Kyle Mantyla's blog

Right Wing Round-Up - 5/6/15

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 5/6/15

  • Mike Huckabee has already secured the coveted endorsement of Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar.
  • Randall Murphee of the American Family Association defends his organization's regular use of boycotts.
  • Joseph Farah wonders if the time has come for Christians to "recognize they have effectively failed to serve as salt and light in their culture and begin withdrawing from American 'mainstream' society for the sake of their own children and obedience to God rather than man."
  • Glenn Beck interviewed Rep. Steve King on his radio program today and King promised Beck that he could come along the next time King travels to Egypt to meet President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi.
  • Finally, Dave Daubenmire is not buying all of the claims made by Religious Right leaders that they will not obey any Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage: "So now, they say it is time to disobey. WE WILL NOT OBEY! I hear them bombasting in regard to their anticipated defeat in the Supreme Court’s homo-marriage decision. Really? They are going to go to jail? James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Matt Staver, Franklin Graham, Jerry Johnson, Rick Santorum, Keith Fornier, Rick Scarborough—they’re willing to go to jail? REALLY?"

Bryan Fischer Demands Conservative Commentator Be Fired For Being Gay

Earlier this week, it was reported that Guy Benson, the political editor at the conservative website Townhall.com,  reveals in his forthcoming book that he is gay.

Unsurprisingly, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer has wasted no time in demanding that Benson now be fired from his position at Townhall.com:

Benson is young, smart, and articulate and often appears on Fox News as a pundit on all manner of political issues. This makes him particularly dangerous to the conservative cause.

Now I don’t know Mr. Benson, and he certainly seems like a particularly nice and friendly individual. But this is not about his personality. It’s about his politics.

Townhall, by the way, is owned by Salem Media Group, which describes its mission as “targeting audiences interested in Christian and family-themed content and conservative values.” To my knowledge, Salem has yet to explain how paying an openly homosexual activist to be the political editor of its main public policy publication is consistent with this mission.

If Salem leadership is to be at all true to its own mission statement, Benson must be replaced. His values on homosexuality are not Christian, family-themed, or conservative.

It remains to be seen whether Fischer's demand will be heeded, but he does have a track record of managing to force gay conservatives out of their jobs.

Arkansas Pastor Rips Gov. Hutchinson's 'Total Lack Of Parenting' For Raising Son Who Supports Gay Marriage

Last month, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson announced that he would not sign a state "religious freedom" bill unless it was changed so that it more closely mirrored the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Among the reasons that Hutchinson cited for opposing the bill in its original form was that even his own son has signed a petition asking him to veto it.

On the "WallBuilders Live" radio program today, Arkansas pastor Tim Brooks ripped Hutchinson's "total lack of parenting" for raising up a son who would support marriage equality.

"Our governor came on our local TV stations and said, 'My son has signed a petition for me to repeal this and I, on the other hand feel this way about it,'" Brooks fumed. "And he said on TV, 'This is clearly a generational issue where my son and his generation feel this way, my generation, however, feels this way'; clearly making this a generational issue that Arkansas has got to come to terms with and deal with."

"And Rick, I was appalled," Brooks continued. "I didn't know biblical mandates were generational. I thought there is another case for a total lack of parenting. At somewhere in this line, our governor did not transfer his values into his son's life. When he said, 'I think this way but my son thinks another way,' clearly he didn't parent in morality":

Trey Ware: America Is Suffering Riots, Terrorist Attacks, And Gay Marriage Because The 'Nation Left God'

On yesterday's "Hagee Hotline," host Matthew Hagee had a discussion with local San Antonio conservative radio host Trey Ware about the attack on an anti-Islam event in Texas carried out by two Islamic radicals over the weekend. Ware declared that the attack, along with the unrest in Baltimore and the push for marriage equality, are all the result of America having abandoned God.

After saying that blaming organizers of the anti-Islam event for the attack is "blaming the victim, like what happens in certain rape cases," Ware said that this is all part of an ever-worsening "spiritual battle."

"There is no doubt that America, when we decided, as a nation I'm talking about, years ago to say, 'No, God, we don't want you in the schools, we don't want you anywhere,' and churches even said we don't want you in the churches, then God said 'okay,'" Ware said. "And we are now reaping what we have sown in America society. These riots that we have seen, the discussion about homosexual marriage that you and I are going to talk about today, and even the situation where terrorists are in our country, a lot of this is because we as a nation left God":

Bachmann: The Clinton Foundation Is 'An International Money Laundering Ring'

Steve Malzberg interviewed Michele Bachmann on his Newsmax radio program yesterday about the supposed Clinton Foundation "scandal," which the former congresswoman addressed with her typical nuance and perspicacity.

"This Clinton Foundation," she said, "is in effect an international money laundering ring to benefit the Clintons personally" so that they can "live the life of potentates."

"What's the best way to continue that lifestyle?" Bachmann asked, rhetorically. "Start an international foundation and get people to give you big money. But they use poor people as human shields for their pompous lifestyle":

Right Wing Round-Up - 5/5/15

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 5/5/15

  • Cindy Jacobs offers some prophetic insights:"Women will determine the next election, and Asians will be the swing vote. The states will polarize on an even greater level, and some will threaten to break with the union if their state constitutions are violated."
  • Jan Markell has "no idea what has caused [Jimmy] Carter to become anti-Semitic."
  • Randall Terry has started a GoFundMe campaign seeking to raise $200,000, claiming to have received death threats from radical Muslims.
  • Franklin Graham defends Tony Perkins: "I know Tony. He’s a great American and a strong Christian. Just because Christians take a stand aligned with what the Word of God says is true, that doesn’t mean we are anti-gay. It means that we love people enough to warn them."
  • The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission will host an event in July "in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on same-sex marriage ... Event speakers will seek to equip Christians and churches to be faithful in engaging the culture with the gospel in a post-marriage society."
  • Finally, it looks like someone has taken Rick Scarborough's advice and filed a lawsuit against all homosexuals.

Glenn Beck Wants Ted Cruz's 'Velvet Hand' In Control When America Descends Into Martial Law

On his radio broadcast this morning, Glenn Beck continued his incoherent attempt to explain away his comment from yesterday that he was not sure that Ted Cruz would be able to govern if he were elected president, claiming now that what he was saying is that only President Ted Cruz will be able to save America when it inevitably descends into martial law sometime in the next eight years.

"The world is about to change," Beck stated. "Mark my words, this next presidency, we will see martial law ... In this next presidency, we will see martial law, either regionally or across the entire country, I don't know. But you will see martial law because there's going to be a breakdown of the system."

"Now there is two ways that this goes," he continued. "Either the system breaks down and we go into martial law, the government closes the banks, we do what we did in the Great Depression and there are riots on the street and so we have to have martial law and it's a complete crackdown and you never get your freedoms back. Or we're better people and we do what Americans have always done and that is unite in times of crisis. I don't which way it's going to go."

Saying that it is important to have a "constitutionalist" in power when this societal breakdown comes, Beck said, "I want Ted Cruz because I believe we are going to face tough times and we may go into martial law and I want somebody that will take that and with a velvet hand, put uprisings down if we have them and then let the hand off and restore our freedoms again":

Glenn Beck Incoherently Tries To Explain Away His 'Ted Cruz Can't Govern' Statement

On his radio program yesterday, Glenn Beck made a rather surprising statement when he declared that he was not sure that Ted Cruz could govern effectively if he were to be elected president. Beck made the remark during a segment in which he was just randomly assessing whether any of the potential GOP candidates could govern, seemingly based on some random criteria that only Beck understood. (He also declared that Mike Huckabee would also be unable to govern if elected president.)

It was pretty obvious that even Beck did not understand whatever it was he was trying to say at the time, and predictably, he is now lashing out at everyone else for supposedly taking his "Ted Cruz can't govern" statement out of context, complaining about it on his website:

As we were discussing the challenges for Cruz and others, I mentioned that Cruz might have a tough time putting together a coalition because of all the work the media and politicians on left and right have done vilifying him. The way I tried to poorly summarize that was to say that “I’m not sure he could govern.”

Of course, the media has jumped all over that as if Vladimir Putin just came out as anti-Russia. But, context is key here. The specific example we used to discuss what we meant by “coalitions” and to “govern” was George W. Bush’s infamous decision in the midst of bailout mania as he “abandoned free market principles to save the free market system.” Bush quite clearly built a broad coalition to govern in that instance, but I don’t consider that something to aspire to.

This is also why we talked about how Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and John Mccain would be able to “govern” even though I am not a fan of any of them. Stu caught how ridiculous the way the Cruz comment sounded immediately: “you can’t think he’s the best candidate if you don’t think he can govern.”

This is obviously true. Executing the nations “policy, actions, and affairs” as the dictionary definition reads is something I consider Ted Cruz to be quite capable of. Avoiding George W. Bush type “coalitions” is precisely why I like him.

He also complained about it on his Facebook page:

So, the media as always made this into a really big deal without context.

My question to these nitwits is this: how could I give full throated support to Ted and then not think he could govern?

I couldn't, unless

A: I am a psycho
B: I have changed my mind
C: you missed the context

The answer is C. Context matters.

I don't believe that things are going to stay the same. I believe the events that are coming are going to be so dramatic that the Republic will literally be hanging in the balance.

The country will do one of two things:

a: tear itself apart
b: come together as we always do in a crisis.

I wish I could bank on B, but I no longer know my country.

If we choose A, we will go into some sort of martial law and it will be imperative that we have a president that knows and respects the constitution and the people and will give the power back as Lincoln did.

If we choose B, then a man with vision and clear principles can and will govern.

This next president will indeed chart the course for the future and it will result in freedom unlike we have ever had due to hi tech and the constitution.

Or it will end in global an oligarchy and Russian style totalitarianism due to hi tech and the lack of a constitution.

I feel totally comfortable with Ted Cruz as the man to lead us through troubled times.

Least of all because of his father who has seen this movie before in Cuba and has raised his son for times such as this.

Please help me fight the anti ted spin and lies. If you see this story please help correct it in the comment sections and in chain emails.

Unsurprisingly, Beck's defense of himself make no sense. In the clip that we posted, Beck says that Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, and Jeb Bush all "could govern" while Huckabee and Cruz could not. Beck has publicly been a champion of Rubio, Walker, and Paul and has not been at all shy about voicing his deep dislike for Bush. 

If his standard for what qualifies a candidate as being able to "govern" is George W. Bush, whom Beck is now specifically citing as the sort of president that he doesn't want to see, then why are Rubio, Paul, and Walker on his list? And why is Huckabee not on that list, given that Beck thinks that Huckabee is a liar and "a very dangerous man"?

Beck's explanation is utterly incoherent, especially since his citation of George W. Bush as an example of bad governing is not what he said during the segment yesterday. Immediately following the end of the video we clipped yesterday, Beck and co-host Stu Burguiere had this exchange:

Burguiere: We can all look back now and it feels different in hindsight, but at the time, no one was more vilified than George W. Bush, who ran the country for eight years ... I mean, 'Bush is a terrorist' were sold in mainstream t-shirt stores in the mall.

Beck: And he couldn't govern at the end, he couldn't govern at the end and why he could govern; he couldn't govern at the beginning and he couldn't govern in the end. It was 9/11 that brought us all together.

Burguiere: Eh, there might be something to that, but towards the end he was governing the way that he was building coalitions towards the ends for things like, you know, removing capitalism to save it. I mean, that's the stuff he got broad consensus on.

Beck: Yes. That's the reason why Jeb Bush could govern.

It was not Beck who was initially arguing that George W. Bush was the negative standard for governing, since he explicitly asserted that Bush couldn't govern and it was Burguiere who was challenging Beck's assertion. On top of that, Beck then went on to say that Chris Christie and Rick Perry both "could govern" which is equally confusing if he was supposedly citing Bush's poor governing as the standard against which he was judging the current crop of candidates considering that Beck likes Perry and vehemently dislikes Christie.

The problem here is not that Beck's statement is being "taken out if context" but simply that there is no coherent explanation for why Beck thinks that Paul, Rubio, Walker, Bush, Perry, and Christie all "could govern" while Huckabee and Cruz could not.

And that is because Beck literally had no idea what he was talking about when he made this statement in the first place.

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious