Republicans Excited to Learn Hacking Works, Even if Torture Doesn’t

Hackers and the Republican Party

Sony’s decision to cancel the release of its controversial movie The Interview following threats from North Korean hackers prompted quick reactions from Republicans. Mitt Romney, the party’s 2012 nominee, tweeted: “.@SonyPictures don’t cave, fight: release @TheInterview free online globally. Ask viewers for voluntary $5 contribution to fight #Ebola.”

But other Republicans, still reeling from several days of embarrassing revelations about the depravity, illegality and inefficacy of the Bush-Cheney era’s torture policies, saw opportunities to use hacking to achieve a variety of goals… especially in cases where torture wasn’t an option.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News: “Hacking is the worst kind of 21st Century war crime. But I’d do it in a minute to stop movies from telling people about my torture policies.”

Paul Ryan insisted that “legitimate hacking,” when done by shady GOP operatives, was still OK: “If it’s like that time Karl Rove tried to take control of voting machines in Ohio, then I didn’t have a problem,” he said.

Sarah Palin tweeted: “Hacking is how we baptize our enemies’ computers.” When later asked if she understood what hacking was, Palin said: “Something I would use on ‘gotcha’ journalists who seek to destroy us.”

Rand Paul took to a CNET message board to ask if there was “any way to erase all traces of a speech I just plagiarized from the internet (after I’m done cutting and pasting, of course).”

Marco Rubio, meanwhile, was forced to deny that the new bio that had recently appeared on the official Senate website was the work of hackers he had hired: “If it says I arrived in America on Jack Sparrow’s pirate ship, it must be true,” he told CNN.

Senator Ted Cruz said: “We live in a new age of cybercrime in which hackers seek to destroy the US economy and bring our government to its knees. If there’s any hacker out there who would like to be my 2016 running mate, give me a call. We obviously have similar goals.”

President Obama, meanwhile, advised Americans simply to go to the movies this weekend, which Republicans will no doubt claim sounds very un-presidential.

Ep 17: The manly conservative GOP plan to deal with ISIS and Militant Islamic Terrorism

You might be tempted to think that this video is satire or exaggeration BUT IT IS NOT. This represents the clear and obvious plan that EVERY SINGLE CONSERVATIVE knows deep in his heart is the right way to deal with ISIS.

Other conservatives might not be brave enough (OR MANLY ENOUGH) to spell it out the way Zach does with maps and little crayon-colored pictures. But you should rest assured that they are all thinking the same thing. They’ve said so in the press, and they’ve said so on the Senate floor: this plan, the plan outlined in this video, is the 100% True Conservative, free from any liberal bias, plan for dealing with Fundamentalist Islamic Radicals, Jihad, and ISIS.

Want to skip past the intro? The plan starts at 0:41 seconds.


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

Video direct link:

ISIS fights back against defamation, and is changing her name

ISIS, the radical conservative Islamic terrorist organization, has angered Isis, the Egyptian Goddess, with all of their unbelievable bullshit.
ISIS, the radical conservative Islamic terrorist organization, has angered Isis, the Egyptian Goddess, with all of their unbelievable bullshit.

Isis, one of the most ancient and important goddesses of Egypt, is sick of all this radical Islamic bullshit.

“I used to be worshiped everywhere from Egypt to Afghanistan as a healer and a role-model for women,” she explained in her exclusive interview with Liberal Bias. “I taught human kind how to use medicine, for crying out loud! And now these radical pinheads have to go and use my name to represent their stupid right-wing religious movement? No thanks!”

Isis, who has been around for more than 3500 years, says she feels it’s a shame that people now associate the name “Isis” mostly with the right-wing religious fanatics who are beheading people and who want to bring the entire world under Sharia Law. “It especially hurts since I’ve had the name for, like, most of the existence of humanity. But now this group comes along, and instead of associating the name Isis with healing and motherly love, they associate the name with death, murder, and terrorism.”

As a result of this unfortunate development in recent political events, Isis has decided to file a lawsuit for defamation, and temporarily change her name to Ahst, which is probably closer to how it was originally pronounced anyway.

We asked Isis if she has considered using her powers to smite ISIS.

“Smiting isn’t really my thing,” she admitted, with a soft sad sigh. “My brother Set was always the one who was good at smiting. Or, if you want a god who is good at smiting, why not ask Yaweh? He’s always been very good at the smiting.”

Come to think of it… why hasn’t  Yaweh smitten ISIS yet?  Come on, Yahweh… it’s time to step it up.


Liberal graphs round-up: May 14 2014

This first graph shows that attacks during the Obama administration have been dramatically lower than ANY previous Republican administration. This obviously can’t be true, because Benghazi.

Hat tip to @BmoreProgressiv for tweeting this graph, which originally appeared on Mother Jones.

Attacks on U.S. diplomatic targets.

This next graph seems to show that the attitudes of Republicans toward the threat of climate change mirrors the attitudes of fascist, anti-science, oppressive states like Pakistan, Egypt and China. That that is just misleading, because Freedom.

Hat tip to @JeffersonObama for tweeting this graph.

Views on climate change

This next graph shows that Scott Walker’s economic policies have caused job growth in Wisconsin to completely and utterly tank ever since Scott Walker took office, and more specifically since he has been able to implement his conservative economic policies. That, however, must be a liberal illusion of some sort, because Capitalism.

Hat tip to @adbridgeforth  for tweeting this graph.

Wisconsin job growth

Finally, the last image isn’t a graph, but a set of statistics, so it sort of counts. According to this collection of numbers, the Republican Party is disgustingly, disastrously out of touch with the American people! That clearly cannot be right, because Media Bias!

Hate tip to @eelawl1966 for tweeting this image, originally created and shared by @GOPMeme:

Poll results on the issues

Do you know a graph with LIBERAL BIAS that you’d like to see featured? Please email us the tip at or tweet us the graph @LiberalBias!

Ep 2: The entire Benghazi scandal and coverup reenacted in only two minutes

In this episode of “Two Minute Theater”, Zach Heltzel brings you a complete summary of all of the facts and events involved in the Benghazi cover-up scandal between September 11, 2012 and the current day, re-enacted as a two-minute theatrical drama.

PLEASE NOTE: The calendar date counter in the top left corner is approximate, and is meant to give you a rough idea of when certain things happened: when the White House first using the word “terrorism”, when the public first found out that a terrorist group claimed responsibility for the attack, and when some of the investigations began. However, these are only provided for illustration, and are only approximate. We know that some of the dates are slightly off, but concessions had to be made in order to make the pace of the script flow. We hope you understand.

Make sure you subscribe to our Youtube Channel to get notified about every new video installment of “Heltzel’s View”, including more episodes of “Two Minute Theater”, from Zach Heltzel.

Video direct link:

How to identify a terrorist (without liberal bias)

What to call a terrorist (without falling for liberal bias)

For the last week or so, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin have been talking on their radio programs about how terrible it is that police and news reporters are not using words like “Islamic” and “foreign” in every single sentence they utter in connection to the Boston Bombing. They have been blaming this on things like “political correctness” and “the unreasonable fear that some people might say you’re an asshole”.

This has created some confusion among good, honest, every-day conservatives who just aren’t entirely clear how they are supposed to identify terrorists and criminals who aren’t brown-skinned people. Do you blame it on their religion? Do you blame it on their country of original? You obviously can’t blame it on their race. What’s a person to do?

Thus, we here at have decided to provide you with this handy flow-chart to help put your mind at ease.  Using this chart, you will always be able to know how to talk about any person who commits a terrible crime.

What to call a terrorist (without falling for liberal bias)

If you would like to print out thousands of copies and hand them out as leaflets at your local elementary school, you can download the PDF version to print by clicking HERE.

Logic has a liberal bias! (case studies from the Boston Bombing)

Fallacy Examples

Fallacy Examples

If you were forced to go to college, you probably remember that “logic” has all kinds of rules. The recent Boston Bombing event provides a good case study to prove that these so-called “logic rules” have a liberal bias.

By now, we all know that the two brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing incident were Islamic and were originally from Chechnya. Based on these facts, there are a number of conservatives on websites and on the news who have made very keen observations, and who have come to a variety of very reasonable, very sound conclusions. For example:

“Ha, ha! Stupid liberals were trying to blame ‘right-wing extremist’!  Well, the fact that these people are foreign Islamists just proves that there is NO SUCH THING as right-wing terrorism!”

“This is more proof that all Muslims are murderous and hateful!”

“These people are obviously members of Al Qaeda!”

“Obama got re-elected, and now this? See what happens when you vote for a liberal president!!!”

“Clearly Obama is incompetent, because one of the things that happens when you have an incompetent president is attacks on our own soil.”

All of these are clearly excellent arguments and are perfectly valid.

Unfortunately, the Tyrannical Left is trying to insist that these conclusions are not warranted, saying that they involve “logical fallacies”. Let’s take a look:

Conclusion: Some liberals claimed the bombers were probably American right-wing extremists. They were wrong. Therefore, there is no such thing as American right-wing extremism.

Liberal academics will call this kind of reasoning “cherry picking” or the fallacy of anecdotal evidence. They call this a form of over-generalization that is based on taking one particular case where the claim of “right-wing extremism” was false, and concluding from it that all claims of “right-wing extremism are false.”

Conclusion: Al Qaeda are terrorists. These two people are terrorists. Therefore, these two are obviously associated with Al Qaeda.

Liberal academics will call this kind of reasoning the fallacy of the undistributed middle. This basically means that just because two things share a property, doesn’t mean they are related or the same. This kind of fancy terminology is why most good conservatives fall asleep in college classes.

Conclusion: First, Obama got re-elected. Then, this terrorist attack happens. Therefore, this terrorist attack was caused by people voting for Obama.

Liberal elitist snobs will whip out some of that fancy Latin stuff on you and call this the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. Basically this means that just because A happened before B doesn’t mean that A caused B.

Conclusion: If a president is incompetent, then you can expect things like terrorism and crime to increase. Terrorism has increased.  Therefore, this president is incompetent.

No-good left-wing academics will call this kind of reasoning the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Basically this means that if you have a sentence that says “If A then B”, you can’t conclude that just because B is true then also A will be true.



In the days that follow, there will no doubt be more good conservatives coming to reasonable conclusions like these, and yet there will also no doubt be buzz-kill liberals throwing around fancy University words like “fallacy” to try to rain on their parades.

So keep your eyes peeled for the comments sections on the internet! If you ever see a liberal saying something like, “That’s a logical fallacy!” then just make sure you call them out, by yelling: “LOGIC HAS A LIBERAL BIAS!”


Editor’s Note:  For your convenience, below, we will share with you a more complete list of so-called “logical fallacies”.  If you are a true conservative, and want to help the conservative movement, make sure you use as many of these as possible whenever you are arguing with liberals.  It will really piss them off:


Complete list of fallacies.


Domestic Terrorism, Right-Wing Extremism, and Liberal Bias

Right-Wing Extremists.

Right-Wing Extremists.

You probably hear liberals talk a lot about Right-Wing Extremism. It is important that you know how to combat this kind of liberally biased talk when you hear it.

In fact, just yesterday on his radio show, Sean Hannity said: “Leftists are saying that the Boston Marathon bombing is probably right-wing extremists! Where does this idea come from?”

Well, Mister Hannity, allow us to explain: it comes from liberally biased “statistics”.

West Point has released a study, called “Challenges from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right”, identifying so-called “right wing extremist groups” as a major source of domestic terrorism in the United States.

The New America Foundation has also produced the graph, above, showing that from 2002 to 2007 only nine right-wing extremists were indicted for their roles in politically motivated murders and violent assaults, but between 2008 and 2012 that number mushroomed to 53.

That same group has also pointed out that since 9/11, at least 29 people living in the United States have been killed by right-wing extremists, while only 17 have been killed by jihadist extremists.

It is data like this that snooty liberals are talking about when they talk about “Right-Wing Terrorism”.

The key question, then, is this:

How can conservatives combat this message about “right-wing terrorism”?

After scouring the Internets, we have concluded that the following approach represents the best tactic that is most commonly used by professionals:

1) Point out that just because groups like anti-Abortion groups and the KKK call themselves Christian, doesn’t mean they are really Christian. They are clearly not “mainstream” Christian.

(Warning: There will be some liberals who try to claim that Islamic terrorists are also not real Muslims. But do not let them try to get away with this kind of tricky word-play. You are a good Christian, after all, so who would know better than you what a “real Muslim” is?)

2) Point out that although some pro-life people are violent, the vast majority of them are not, and condemn violence completely.

(Warning: There will be some liberals who try to claim that although some Muslims are violent, but the vast majority of Muslims are not violent and do not hate America. But do not let them fool you! Obviously these “non-violent Muslims” don’t exist, or else why wouldn’t you have heard about them on Fox News?)

Most importantly, just keep repeating the key word “mainstream” over and over again whenever possible. 53 violent right-wing murders and assaults in four years is clearly just a random collection of unrelated crazy people. It obviously isn’t a pattern of any kind.

To suggest that would be just to give in to liberal bias!!!


graph data source: New America Foundation
graph found via: Hermit’s Holler

related post: My rights as a gun owner! (VIDEO PSA)

West Point Research has a liberal bias!

Right Wing Attacks.

Right Wing Attacks.A new West Point study finds a dramatic increase in conservative, right-wing domestic terrorism. It also finds that U.S right-wing terrorism increases when there are more Republicans in Congress. That’s just ridiculous.

Some of the conclusions of this study include:

“since 2007, there has been a dramatic rise in the number of attacks and violent plots originating from individuals and groups who self-identify with the far-right of American politics.”

“Findings indicate that…it is not only feelings of deprivation that motivate those involved in far right violence, but also the sense of empowerment that emerges when the political system is perceived to be increasingly permissive to far right ideas.”

“Although in the 1990s the average number of attacks per year was 70.1, the average number of attacks per year in the first 11 years of the twenty-first century was 307.5, a rise of more than 400%.”

Conservatives, however, have found these conclusions to be TOTALLY INVALID AND INACCURATE on the following grounds: Don’t these “researchers” have anything better to do?


To quote some of our well-known and respected conservative leaders who have spoken out about this report.

According to a Republican staffer interviewed by The Washington Times:

“…cut spending…ground zero…radical Islam…?”

Similarly, John Fund of the National Review says:

“…terrorists…hostages…Algeria…Muslim extremists…radical Islamists…the U.S. border…!”

Very wisely, blogger Pamela Geller points out:

“…loyal Americans!…Islamic threat!…dominant PC culture…?”

What they are saying is clear.

It really doesn’t matter that good, loyal, patriotic Americans committed over 350 acts of terrorist crime in just year 2011 alone.

What matters is the threat of all of those foreign brown people who believe in the wrong God.

Why doesn’t West Point research understand this very basic fact that is so obvious to good conservatives?

Must be their liberal bias!!!!


GRAPH DATA SOURCE: West Point report: Challengers from the Sidelines: Understanding America’s Violent Far-Right

Do terrorists love liberals?

Terrorists Love Liberals

Liberals love the above graph. They will try to convince you that it proves that Democrats keep our country safer than Republicans. But that is a lie. Luckily, we know the real conservative interpretation of these numbers.

According to this graph, terrorist attacks on U.S. diplomatic targets decreased under Clinton and Obama, stayed generally the same under Bush, and actually increased during the Reagan/Bush era. Liberals naturally claim some kind of credit, trying to make you think that they are better at keeping Americans safer than Republicans.


But if you are skilled in interpreting data like this, as we are, then you can see the deeper explanation that liberals do not want you to see.

Terrorists attack Americans less when liberals are presidents because terrorists love liberals.

They love them, they want to kiss them and date them and do dirty sexual things to them.

Why? Because terrorists know that liberals are all foreign terrorist communist sympathizers!  That’s  right, I said it! The terrorists know that liberals are secretly all on their side and want to destroy America from within.

THAT is why terrorist attacks have decreased during the Clinton and Obama presidencies! It had nothing at all to do with Democratic foreign policy being more diplomatic, or stronger, or safer, or anything else like that. Do not be fooled.

And if graphs like this even suggest that we might have been safer when Democrats were president, then the graphs themselves obviously are just infected with liberal bias!!!!


graph data source: National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism
graph found via: Mother Jones

Terrorism has a liberal bias!

Liberal Terrorism Approval

I know this is a very controversial topic for some people. Ultra-left-wing loons always tell us that it is just completely wrong and over-the-top to draw any connection between liberals and terrorists. They call it destructive, hysterical, blah blah blah, and all that noise.

BUT IS IT??????

Let’s look at the numbers.  When the Washington Post asked people to rate Obama’s performance on a number of issues, the results of the poll clearly showed his incompetence on every issue… except one! Notice that there is only one topic where more people said “strongly approve” than “strongly disapprove”, and that is the way Obama has has handled the threat of terrorism.


Yes, it is. Obviously, if an incompetent liberal president can “do well” dealing with terrorism, then terrorism must be in on it. They are conspiring to make this failed president look good, and thus was are forced to conclude logically, based on these factual numbers, that terrorism has a liberal bias!!!!

source: The Washington Post