Chris Field

Chris Field

Chris Field is executive editor of TheBlaze Magazine. He joined TheBlaze in the summer of 2011 to create and launch TheBlaze Magazine.

Before joining TheBlaze, he was executive editor of Townhall Magazine, and prior to that served as managing editor and web editor for Human Events. He also spent 3.5 years working for the Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate, serving as an associate policy analyst for the Republican Policy Committee and covering everything from economics, spending and taxes to abortion, religion and culture.

A son of the Pacific Northwest hinterlands, Chris earned degrees in English, History, and Secondary Education from Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, Idaho. He is a husband, father and advocate for America's youth, investing his time in the lives of students through non-profits, coaching, and mentoring. He and his family escaped to Washington state in 2012, after spending more than 12 years in the DC-Metro area.

All Content »
All Stories »
All Posts »


  • [4] September 12, 2014 at 1:49pm

    The piece does not include discussion of an EMP weapon like that of Ocean’s Eleven. This is all about the launching and detonation of a nuclear device in the atmosphere, which, as you note, would knock out power.

  • [2] September 12, 2014 at 1:45pm

    And if we have no idea of knowing who launched it, then what? That’s part of the problem. Once detonated, many of these weapons leave no fingerprints, no evidence of who did it.

  • [7] September 12, 2014 at 1:41pm

    From the full story, as printed in the magazine:

    “An argument against the likelihood of such an attack is that the disappearance of the United States would instantly destroy 25 percent of worldwide GDP, thus causing mass starvation of millions inside China, Russia, Iran and North Korea as well as the Third World.

    But what if the Axis is fine with that? What if its calculation is that a thinning of its own populations would make the imposition of tyranny over its peoples more manageable?”

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] September 12, 2014 at 1:39pm

    The full story, as published in the magazine, addresses just such a concern. Part of the problem is that the weapons we document have been created and tested have no fingerprints. We would not know who launched it. Unless you’re OK with bombing everybody we suspect without evidence, our retaliatory measure would be extremely limited.

    Responses (2) +
  • [6] September 12, 2014 at 1:35pm

    At least someone got what we were going for.

    Responses (4) +
  • August 12, 2014 at 1:54pm

    From your keyboard to God’s ears.

    Responses (2) +
  • July 23, 2014 at 6:16pm


    Responses (1) +
  • July 23, 2014 at 12:52pm

    Just to be clear: That “boooooo!!!!” is for Mike, not the wonderful Donna Summer (or her version of MacArthur Park).

  • July 23, 2014 at 12:48pm


    Responses (2) +
  • [2] July 22, 2014 at 3:24pm

    Sorry you’re unhappy with the magazine. In our defense, one nit to pick: TheBlaze magazine comes out 10 times a year (much like many national magazines) not every other month.

    Responses (1) +
  • [1] July 22, 2014 at 2:05pm

    I have seen the Olbermann video. Spot on.

  • [2] July 22, 2014 at 2:00pm

    The piece isn’t about the greatness or non-greatness of FNC.

    This is about the lousiness of MSNBC. This is only a small excerpt that happens to mention FNC in the poll. The rest of the piece, which is THOUSANDS OF WORDS LONG, is focused on the scandals, machinations, etc of MSNBC.

  • July 22, 2014 at 1:48pm

    $202 million in profits in 2012.

    Responses (5) +
  • [3] July 22, 2014 at 1:45pm

    We could have also cited this poll, from Brookings:
    Interestingly, in that survey, MSNBC barely beats FNC among liberals.

  • [5] July 22, 2014 at 1:41pm

    The piece isn’t about FNC. It’s about MSNBC, which came in 2nd in the “least trusted” list.

    Responses (13) +
  • July 10, 2014 at 4:44pm

    That’s why we encourage Blazers to get the magazine and share it with others.

  • [5] July 8, 2014 at 11:39am

    Policies should disqualify a person, not his W-L record. So yes, you “can scoff at his Romney Care, expanding our police presence in the ME, and 2ndA issues” all day.

  • [4] July 8, 2014 at 11:27am

    Heavens, no. And I don’t think Mitt’s likely the guy for 2016.

    Let’s just not scoff at the notion of a Mitt re-run simply because he lost twice.

  • [15] July 8, 2014 at 11:21am

    Not that Mitt Romney is Ronald Reagan, but remember that losing twice before does not and should not necessarily disqualify you from running again. Reagan lost the nomination in 1968 and 1976 but came back to win it all in 1980.

    Yes, losing the nomination twice is very different from losing the nomination once and the general once, but twice-lost does not mean you can never win.

    Responses (10) +
  • April 28, 2014 at 2:04pm

    It goes back further than that: