Kyle Mantyla's blog

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.

Right Wing Round-Up - 5/4/15

Right Wing Bonus Tracks - 5/4/15

  • The Supreme Court has rejected Liberty Counsel's appeal in its ongoing effort to strike down laws in California and New Jersey banning the use of ex-gay conversion therapy on minors.
  • Some keen insights from Robert Oscar Lopez: "Like the Puritans, The Gays have founded a city on a hill, which must shine for all the world to see. Only 'city on a hill' sounds so lame. For The Gays, it is a disco on a hill."
  • This is a not-at-all inflammatory headline for Laurie Roth's latest BarbWire column: "Will the Supreme Court Rape the Nation…Again?"
  • Tom Pauken is angry that some GOP presidential hopefuls would be willing to attend a gay wedding.
  • Finally, a dire warning from Rodney Howard-Browne: "Without divine intervention, what we call America will be gone within the next couple of years. It's that critical. The handwriting is on the wall. Only God can save us now. This is not a game. If we don't see a turn in the next two or three years, America as we know it will sink into the abyss and will be gone forever."

Glenn Beck On President Ted Cruz: 'I'm Not Sure That He Could Govern'

For someone who is constantly talking about how much he supposedly hates politics, it seems as if just about every episode of Glenn Beck's radio program over the last few months has featured an extended discussion about the 2016 election and the various candidates who will be running for the White House.

Today was no exception, as Beck again offered up his thoughts on whether various Republican presidential hopefuls actually have any chance of winning the election and, if so, if they possess any capability to govern if they do. The entire discussion got a bid derailed when it came to Mike Huckabee, with Beck saying that he doesn't believe that Huckabee could win or govern effectively if elected.

Co-host Stu Burguiere wondered just how Beck was making that determination, given that Huckabee actually did govern the state of Arkansas for more than 10 years, to which Beck responded that Huckabee simply does not possess the skills necessary to guide this country when "we are looking at unbelievable times ahead of us."

Surprisingly, Beck said that he believes that Sen. Ted Cruz would also be unable to govern if he became president.

"I'm not sure he could get the coalition together," Beck said of Cruz. "He'll be a bulldog and he'll stand for principles, but I'm not sure that he could govern." When Burguiere said that the same thing was said about Ronald Reagan, Beck replied that "Reagan had charm":

Gohmert: Failure To Stop Iran Deal Will Be 'The Downfall Of Israel And The United States'

Rep. Louie Gohmert was the guest on today's "WallBuilders Live" radio broadcast, where he warned that if the Senate does not stop President Obama's deal with Iran, it will be the end for America.

If leaders in the Senate "continue to be wimps" and refuse to stop the Iran deal, he warned, then "that will be written up as the downfall of Israel and the United States."

"I think Israel is going to come through, by the grace of God," Gohmert said, "but if we are this stupid in helping our enemy come after us, then we would be, in the eyes of history, deserving of what we get":

Later, David Barton chimed in to declare that support for the nation of Israel is the most important issue of the 2016 election because nothing else will matter if God stops blessing America.

"If you believe in the Bible, if you think the Bible is true, then you have to take is seriously when God says, 'Whoever blesses Israel, I'll bless, whoever curses Israel, I'll curse,'" he said. "If God actually means what He says and, of course, He says He does, then that's got to be a number-one issue in the next election because I don't care how good you are on the economy, I don't care how good you are on education, I don't care how good you are on defense, if you're bad on Israel, we're not going to be a blessed nation":

Glenn Beck Cannot Get His Audience To Save 'Little Boy'

For months, Glenn Beck has been hyping the faith film "Little Boy," repeatedly telling everyone in his audience to go and see it:

Family movies have a new gold standard.

Little boy!

I just watched it with my son. Grand slam! This is the movie of the highest Walt Disney Magic. The man not the company.

It is pure gold and yet even a rarer find. Perfect story telling.

Great story, full of hope, great message, God centered but non believers will love this too. It is beautiful in the way aviator was beautiful on film. The acting is A+. The casting is wonderful.

Jakob Salvati Aka "little boy" jumps off the screen will capture your heart and never let go.

This is the way movies should be made.

Don't go out to support this movie because it has the spirit we beg for and NEVER SEE, go and see this because it is a great movie that you will never forget.

Grab your spouse, your kids, go on a date, go alone or bring a friend and their family just see this film.

I believe in miracles, because my son and I just witnessed one. It's name is little boy.

When the movie finally came out two weeks ago, movie critics did not share Beck's love for the film, as it wound up with a mere 17 percent rating on Rotten Tomatoes, which Beck naturally felt was some sort of conspiracy to tank to film.

In an effort to salvage the movie, Beck featured one of its producers on both his television program and radio show last week, even going so far as to beg his audience to go and see it over the weekend, repeatedly likening it to the works of Frank Capra and Norman Rockwell:

Please go see this weekend “Little Boy”. You will not be disappointed. I warn you, it’s Frank Capra. So if you didn’t like Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. If you didn’t like, you know, It’s a Wonderful Life ... You know, if you don’t like Norman Rockwell, you’re not going to like this. But if you have that heart for America of what it really can be, you’re going to love this movie ... Go see this movie. Please, take your family. Take your friends. Take your friend’s family. Don’t even ask the parents. Just disappear the children for a couple of hours. And go see “Little Boy”. You will love it! Truly love it. Thank you so much.

All of Beck's efforts to hype the film do not appear to have worked, as the weekend gross dropped by more than 71 percent from the week before as the film took in less than $800,000:

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious