

. . . and demanding equal treatment through distortion and harassment while twisting our laws, corrupting our courts and practicing back-room politics. You would not believe the skeletons and dirt we get on so many people, and, like Hillary and Bill, my homosexual-activist buddies are not afraid to use them!
And there’s ample help from our major funders, like George Soros, who themselves love chaos, destruction and anarchy.

Ohhhh, so that's George Soros's endgame. I wondered why he gives so much money to dirty commie bastards. He wants to make the whole world into gay anarchy! Makes perfect sense now!

He tried to warn us!

You know, if you're going to say that "homosexual activists" are digging up dirt on people and blackmailing them into. . . whatever it is you think they're being forced into, you really need to have at least one shred of fucking evidence, you slanderous hate-monger.  Blackmail is a very serious allegation, and since you don't mention any names (because you don't have any, this is all bullshit) you can't be sued, but you're basically libeling an entire group of people whose shoes you are not fit to tie and you should be ashamed.

This month, we recognize all these relentless activists have done to create societal upheaval, and we recommit to gender-bending the arc of our nation toward our perverted version of justice.

 

 

Yes, it is the gays causing societal upheaval. It is the gay rights activists, for instance, that cause so many children to be born out of wedlock to teenage girls. 

The results of not "practicing sodomy"

It is clearly the fault of the gays that much of rural America is in the grip of Meth and opiate addiction.

Last year’s landmark but totally unconstitutional Supreme Court decision. . .

Oh, I'm sorry. Which Law school did you say you attended? How is it that you are a better judge of what is constitutional than the Supreme Court? 

Last year’s landmark but totally unconstitutional Supreme Court decision guaranteeing marriage distortion in all 50 states was a historic victory for homosexual Americans, which opens the door to the real goal: crushing the opposition. This masquerade of dignity for same-sex couples who believe anal sex is a valid basis of marriage now goes across state lines, whether the states like it or not.

Yes, everyone knows that a valid marriage is based on vaginal intercourse! Duh! That's why when married men get to be a certain age, they either have to get a prescription for Viagara or have their marriages annulled.

Hey, here's some news. Segregation is also now illegal in all 50 states whether the states like it or not.

 

And we do NOT, suh!

 

For every American denied what we keep saying is a basic civil right, this monumental ruling instilled newfound hope – hope that we can wipe out these annoying Christian conservatives and their beliefs.

Actually, no one is trying to "wipe out" you or your beliefs. Folks just don't want to be forced to live by them. You can live by your beliefs. You don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married. That's fine. But when you think that what you believe should be the rule for everyone else, that's when it becomes a problem.

After all, we are all freer when we are treated as equals even if our unnecessary, deviant sex acts are nothing like the consummation of authentic marriage.

 

Has there ever been a necessary sex act?  Sex is never necessary, thousands of people have lived lives of celibacy. Monks, for instance. And nuns. And people who look like Ted Cruz. (Honest to God, Cruz always looks like he just rubbed a canned ham all over his face.)

 

Not to say that sex isn't great. It's just that marital, missionary position, penis-vagina sex acts aren't any more necessary than whatever two men or two women do to express love physically.  (I should probably Google that)

 

 And equality and basic civil rights have nothing whatsoever to do with sodomy – “the behavior” – but I’ll keep winking and pretending it does!

Of course it does. How does it not? If Bill and Jane are free to get all wild 'n' sweaty whenever they want to but Tom and Jim aren't, how is that not a lack of equality? If hetero people are allowed to get it on with any partner who's willing and of age, then that same right has to apply to people who love same-sex hay-rolling.

“LGBT” individuals deserve to know their country stands beside them anyway. But we won’t stand behind those who leave this deviancy behind, because it makes our claims look really weak.

Oh, and also because it never works. NEVER! If the founder of Exodus Ministries couldn't pray himself straight, why would you think that anyone else could? You can't turn a gay person straight any more than you can turn a straight person gay.


Oh my God, this thing goes on and on. . . and it's getting late. I have to turn in, you can read the whole thing here if you're a masochist.

Why is Hillary Clinton Disliked?

Why is HRC not more well-liked?
Well, the way I see it there are two types of Hillary-haters. those who hate her for the wrong reasons (see yesterday's post) and those who hate her for the right reasons.
Again, for the record, I do not hate HRC. I'm not a fan, but I don't hate her. I think she'll probably make a decent president along the lines of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton. No one's going to be clearing out any space on Mt. Rushmore for her, but she'll probably be fine.

But anyway. Why do so many people dislike Hillary?

Well, for one thing people quite rightly hate Wall Street and the big banks, the people who fucked the economy, gave themselves bonuses and demanded to be bailed out. Of course all decent people hate them. And HRC is reeeealy cozy with banksters and hedge funders. Hell, her son-in-law is one!
According to the BBC, "three of her top five individual donors have been Wall Street banks - Goldman Sachs, Citibank, and JP Morgan."  Everybody hates those guys and those guys are linked to HRC.

Then there's stuff like this:

Hillary Clinton wore a $12,495 Armani jacket during a speech about inequality

Sarah Whitten | @sarahwhit10

Monday, 6 Jun 2016 | 5:05 PM ET

 Or:

"You have no reason to remember, but we came out of the White House not only dead broke, but in debt," Clinton said. "We had no money when we got there, and we struggled to piece together the resources for mortgages for houses

You know, there are some people who can pull off the "I feel your pain" routine without feeling anyone's pain. Her husband could. Although he had the advantage of having grown up poor. Hillary has never been poor. Which is perfectly fine, neither had FDR or Bobby Kennedy, but  neither of them ever complained about how hard it was to pay mortgages on multiple homes after just having left a $400,000 a year job with book deals in hand. You have to be able to say "I have been fortunate, I've never struggled financially, but I know that a lot of people are struggling and I want to help." And then maybe don't scoff at the idea of a $15/hr minimum wage.

There's also her reputation for war-mongering. A reputation that isn't helped by callously laughing about the "hard choices" of sending American troops off to fight and die.

According to TruthOut: "As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was reportedly one of the most hawkish members of President Obama's cabinet, pushing for the 2009 troop surge in Afghanistan and US intervention in Libya. She has also been a vocal proponent of the same drone war that has led to the deaths of 2,400 civilians.. . . She also suggested that the United States should have done more to intervene in Syria, by, in her words, creating a "credible fighting force," while the lack of said force led to the rise of ISIS. In addition, she vociferously defended Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's handling of the assault on Gaza. . . Senator Clinton's vote in favor of the Iraq war, a vote for which it took her more than a decade to express regret, was clearly not a temporary lapse in judgment.

 Then there's her seeming inability to give a straight answer to simple questions. Questions like "do you support the TPP?" or "Are you in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline?" I don't remember which of these issues she was being asked about when she claimed she couldn't answer because the President was still negotiating or some such nonsense. Of course the reason she has so much trouble giving straight answers maybe in part that she doesn't really seem to believe in anything. Maybe she does, but it certainly doesn't seem that way.
Check out this chart:




Okay, it's hard to read, but I think you can click to enlarge.
Anyway, for example, she was opposed to gay marriage until a tipping point was reached a couple years ago when marriage equality became a majority position then she was suddenly all for it.

She reluctantly supported raising the minimum wage to $12/hr, then when Bernie Sanders got popular enough to make her nervous, she suddenly embraced the #FightForFifteen, claiming to have been in favor of $15/hr all along.

There are a lot more examples, but just ask yourself this: What is Hillary Clinton's message? Why does she want to be President? Sanders' message is Democratic Socialism. Trump's message is "I am great. Vote for me and America will be great." Ted Cruz's raison d'etre was turning the United States into a theocracy. What is Hillary's platform? What reason has she given to choose her as our next president, other than her impressive resume'? How would one complete the sentence "If Hillary is elected President, she will. . .?"
She offers competence. That's great. That alone puts her head and shoulders above Trump or any of the other GOP candidates. But it's not exactly inspiring. There's no "vote for me and I will. . . " in her campaign rhetoric.


Then there's the perception that her good friend Debbie Wasserman Schultz has rigged the election in her favor. Whether that perception is accurate or not (and it sure seems like it is) we've been seeing debates scheduled at the worst possible times. We've seen caucus results worthy of banana republics.

Suspicious votes, long times at Dem caucus

Nevada Democratic Convention: Stories of Voter Suppression

We've seen GOP-style voter suppression tricks aimed at independent (Bernie-supporting) voters.

Placebo Ballots: Stealing California From Bernie Using an Old GOP Vote-Snatching Trick

Election Fraud: Why Are Voter Registrations Changing?

Now, are all these incidents really what the Missus calls "shenanigans?" Maybe not. Maybe some of them are just screwups. Maybe some are just due to incompetence. But they all seem to break in Hillary Clinton's favor, and, as they say in DC, the optics are bad.


So why do so many people dislike Hillary Clinton?
Yeah, David Brooks is probably right. It's because of her lack of leisure activities!

How is David Brooks still employed?

Full disclosure. I am not a fan of HRC. I don't hate her, and if she is the Democratic nominee I will absolutely vote for her. I would very much prefer Bernie Sanders, but against Trump (or any Republican) it's no contest. That being said, David Brooks is  the worst.

David Brooks MAY 24, 2016

Why Is Clinton Disliked?

Honestly, shouldn't you be concentrating on why David Brooks is disliked? Because, believe me, it's a long list.

I understand why Donald Trump is so unpopular. He earned it the old-fashioned way, by being obnoxious, insulting and offensive. But why is Hillary Clinton so unpopular?

You know why Hillary Clinton is unpopular. You know damn well. You know that when Hillary Clinton first appeared on the national scene as the wife of candidate Bill, she was a successful working woman who refused to be apologetic about it.  A married woman who still used her maiden name,and knew that she could raise a child successfully without becoming June Cleaver and conservatives were apallllled! Before anyone really even knew anything about her, the right had convinced middle America that she was anti-family, anti-man, anti-America, etc, etc, etc. That she was contemptuous of traditional mothers, was the anti-christ, etc. You know this. Don't play dumb.

In the New York Times/CBS News poll, 60 percent of respondents said Clinton does not share their values. Sixty-four percent said she is not honest or trustworthy. 

So then what's the mystery?

If the majority of voters hold different values and find her untrustworthy, of course she wouldn't be popular.

But, those column-inches aren't gonna fill themselves, so. . .

But what exactly do so many have against her?

I would begin my explanation with this question: Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton does for fun?

Jeezus Christ, who the hell cares what her hobbies are? I mean, assuming they aren't strangling kittens or committing arson, why would anyone care what Hill does in her spare time? Does she even have any spare time? She sure as hell won't have much if she's president.

We know what Obama does for fun — golf, basketball, etc. We know, unfortunately, what Trump does for fun.But when people talk about Clinton, they tend to talk of her exclusively in professional terms.

Oh, dear God! She's seen in professional terms? What a handicap! People think she's a competent professional? How can that be bad?

Oh, right!

Clinton’s unpopularity is akin to the unpopularity of a workaholic. 

Really? Because you know who was a notorious workaholic?

This guy!

At least in her public persona, Clinton gives off an exclusively professional vibe: industrious, calculated, goal-oriented, distrustful. It’s hard from the outside to have a sense of her as a person; she is a role.

Oh, you know what? Maybe if a bunch of idiots in the media didn't talk about which candidate voters wanted to have a beer with,

A Cold One With Donald 

There has never been a better candidate to have a beer with than Trump.

By Seth Stevenson

 

Who wouldn’t want to pull up a barstool to next to this guy?

 or which is most "relatable" to "soccer moms" or every other bullshit metric you morons come up with to judge "electability," maybe it wouldn't matter so much if people can get a "sense of the candidate as a person" or whatever.  You think George washington was a fun guy to have a beer with? You think you'd like to hoist a pint and shoot the breeze with John Adams or Woodrow Wilson? If you're going by who would be fun to hang with, ony Teddy Roosevelt and Andrew Jackson probably make the list. And Ben Franklin would have been president for our country's first decade at least.

This formal, career-oriented persona puts her in direct contrast with the mores of the social media age, which is intimate, personalist, revealing, trusting and vulnerable. It puts her in conflict with most people’s lived experience. Most Americans feel more vivid and alive outside the work experience than within.

Well, A) most Americans have crappy jobs that they hate. and B) most Americans are not qualified to hold any elected office, let alone President. 
Also, I think that the voters understand the difference between some B-list celebrity Tweeting every thought that pops into his head and a serious candidate for the Oval Office.

Obviously, this guy doesn't, but most people do.

There’s a larger lesson here, especially for people who have found a career and vocation that feels fulfilling. Even a socially good vocation can swallow you up and make you lose a sense of your own voice. Maybe it’s doubly important that people with fulfilling vocations develop, and be seen to develop, sanctuaries outside them: in play, solitude, family, faith, hobbies and leisure.

What? What does that even mean? How does a fulfilling career make one lose one's own voice? Also, a "socially good vocation?" Do you not have a thesaurus? Or are you lapsing into Newspeak?  And why would it be important that those who are fortunate enough to have a "vocation that feels fulfilling" be seen to have outside interests? Are the doctors, athletes and movie stars supposed to set an example for us little people? Well, gosh, if Johnny Rockstar has time to take up sky-diving, I'm inspired to do the same! Thank God for people with fulfilling vocations! You know, I was worried for a while when I saw that Sue the Surgeon wasn't developing any sanctuaries outside herself, but now that she's found a hobby and some leisure, I can rest easy!

Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote that the Sabbath is “a palace in time which we build.” It’s not a day of rest before work; you work in order to experience this day of elevation.

Okay, I think we're getting a little off-track now.
 Also, I'm pretty sure that the Sabbath was instituted as a way to compel the children of Israel to take time away from their occupations to praise J-w-h, not to build themselves a time-palace. The point was to remember who the Boss was, and what one's priority should be (the worship of J-w-h), not as a reward for having worked hard the previous six days. And it was certainly not a day for people to experience elevation. Part of the whole Sabbath thing was to keep people humble. You were more likely to be prostrating yourself before the Lord on the Sabbath than elevating yourself in any way.

 See, now you've dragged me off-track too. Can we get back to the subject at hand, which was, I believe, the candidacy of Hillary Rodham Clinton?

Josef Pieper wrote that leisure is not an activity, it’s an attitude of mind. It’s stepping outside strenuous effort and creating enough stillness so that it becomes possible to contemplate and enjoy things as they are.

Okay, that's a fine recommendation for the taking of leisure time. Fine. But what the hell does it have to do with Hillary? Look, I've done this before. Start off writing about one thing and then suddenly realize you've meandered on to a whole different topic. I've done that. But I'm not a highly payed columnist for the NEW YORK FUCKING TIMES either. I'm just some guy who dicks around on Blogger in his spare time, makes zero dollars, and doesn't have the time or inclination to go back and edit. You're supposed to be a professional, Brooks. Get your shit together.

Even successful lives need these sanctuaries — in order to be a real person instead of just a productive one. It appears that we don’t really trust candidates who do not show us theirs.

Wow, nice save.




 You know what I want in a President? I want what I think most people want. I want someone who is going to dedicate her/himself fully to the demands of the job. I want a workaholic. I think most people do. Look at the three candidates left in the race. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are all over 65 years old and amazingly tireless. They campaign non-stop. And people respond to that. People don't really seem to like a presidential candidate that takes time off in the middle of a campaign to go on a cruise, as Newt Gingrich infamously did in 2012. They want a smart, competent, hard-working grinder.

But what if they didn't?

Hillary is that person. So is Bernie. And Trump has conned an awful lot of people into thinking that he is that person too. That seems to be what people want. You want to know why Hillary is unpopular?  Well, we've addressed part of that already , up near the top. Let's get into the rest tomorrow.

Screwy Louie is Really Screwy

This is actually worth watching. Pour yourself a couple fingers of good Kentucky bourbon and revel in this.  Just marvel at the fact that this is a grown man with an education and this is actually what he thinks.





So, first of all he refers to a man who "doesn't know which he is" by which I assume he means a transgendered man. I really am shocked that in 2016 anyone is still going with the "oh, he's just confused" approach to LGBT folks.
And where in the Hell does Screwy Louie come up with the idea that throughout our history, trans men have been "loved and encouraged?"

 Even in our supposedly enlightened age, I'm pretty sure that LGBT people still face a sickening amount of  undeserved opprobrium, mockery, and violence. What time in our history is Gomer referring to when the dominant cis/het culture looked at their LGBT brethren and sistren with love and understanding, taking pity upon them while trying to help them find their way out of their confusion? Up until very recently, one could be jailed for being homosexual or transgendered. I mean, one still could in a lot of horrible places, but a generation ago, one could in civilized countries like England.  (Sexual Offences Act 1967)

 Then he rues the fact that "we now have a government that says 'forget what the Bible says., forget what Moses says.'" Well good! That's what they're supposed to do. This is not a theocracy. We don't stone disobedient children or make rape victims marry their attackers anymore either. (well, most of us don't)

And as far as Jesus saying "what God has joined together let no man put asunder," that's an argument against divorce. It has nothing to do with gay marriage, or transgendered people or whatever the hell he's on about.

Oh, but we haven't even gotten to the really stupid part yet.

First he claims that the founders believed that Jesus was part of the Holy Trinity. Honestly, this is an argument we need to stop having. Because, if you want to believe that the Founding Fathers were devout Christians, you can find plenty of examples of Founding Fathers who were devout Christians. If you want to believe that the Founding fathers were deist intellectuals, you can find plenty of examples of Founding fathers who were Deist intellectuals. The Founding Fathers couldn't agree on much, that's why the Constitution is littered with things known as the "Great Compromise," the "three-fifths compromise," etc. They were not a monolithic group. It's stupid to say that the founders believed something or didn't believe it. Because on pretty much any subject, some believed it and some didn't. Hell, these bastards couldn't even agree on whether black people should be counted as human beings.

Also, in the time of the Founding Fathers, people believed that the best cure for any ailment was to open up a vein and drain out some of that faulty blood. Would you like to resume that practice, or do you enjoy having modern medicine?

Then he makes the weird argument that if you don't believe in God, you should be worried about what will happen when you meet God. Which is something like Woody Allen saying that he is an atheist but is afraid that God is going to punish him for it. Only not clever. Just weird.

But that's still not the really stupid part.


At about the 2:00 mark, Screwy Louie starts talking about what if an asteroid was coming to destroy earth like it did to the dinosaurs which, I guess I have to give him credit for realizing that dinosaurs were real and didn't die off in the Flood. But what if we had to go to Mars like Matt Damon?

Okay, first of all, if there was a humanity-destroying-sized asteroid headed toward Earth, instead of sending Matt Damon to go colonize Mars, why not just send Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck to blow it up?






And if you could put 40 people on a spaceship, how many would be same-sex couples? Really?
Okay, number one, I wouldn't put any couples on that spaceship. Because if the goal is to perpetuate the species (and honestly, what have we ever done as a species to deserve to be perpetualted?) but if the goal is to populate Mars, you're going to want a whole lot more women than men. because if watching Judge Judy has taught us nothing else, it's that one man can easily impregnate multiple women. So I'm thinking maybe like 25 women and 15 men? So basically, I want Mormons.

 

I'd send everyone in this picture to outer space right now, asteroid or no asteroid.

Also, I'm pretty sure if the survival of humanity depended upon it, gay men and lesbians could spend the occasional evening together for reproductive purposes. Most of the gay folks I know have had hetero relationships at some point and I'm pretty sure that human life wasn't hanging in the balance. Hell, I know one gay man who fathered 2 wonderful children before he finally couldn't take living that lie anymore. So if he could do it, I'm pretty sure gay astronauts could close their eyes and picture Brad Pitt for the few minutes it would take to save the human race. Hell, if you strand two straight guys on a desert island with no women, they'll be banging each other by sundown. Pretty sure it could work the other way 'round, too.

Then he seems to think that someone has "abolished" the first words of the First Amendment, and I'm not even sure how that would work, but the first words of the First Amendment are: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. 
Now, Louie was just saying, like a minute ago, that our government is ignoring the words of God and Moses and Jesus which is exactly what the government must do in order to fulfill the words of the First Amendment, so I'm really getting confused now. 







Also, no one is prohibiting the free exercise of religion. It's not even worth going into, but in the USofA, you can practice whatever religion you want. You know this, you lightbulb-headed old hick.


Oh, and the US was founded by the grace of God? As an instrument to bless the world?  I gotta think the Almighty must have regretted that move once he saw what we did to the Native Americans and people we kidnapped from Africa.




We've had enough blessings, thank you.

And he ends with the best closing line ever. "This nation. . . is still a fact!"
Yes, Gomer. It is. This nation really is still a fact. Now maybe go have a lie down?

Charlie Daniels is a very silly man.

So Charlie Daniels has a message. A message for the EyeYa-Toll-Ah and the terrisits.





First of all, I love how this is presented as a message to the Ayatollah. I picture somewhere in Tehran, a harried aide rushing into the office
"your holiness, a message! From Charlie Daniels!"
"You mean that fiddle player who had a couple hits back in the Seventies? Assemble my advisors!"

And then he says "you may have met our fresh-faced, flower-child president and his weak-kneed Ivy-League friends." To which I assume the "terrisits" would respond "you mean the guy who sends drones to bomb the fuck out of  our people every day? The guy who sent the SEALS in to put a bullet in bin Laden's eye? That fresh-faced flower child?"

Also, why is "fresh-faced" an insult? Because the President washes his face and is clean-shaven, that's supposed to mean he's somehow deficient in some masculinity or something? Did you mean "baby-faced?" Also, why is "Ivy League" only an insult when it applies to Barack Obama or Bill Clinton, people who actually earned their way into our country's most prestigious Universities? Why isn't it an insult for Yale legacies?

"But you haven't met Amerrrrica! You haven't met the Heartland."
Oh, God. Here we go with the Sarah Palin "real America" bullshit.

"the people who will defend this nation with their bloody, calloused bare hands"

Yeah, okay. Let me just stop you there. That won't be neceessary. I don't know if you're aware of this, but we actually have an Army. And a Navy, and Air Force and a Marine Corps. Your bare-knuckle defenses will definitely not be needed.

Why I'll give that Ayatollah a sound thrashing!

I'll certainly give him what-for, eh?

And if Iran were to invade the United States, they would come with guns and bombs and what-not, so your bloody bare hands wouldn't stand much of a chance, but thanks anyway.

"You haven't met the steelworkers, or the hard-rock miners."

Do we still have steelworkers? Isn't all our steel production done overseas now?

Also, I don't know what you think "hard-rock mining" looks like, but nowadays, it looks a lot more like this:

. . .than this:





"or the swamp folks in cajun country that can wrestle a full grown gator out of the water."

First of all, is that even true? I mean, I know there are guys who wrassle gators. But they do it on dry land. I wouldn't think you could get a gator out of the water, he's going to be much more agile in the wtaer than a person. But either way, your gator-rasslin' skills will not really be relevant if there is either an invasion or a terrorist attack. No one was looking at the carnage at Ground Zero thinking "if only someone from swamp country had been here to rassle those planes away."

 "you haven't met the farmers, the cowboys, the loggers, the truck drivers"

The truck drivers? I work with truck drivers every day and they are not an intimidating lot. Half of them can barely reach the steering wheel over their third-trimester beer bellies. These are guys and gals who make a living sitting down. They can barely walk from the cab to the receiving door without getting winded. Truck drivers! Please.

Also, are there still cowboys? Are there still cattle drives going on in this country?

Doesn't count.

"you don't know the mountain men who live off the land."

Is that still a thing? Are there still wild men living off the land up in the mountains? I mean, Eric Rudolph did it for a while, but I assume the terrorists do know him, being in the same line of work and all. Or maybe Charlie thinks that the Revenant took place in modern times?

Wait, so DiCaprio didn't really fight a bear?

"or the brave cops who fight the good fight in the urban war zones."

Okay, the less said about that the better, but Charlie, we all know what you mean when you say "Urban."  Dog whistles really ought to be a bit more subtle.

You know, when this started, I figured Charlie was still stuck in the Seventies, still mad at the Ayatollah. But now I think maybe he is in an eralier century all togetenr.