Ep 8: Supreme Court: workplace sexual harassment is just freedom of religion

Are successful men being persecuted for their exercise of Freedom of Religion? Zach Heltzel explores some of the unsettling recent events involving the Left’s War On Men.

Thanks to the decision of the Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, we know that companies should be allowed to do whatever they want, regardless of any laws to the contrary, if their religion tells them that they should. This is a wonderful conservative victory.

Yet at the same time, women have been using the courts and legal system to do terrible things to successful capitalist men. Dov Charney was fired from American Apparel just because he forced a woman to give him oral sex. Tinder co-founder Justin Mateen was fired just because he called a female executive at Tinder a whore. What about their freedom of religion?

Zach Heltzel explains:

It’s time for the Supreme Court to step in again, in defense of religious freedom, liberty, and capitalism. We can’t have some kind of incoherent legal system where it’s OK to limit women’s access to contraception, but it’s not ok to call them whores.

That just doesn’t make any sense!

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=EZLoXumTPjY

Justice Roberts: why you don’t need a spam filter, and other deep thoughts

Justice Roberts reflects on racism and the voting rights act

Justice Roberts reflects on racism and the voting rights act

Chief Justice Roberts displayed incredible logic in his decision striking down section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. It’s so brilliant, we just wanted to pointed out some of the other ways that the same logic could be applied.

First, the court’s decision, written by Roberts, can be seen in full; however, the gist of the argument is this:

Section 4 of the act identified just a few states and counties required to pre-clear their changes to voting procedures, in order to ensure that they did not disenfranchise minority voters. The areas identified were those where Congress found “evidence of actual voting discrimination,” and the covered jurisdictions shared two characteristics: “the use of tests and devices for voter registration, and a voting rate in the 1964 presidential election at least 12 points below the national average.”

Quoting from Page 3 of the court document: “Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically. Largely because of the Voting Rights Act [emphasis added], voter turnout and registration rates in covered jurisdictions now approach parity. Blatantly discriminatory evasions of federal decrees are rare. And minority candidates hold office at unprecedented levels.”

Roberts, backed by a majority of the court, concludes that because the conditions that lead to the act are no longer true, the act is no longer needed.

Impeccable logic!

There is a rumor that, during afternoon cocktail parties, Roberts was also willing to go on and give advice on other topics. For example…

Email:

“I used to get tons of spam email. So, several years ago, I installed a spam filter. Ever since then, I haven’t received any spam emails! Obviously, because the conditions that lead to me installing the spam filter are no longer true, I don’t need that spam filter any more!”

Fitness:

“Several years ago, I realized I was a fat slob. So, I started eating right and exercising. I lost some weight, and now I feel much healthier. Obviously, because the conditions that lead to me exercising and eating right are no longer true, I don’t need to eat right or exercise any more!”

Sex and Romance:

“My wife used to complain that I was selfish and terrible in bed. So, grudgingly, I tried paying attention to her, instead of just on satisfying myself. Now, my wife is much happier! PROBLEM SOLVED! Obviously, since the problems and complaints that lead to me caring about my wife are no longer the case, well… I obviously don’t need to pay any attention to that nonsense anymore!”

 

Thank you for your great font of wisdom, Justice Roberts. Bravo.

The Supreme Court’s Big Gay Decision

Tea Party Cat Predictions!

Tea Party Cat Predictions!Everybody is expecting the Supreme Court to rule on Marriage Equality within the next week. Nobody knows what they will decide… but at least I can tell you what our Republican leaders will be thinking.

If the Supreme Court rules to support same-sex marriage, even in part, we know what Republicans will think…

 


Pat Robertson
Pat Robertson
“God will be upset with America, and no doubt there will be tornadoes in Oklahoma and hurricanes in the Gulf as punishment.”
Alex Jones
Alex Jones
“This is totally bogus! A man can marry another man, but I still can’t marry my gun!”
NRA
NRA
“We have instructed ALEC to create a Stand Your Ground so you can shoot a guy you thought was gonna try to gay marry you.
You’re welcome.”
Bryan Fischer
Bryan Fischer
“Maybe gay marriage isn’t in the Constitution, but you just go to Leviticus. That’s what Thomas Jefferson would do.”
Louie Gohmert
Louie Gohmert
“The way my dog explained this to me is that now he and I have to get married. I warned you people this would happen.”
Steve King
Steve King
“None of the Founders were gay married, so no one should be able to get gay married now.”
Scalia
Scalia
“I’m sick of decisions upholding Obama’s agenda. The Founders didn’t let women vote, so why they allowed on my Supreme Court?”
Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin
“All that legal mumbo jumbo to justify what we know is wrong. The Founding Fathers weren’t lawyers, so why are lawyers in charge now?!”
Lindsey Graham
Ms. Lindsey Graham
“WHY ARE YOU ALL LOOKING AT ME???”

Of course, it is always possible that the decision will go the other way, and that DOMA and Proposition 8 will both be upheld. In that case, it is also clear what our Republican leaders will be thinking…


Rick Santorum
Rick Santorum
“I’m sure relieved the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to gays!”
Bryan Fischer
Bryan Fischer
“This is a great day. Our 1st Amendment right to have a Christian theocracy has been upheld.”
Rick Perry
Rick Perry
“I hope the Boy Scouts see this and go back to banning gay scouts, because only straight boys deserve to get life lessons.”
Mike Huckabee
Mike Huckabee
“Great news! Let’s all go to Chick-fil-A!”
Michele Bachmann
Michele Bachmann
“This gives me great hope that God will also get the Senate and Obama to overturn Obamacare too.”
Lindsey Graham
Ms. Lindsey Graham
“WHY ARE YOU ALL LOOKING AT ME???”

 

Related Post: The Tea Party Cat explains the 2012 election aftermath

Republicans bravely take every side of the marriage debate

Pro-Gay Rove

Pro-Gay RoveEveryone agrees that Republicans had a messaging problem in the last election cycle. Luckily, they have found a strategy to solve that problem when addressing the gay marriage debate: just agree with all sides.

The strategy is as simple as it is genius: let those without power relay a soft, compassionate message, while those with power continue to push the conservative hard right agenda.  That way, conservatives can fix the messaging by adding warm, bleeding-heart language to appeal to the liberal masses… all without actually changing any Republican policy standards.

Nowhere is this brilliant Karl Rove-ian strategy more apparent than in the current debate over marriage rights for same-sex couples. Read any headline in the liberal lame-stream media and you’ll see jubilant cries of “Prominent Republicans File Supreme Court Brief Against Proposition 8.”  Yes, these “prominent” members of the Grand Old Party have bravely come out against the California ban on same-sex marriages.  Liberals might think that Republican standards are changing, or that the party is somehow in disarray…. but this is all completely according to plan!

Almost all of these “prominent” Republicans are out of office and don’t really have positions of leadership in the party, but still: the messaging sounds great!  We even have “high profile” Republican campaign staffers who have worked for the likes of George W. Bush and Mitt Romney signing on, even though they actively supported campaigns run on trying to ban marriages for gay couples with a federal constitutional amendment.

It really is a stroke of messaging genius—just ask Frank Luntz.

Of course, these brave conservatives who have nothing to lose since they are out office and really can’t influence the party in a substantive way can brilliantly distract from what the GOP leadership in power is actually doing.

For example, those champions of traditional values and conservative fiscal policy in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives are stepping in to defend the “Defense of Marriage Act” in the Supreme Court to the tune of over $3 million tax-payer dollars.  In addition, Republicans on Capitol Hill are again attempting to change the U.S. military code with a bill introduced in the House to ban same-sex marriages on military bases after the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”  The Republicans in actual positions of power even bravely held up the “Violence against Women Act” because it included provisions to protect women in same-sex relationships.

And let’s not forget that the Republican party platform itself, which had its plank on marriage written by religious right leaders like Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, is still completely against equal rights for gay people.  The platform opposes marriage equality and supports a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as the “union of one man and one woman.”

But pay no attention to the white, heterosexual man behind the curtain! Not when we can get the media to focus on the great and powerful handful of out-of-office conservatives who can “fix” the messaging by signing a court brief.

SPECIAL REPORT: Why did Justice Roberts switch?

Sotomayor curses Roberts

Sotomayor curses Roberts

Everyone is baffled by Chief Justice Roberts’ unexpected, last-minute flip-flop to vote with the liberals. Everybody is trying to understand how and why he changed his mind.

COULD THIS BE HOW IT HAPPENED?

As a responsible media outlet, we realize how important it is to ask the tough questions that nobody else will ask.

And trust us: nobody else is asking this!

Why not?  You already know the answer: liberal bias!!!!!

For More Information: Imperius Curse

 

The Supreme Court has a liberal Bias!

Biased Supreme Court Graph

One of the most sinister and insidious pieces of propaganda in today’s politics is the myth that today’s Supreme Court is somehow a “conservative” court. There are many liberals who complain that the court is “too conservative,” but there are even conservatives who celebrate that the court is “conservative”: both are wrong.

Part of the problem is that people are mislead by biased and corrupted graphs like the one above. In the graph above you see measurements that seem to show that the Supreme Court is to the conservative side of the supposed “neutral” line down the middle.  At the bottom of the graph, there are even little numbers to make you believe that they show how conservative the individual justices are: Oh look! The middle justice has between +1 and +2 conservativeness, and the most conservative justice is at +4 conservativeness!  Isn’t that wonderful?

NO THAT IS NOT WONDERFUL! IT’S STILL TOO LIBERAL

This graph misrepresents a basic truth about our court system, and that is that the courts are supposed to be conservative!  The supposed “neutral” line on the above graph is a total fiction created by liberals to make us believe that we are supposed to “compromise” on our basic values.

But the fact is, the Supreme Court was always intended to be a conservative body. Mark Levin, who sounds really smart and is therefore should be believed, has instructed us on several occasions that the role of the court is to be as conservative as possible in their interpretation of the constitution: anything else is “judicial activism.”

Therefore, in order to remove this liberal bias from the graph, it must be re-labelled  in the following manner:

Supreme Court Graph - Unbiased

In this graph we clearly see, that although there is some progress in the correct direction, the Supreme Court is still infested with a liberal bias: note that even the most conservative justice still scores between a +3 and a +4 on the “Judicial Activism” scale.

The Supreme Court will only fulfill its true and proper role under the constitution when all of the lines are at the extreme right of the graph!!  That will mean that they are free from their evil liberal activist tendencies.

Any justice that is doing anything other than the most extreme conservative thing possible, is guilty of nothing less than liberal bias!!!!

graph source: Nate Silver of the NY Times
found via: BeerBarrelPolitics Blog