Ep 13: What does right-wing talk radio sound like to regular people?

If you are a conservative, you listen to people like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, and other conservative talk radio hosts, and they make total sense. You probably don’t even realize what right-wing talk radio hosts sound like to other people.

In this video, we illustrate what conservative talk radio sounds like to liberals and other non-Tea Party types by showing some of your favorite conservative right-wing theories on the screen, while Zach does a dramatic reading of exactly what these ideas sound like to the low-information “sheeple” who don’t automatically believe everything Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh tell them.

So, strap in and enjoy. And remember: It’s a good thing Obama really is the anti-Christ… because otherwise, some of this would seem downright nutty!

Make sure you subscribe to our Youtube Channel to get notified about the latest episodes of Heltzel’s View.

Video direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=im8dKAZqu3k

Ep 9: Conservative quotes proving that racism is totally over in America

With illegal immigration in the news, a lot of liberals are accusing conservatives of being racist. But as you probably know, racism is over in America. Nobody is really racist any more. We have collected a montage of quotes from prominent conservatives that prove that nobody is racist, racism against blacks is over, and the fact that we really hate those dirty, scummy lazy illegal Mexican people has absolutely nothing to do with racism.

The Montage starts 41 seconds in, and includes quotes from all of your favorite conservative spokespeople: Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mitt Romney, Michael Savage, Ted Nugent, Ann Coulter, Cliven Bundy, Eric Bolling, and the whole gang over at Fox Five!

Make sure you subscribe to our Youtube Channel to get notified about the latest episodes of Heltzel’s View.

Video direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hDZLfArM_c

Schroedinger’s Hannity

Erwin Schroedinger is an Austrian physicist who came up with a very interesting thought-experiment to demonstrate the curious properties of quantum mechanics… and also the Republican Party.

The thought experiment is called Schroedinger’s Hannity.

Schroedinger's HannityImagine, if you will, a box that is entirely closed so that no part of the inside can be observed from the outside.

Inside this box, President Obama is about to make a decision about a particularly controversial, delicate and sensitive issue: for example, how to respond to the chemical weapons attacks in Syria. After some period of time, President Obama makes a decision… however, because he is inside the box, nobody outside the box yet knows what the decision is. It’s possible that Obama has decided to bomb Syria, and it’s possible that he has decided not to bomb Syria. It could go either way.

Although nobody outside the box knows what decision Obama has made, it just so happens that Sean Hannity is also inside the box.

As you know, what Sean Hannity believes about Syria depends completely on what Obama decides to do.  If President Obama decides to bomb Syria, then Hannity will believe that nothing good could possibly come of bombing Syria and it could very well start mass chaos and destruction. On the other hand, if President Obama decides not to bomb Syria, then Hannity will believe that anything short of bombing Syria immediately is a sign of weakness and “leading from behind”.


According to the very complex theory of quantum political mechanics, while the state of Obama’s decision is unknown,  it actually exists in a superposition of states, in which Obama simultaneously has decided to bomb Syria and not to bomb Syria. A direct and unavoidable causal consequence of this, however, is that poor Sean Hannity is forced to simultaneously believe both that nothing good could possibly come of bombing Syria and that the only possible good decision would be to bomb Syria.

When Schroedinger originally proposed this thought experiment, he intended it to be an illustration of how ridiculous quantum mechanics (and possibly also American politics) is.  His assumption was that everyone would immediately recognize that a world in which Sean Hannity could simultaneously believe that bombing Syria was the correct and the incorrect decision would just be absurd.

But that’s just liberal bias.

Not only does the reality of Sean Hannity’s behavior support the Schroedinger’s Hannity hypothesis… , but eminent physicist Stephen Colbert was also able to replicate this thought experiment, substituting Rand Paul for Sean Hannity in the box.

This is obviously not a “contradiction” for Republicans… it’s just quantum mechanics at work.


[Post Scriptum: If you don’t understand what this story is in reference to, please see: Schroedinger’s Cat]

A serious note about Straw Men

The Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz

LiberalBias.com has recently been accused of using Straw Man Arguments when portraying the conservative position. Most of these arguments, however, have been presented by true, righteous, upstanding conservatives themselves.

Mark Levin, towering conservative mind, is very happy with the House of Representatives, and with good reason. They have repealed Obamacare infinity-minus-one times. They have nearly outlawed abortion. And they have created a budget that completely fixes all of our budget deficit problems in a mere 100 years by making sure that all poor people are dead by then. The House of Representatives is clearly doing the work of God.

Mark Levin is not happy, however, with the Senate. The Senate has stubbornly refused to take up the common-sense legislation against Obamacare, abortions and poor people, and instead have been trying to pass absolutely ridiculous laws that treat illegal immigrants as people. Mark Levin is even more ticked off at the Senate now that Harry Reid has been promising to reform the fillibuster rules.

So what was Mark Levin’s proposed solution to this problem?

He suggested getting rid of the Senate completely.


The Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz
Is there anything wrong with Straw Men, really?

Now this is a trick kind of argument to make.  To many people, it sounds like one of those joke headlines that would come from The Onion. It sounds like a “straw man argument”: one of those exaggerated arguments that people make but that nobody actually supports.

But no: Mark actually engaged in a long, protracted analysis on his radio show where he explained why he thought that getting rid of the Senate really would be constitutional, and would be desirable.

Another example: earlier today, Sean Hannity was talking about the Zimmerman trial. He had a guest on to debate with, and they had gotten the discussion to the point where they were talking about the presumed fist fight between Zimmerman and Trayvon.

The guest said: To me, it just sounds like Zimmerman was in a fist fight. That, by itself, doesn’t seem like a good enough reason to pull out a gun and start shooting.

Sean Hannity said: I think that if you’re in a fight, and your being punched in the head, and you are scared that you might black out, then you have every legal right to pull out a gun and use deadly force!

Basically, Hannity’s argument was that if you feel like you are losing a fist-fight, you have the right to shoot the other person dead.


In both of these cases, we have important, intelligent conservatives–true great Americans–promoting arguments that most reasonable people would say sound like “straw man” arguments.


This raises an interesting and important question: Is there anything wrong with Straw Man arguments, really?

From a conservative perspective, it seems like “Straw Men” get a bad rap. Just because they seem silly to liberals doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take them 100% SERIOUSLY OURSELVES, right?

And as we all know: Sean Hannity and Mark Levin are never wrong.


So, as a proud conservative, I say this to you: Don’t be shy. Don’t hold back. Don’t doubt yourself just because some liberal tells you that your argument is plainly ridiculous and sounds like a “Straw Man” argument.

Just look at them, and proudly proclaim: “Well, maybe I’m a proud, conservative Straw Man myself! Stop being so racist!”

That’s sure to shut them up.

After all, if they think that it’s silly to suggest completely eliminating the Senate on the grounds that you disagree with it…. then that’s clearly just their liberal bias talking!

Sean Hannity gets his ass kicked by a girl

Liberal Nielsen Viewers

Well, this is embarrassing. Sean Hannity, who repeatedly brags about the size of his, you know…. audience… was beaten in his prime time television slot in the 25-54 age demographic by a girl. And not just any girl: by a homo-sexual liberal girl!

The last time this happened, back in August, the left-wing mainstream media was rife with sick sexual innuendo that called Hannity’s masculinity into question. Isn’t it just like liberals to think that everything has to do with sex? What kind of disgusting headline is that? “Rachel Maddow Tops Sean Hannity“… we all know what that means, you liberal sickos.

Anyway, this past Monday it happened again.  At 9pm, Rachel Maddow had 31% more viewers than Sean Hannity.  How is this even possible?



……OK, maybe that’s not the right question…. but you know what we mean.


Luckily, there is a silver lining: although Maddow beat Hannity in the 25-54 year olds segment, Hannity still solidly beat Maddow in total viewers. So at least really, really young people and/or really, really old people can be depended on to be free from all of the liberal bias!!!!


graph data source: Nielsen Media Research. Live and same day (DVR) data
graph found via: Mediaite.com