Wow! So you weren’t in the courts, heard no testimony nor any evidence, yet you’re willing to play judge, jury and executioner over an issue you know little to nothing about. You are now by your action a sad example of armchair judge who is willing to get riled up and pass judgment based on little to no information.
July 29, 2014 at 9:08pm
She inherited 6 million from the book deal and is looking to make another 10-15 million from the movie that is already in the making. This will hardly leave her destitute.
Chris Kyle's "charitable foundation" inherited 6 million plus the movie rights - not his widow and children. Technically, the 1.8 million will have to come from Chris' estate and not his charity. So, it could very well leave her destitute without the help of a separate foundation set up for the kids. I would love to see her declare "bankruptcy" to dump the jury verdict, then live off of the foundation funds. Can't throw her in jail. No "debtors prison" here in the U.S.
 July 29, 2014 at 9:06pm
It doesn’t matter if Kyle died, the jury found that he harmed Jessie’s reputation due to his book and interviews, therefore he owes a debt to Jessie. Now let’s be realistic. Kyle’s wife has already inherited 6 million from the book and will probably make 10-15 million more from the movie that is in the making. A 1.8 million to Jessie will hardly leave her destitute. Also, none of you here were in the jury, so none of you here heard the whiteness testimony. Obviously the testimonies for Jessie were more convincing than those for Kyle. In fact, the very fact that the jury was willing to rule against a national hero seems to suggest the evidence against Kyle must have been pretty compelling.
Jesse is a thin skinned baby that has NO problem with taking money from a widow. What a POS! Apparently he has serious manhood issues and should get some help! What a sick jerk! And, I understand what you are saying about the money his wife will receive, but it is the principle of the thing. You don't sue widows....it is another example of the disgusting way our society has downgraded itself.
 June 29, 2014 at 12:27pm
Are we all not beggars? Do we not petition God daily for support and protection? Is it not also one thing to give a beggar money, which they may or may not blow on drugs, versus giving them food or clothing, the basic of necessities for which any in need would be grateful. We are commanded to take care of the poor among us, neglecting them is a sin upon our heads.
 May 24, 2014 at 4:46pm
Are you kidding me!? I disagree with 99% of what the man says, but at least he is honest about his beliefs. I would take an honest Bill Maher over a fake Tea Party Patriot who says one thing to the people, then stabs them in the back when they get to DC. Also, the purging you seem to be suggesting would be one at the sacrifice of the 1st amendment. Did you not realize that his whole speech he just gave was basically, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it”. He was telling his own people to back off, and here you think its time for a purge? Tolerance is the price of freedom, which means we live among those with whom we disagree with. We may speak out against them, but never suggesting anything near resembling a purge. It is only through persuasion that real change needs to come.
"It is only through persuasion that real change needs to come".
Persuasion you say ?? Like two men feeling each other up on
public TV for our children to see, yeah, lovely !! The Gay
Gestapo threatening businesses with law suits and Hollywood
pushing this crap for years.. and you speak of tolerance, they
have NO tolerance for our views and morals, you just have to
realize some of us have integrity and WILL not evolve...
 May 23, 2014 at 11:41am
As a USAF veteran, coming from a father and grandfather who are also veterans, to include my brother, and not to mention 2 brother in laws who are currently serving, I do not feel a need to thank vets for their “service” for and wars that have nothing to do for our national security. In truth, I am angered that their sacrifices of blood and distance from family and loved ones are being wasted in lands where they are not wanted nor respected. I am angered that these men and women suffer in body, mind, and soul for nothing more than failed foreign policies that abuse them and their families. You want to thank them!? Elect leaders/statesmen who hold a sacred value on their lives, who will not be so anxious to use their bodies for other nations civil wars.
You serious?? I can totally appreciate you being upset with our government. I am too! Of course they have screwed it up and will continue to do so until we take it back and make it what it was designed to be, but not to honor those who are fighting? Those boys and girls willingly signed up and swore to do what they are told. I am sure the average private would rather not be there, but they are ordered there! Respect them for that!
April 13, 2014 at 12:43pm
You’re ASSuming the Federal government actually has any constitutional claim on the property. As the U.S. Constitution specifically limits the powers of the Federal government, and as it has not been granted the powers of which the BLM is claiming, it is the Federal Government that is breaking the law, claiming land rights which it does not have constitutionally speaking. The Federal Government should not own ANY land, especially outside of DC. All the land that is not privately owned in each state should be owned by the states and not the federal government. This is the constitutional argument RANCHER is making, which constitutionally speaking, is correct. An important truth NEEDS to be realized: The federal government has been overstepping its constitutional bounds for many decades, and until the people become educated enough to realize this, and vigilant enough to stand against this, tyranny will continue to grow. Just because they have gotten away with this for generations now does not mean we should not take a stand NOW.
April 13, 2014 at 2:41am
The Blaze isn’t innocent on this one. They are blaming unpaid dues as the reason for the cattle confiscation. In truth, even if the man had paid the dues, they would still be there confiscating his cattle due to the “endangered desert tortus”. From reading the articles by the blaze, you would think this was all about dues, which it is not. Regardless, where in the constitution is it enumerated that the federal government can even create a Department of Land Management?
April 13, 2014 at 2:39am
The Blaze is misleading on why they began confiscating this mans cattle. It wasn’t because he refused to pay the grazing fee, but rather due to a damn turtle! It is due to the “endangered desert tortus” that is making it “illegal” for any rancher to have their cattle there. In fact, other ranchers had previously taken their cattle there to graze on the land, but after the DLM ruled the land belonged to some damned turtle, no one has been “allowed” to have their cattle graze their since.
April 2, 2014 at 8:42pm
No, you should not get an asskicking practicing your free speech, that is the point of the RIGHT. I am an veteran of the United States Air Force, and one of the motto’s we lived by was, “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight for your right to say it.” Though the Marines action were well intentioned, they just broke their oath when they violated that mans rights instead of protecting them.
February 21, 2014 at 7:54pm
For her own sake, and for the sake of her son, she needs to forgive him. A heart filled with anger and hate will do no harm to the man she holds it for, but it may/will have devastating affect on those about her and herself.
Well said Captain77!!!
Check this link out... someone get her this book! Here is a story about a man my family knows. Similar story YES but how it was handled is amazing. Christ has an amazing gift of healing for all that will except it!
My heart goes out for this lady. She has had a terrible loss and is still keeping herself is a cage of sorrow and misery so tightly kept that no glimmer of Christs loving embrace of comfort and love can sooth her aching heart
My heart also goes out to the driver, I could not begin to imagine what grief and turmoil would wrench my heart if I were to have been the cause of such a loss!
May the good Lord bless them and wrap them with his ever sweet love and spirit!
January 30, 2014 at 5:30pm
I feel bad for the dog, but cops have a nasty habit of shooting other peoples dogs all the time! Perhaps this will give cops a moments pause before they feel a need to shoot anothers dog now that they know what its like.
You don’t need a special law for this. The constitution enumerates the “freedom of association”, meaning we have a right to choose with whome we associate with and whom we will not. We don’t need to point to religious freedom, just our right to choose with whom we wish to associate with. It is as simple as that. Not sure why that argument hasn’t been put forward yet when it is the most simple and most direct concerning this issue.
You /shouldn't/ need a law like this, yet it is likely many clergy would be taken to court if no such explicit protection actually is in writing. The Constitution doesn't matter. They ignore it. Probably the same myopic view that will have this law struck down as unconstitutional, and force clergy to practice against their faith, or provide places of worship to celebrate what they consider profane.
Many states have a 'Human Rights Law" which states you cannot discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation (among several other things). So if you're in business to serve the public, you have to serve the entire public. In my state, it would take a pubic referendum to change that law, which is highly unlikely.
You don’t need a special law for this. The constitution enumerates the “freedom of association”, meaning we have a right to choose with whome we associate with and whom we will not
..I would agree as long as you didn't accept funding from whom you wish to decline service. For example, if you accept govt. funding,SBA federally insured loans etc., those funds are paid/guaranteed by the folks you wish to not serve. Don't take their money via 3rd party and make a stance for refusal directly. Take it all or none.
Maggie, those state laws are unconstitutional. They were promulgated by black robbed princes and princesses.
Jim, funding has nothing to do with rights. If the government chooses to steal money from some in order to give it to others, that's their choice. That doesn't give them any right to trample upon the rights of others.
Maggie Old Girl, I would love to be kind and sincere as I respond to your post, and offer my contention that your universe of soul less dingleberry sniffers are merely a passing phase of ever-deteriorating road-kill, bound for the trash heap of history.
But my sense of decorum has been permanently bush-whacked by butch-waxed
bimbos. In short, the only person you are convincing with your deleterious diatribe is cracking the mirror in front of you.
I am sure you must think I have some personal vendetta against you. I do not.
It is your blasphemous babble spouting dark as light that twists my knickers.
The problem is with forcing a business to create / make / serve something that directly violates their faith.
*It is usually not a denying of a general service.
So saying it compares to outright rejection of people based on color is not an apples / apples comparison.
For example, gays go into a Christian baker's shop and buy pre-made baked goods or order some general cakes to be made, etc. All good.
Going into a shop and saying I want a wedding cake for a gay couple with two guys / gals on a cake is the issue.
Let me preface my remarks by saying... I know this is the internet, but I am going to share my own business experience to give some insight.
Because of the name of my business I have had some people call me up and have me out to their home. While there they would be chatting it up with me about themselves. Being clueless at their intent I would just smile, nod, etc... but it has occurred to be now that they were letting me know they were gay, proud of being gay, etc.
However, a general service call did not make me go against a tenet of my faith.
The court cases that have arrived are from targeting known or suspected Christian shops and making sure the owner KNOWS it is for a GAY wedding in order to elicit the desired response.
Go to some of the big name LGBT sites and read their agenda. They do this to find out and "punish" the shops that refuse to violate their faith.
Gay issue is =/= Black issue of 60s
What's this constitution you speak of? Sounds really awesome. It seems like something we ought to have here in the USSA.
Well, Captain, apparently we do. We have to spell it out because of situations like the bakers up in Oregon, or the florist in Washington State.
We opened this can of worms when we let civil rights legislation go too far with out a peep against it.
The correct answer, then and now, is to force the state not to play favorites. Equal enforcement of laws and regulations that allow private businesses to operate as they please free from coercion in either direction.
If Joe's Diner won't serve coloreds, fine. I'll open a restaurant right next door that does. We'll see who gets business. But if uppity whites fire bomb my place or intimate or murder my customers or employees, investigate, charge, and punish those responsible.
Jim, funding has nothing to do with rights. If the government chooses to steal money from some in order to give it to others, that’s their choice. That doesn’t give them any right to trample upon the rights of others.
..if you take tax dollars in any form you damn well better allow ALL tax payers in. If you think it was stolen money..why don't you not take it,however if it was stolen from blacks,gays, catholics and you take it..serve them. Or,don't take the "stolen" money. However,if you decline public funds..I agree, allow whoever and refuse whoever.
"So if you’re in business to serve the public, you have to serve the entire public."
I can see both sides of this issue and have no clearcut answer. However, I would really prefer that homosexuals who wish to have their preferences respected, out of courtesy do the same to others. Then this would be a non-issue.
January 12, 2014 at 1:17pm
Low life’s; yes. Only a lowlife would target innocent children. Cowards, not so much. Takes a lot of courage to be willing to kill yourself for a cause. However, what stuck out to me in this story was the selfless courage and sacrifice this young man had for his friends and classmates. There is no greater love.
January 7, 2014 at 7:59pm
If you pay the fine, then you’re not rebelling or protesting obamacare. The government gives you 2 choices: either get healthcare or pay the fine. Choosing option B is not protesting, but rather consenting to the government. If you really want to take a stand, don’t get the insurance and don’t pay the fine! If the government really cared wether or not you got insurance, the a fine wouldn’t be an option. This is about control, not healthcare.
December 31, 2013 at 12:03am
I am a USAF Veteran just as my brother is also a USAF Vet. My father served in the Army as did one of my grandfathers; the other in the Coast Guard. I currently have two brother in laws serving in the military as well as many friends who have served and are still serving; so what I have to say, I have more of a right than many here.
Damn these wars, and damn our leaders for sending our best men and women to fight, bleed and die for a cause that has nothing to do with defending this nation nor the Constitution. This nations sons and daughters are being sacrificed to the point where they come home with broken bodies, spirits, and minds, for they are fighting a war that is neither moral or just.
Because of this statement, some here may think I am a progressive hippy who is anti-war. What it really means is that I put a greater price upon the blood of our servicemen and women than most here. I hold their blood so sacred that it is only in the defense of THIS NATION, of THIS PEOPLE, of THIS CONSTITUTION for which is should be spilt.
You see, the cost is more than just blood, but also in family. These are sons and daughters, husband and wives, mothers and fathers that are torn apart. The distance alone causes families to fail. Men come home with broken minds, and families fail. And for what?
If you really love and support our troops, bring them home to their families. Bring them home to our borders. Just bring them home. My sisters would greatly appreciate that
Captain77: You have EVERY right to say what you just said. I stand with you 100% on this. I served in the Navy during Nam from 65 to 69 aboard the U.S.S. Boston. God Bless You, Your Family and Friends. Thank You for serving also.
CAPTAIN, Dakota himself said this, "I mean you’re looking at a man face to face who’s fighting for his country and what he believes in just as much as you are. But it’s got to be one of you.”
The question is who was morally right - the invader Dakota or the defender fighting for his country? That Dakota won in this fight does not make him right. Or noble.
And if you can't bring them home, at least don't tie their hands behind their backs with rules of engagement that leave them barely able to protect themselves. Dakota Meyer and Captain Swenson won CMH, and the two captains who refused to provide the close air support and artillery support that they called for had their careers ruined for doing what the White House mandated rules of engagement required. If you go into a war, you go into it to WIN. If you aren't interested in winning or willing to do what it takes to win it, you don't go into it. If you take rifle and rocket fire from a village, respond with howitzers and tac air. After you've reduced a few villages to smoking piles of rubble, the next village will be a little less willing to provide support for your enemy.
I am so on your side of this, my son (USMCRet) was over there, His cousin (Army) was there, my grandson (USMC) was there, and his brother (USMC) on duty in Washington, but may yet go. Not one of these good men is worth a fight for oil or people who do not want us in their countries telling them what kind of government to have. Bring them home and when and if some country is dumb enough to take us on here, then our men can fight.
You have the right to say whatever you damn well please. The 1st Amendment guarantees that. Please don't think you "can't" or "shouldn't" say something just because someone might disagree. If people don't like what you say it's their problem.
There's a lot of truth to these comments.
To me the issue is leadership on the civilian side. War is terrible but unfortunately and inevitable part of the human condition, however our civilian leadership is pretty stupid about war.
A fight, whether at the national level or a fist fight in a bar is best avoided if it can be, however once it commences there is no turning back. From that point onward you are there for one and ONLY one purpose: to win.
Gen. Rupert Smith (Ret.) drives home this point quite well in his book The Utility of Force. Either win, or don't enter the fight. That's on the civilian leadership.
The issue with entering wars we're not "in to win" is that we rapidly become a paper tiger. The enemy thinks "Sure, they'll do something but not enough to get rid of us". Which is exactly the type of actions on our part that breed further aggression towards us. They think we're weak so they do what they want. Case in point: Iran.
@Captain77 Ditto, ditto, ditto, and AMEN that!
Our "leaders" call people who think this way "Isolationists." In fact, it's Conservative to be "NON-Interventionist." That's what this country used to be.
Ike was right!
"The question is who was morally right – the invader Dakota or the defender fighting for his country? That Dakota won in this fight does not make him right. Or noble."
Big time disagree with your assessment here. You are attempting to put the decisions of the politicians upon the shoulders of the individual soldier. I retired long before any of this started, but I would have never gone into any area with the attitude you seem to exude here, and just pull a DIP. FOOBARED made some good points to you last night as well. I know that you have claimed to have served in one of the services in the past, but now you are all for our troops to just die now that you are no longer in? Sorry, but that is just sick. Take your complaints to our politicians in charge and stop rooting for our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines to just die.
Captain…FANTASIC! You are correct 100%.
You are dead bang on. My son is on his 4th tour of duty in this pointless war. As far as I am concerned, the purpose of our entrance into Afghanistan was met when the SEALS killed bin Laden. No way in hell can the US be able to nation build a country that has a culture of tribal based government and monarchy.
My family has served in the US Army during the Spanish American War, WWI, WWII, Korean, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Time to come home.
I am a Desert Storm veteran with 5 years in the Army as a Sapper. That's a Combat Engineer and I was a paratrooper. My dad is a navy veteran, his brother (my uncle) is a Korean war veteran, my father in law is a Viet Nam veteran and my sister's oldest is currently serving in the Marine Corps so I guess by your own standard I have more right than you to address the issue.
That said, are you trying to tell me that my service in Iraq meant nothing? Are you really trying to say that protecting the world oil supply from a greedy dictator was not in our nation's interests? REALLY?
I think maybe you need a little perspective. In WW2 we lost more than 4500 troops per day. Almost 1.2 million. WW1 320k, Korea 128k, Vietnam 50k.
In both current theatres of combat since 2003 we have lost a total of 4489 troops. Less than we did in one day in WW2. By comparison we lost 4068 troops in the spanish american war in 1898.
Now this doesn't include wounded but please spare us the histronics over the broken and bloodied men. I'm one of them and I'm not interested. I knew what I was getting into and had no problem with going to war....even if only over oil!
To finish my previous comments: I will add that I was under the impression that we have left Iraq in 2011 and our troops in Afghanistan have been under NATO control for years. We are not currently running combat operations but rather are in a training capacity and our troops are only allowed to fire on someone if first fired upon. Standard non combat operating procedure. So I'm not sure which pointless wars you think we are currently in.
I completely agree with you Cap77. They are trying to get as many of our guys and gals killed as they can. All for NOTHING. Now, Afghanistan? We are there for the minerals-gold, silver, copper, nickel, diamonds, rubies and emeralds. They are there by the zillions. It takes great pressures from high mountains to create them. That is why we are there. It is total B S.
Captain, I thank GOD for you and your families service to this country. I understand your stance, as I wouldn't know not being in the service myself. I do feel, however, that if we were attacked inside our borders, I would look to people like you for leadership and direction, as we the People would be required to defend this nation with the firepower that the constitution grants us the right to own.
As a fellow USAF Veteran, I salute you sir. I am going to guess that the Captain in your avatar implys that you are an officer. As an enlisted member, I agree in part with what you are saying. As the wise old saying goes. "The soldier prays the hardest for peace because he pays the highest price when war breaks out". WWII was the last war America fought in that she felt her existance as a nation was at stake. Starting in Korea we have fought civilian run and staked wars. The trend in the AirForce now days is to promote officers that know little to nothing about the art of war but know everything about politics, political correctness and a liberal agenda. I see it every day, little to no leadeship but a ton of manage from the rear mentality. If we are going to spill the blood of our nations greatest treasure. It should be with a fury of angels, no arms tied behind your back, no weapon off the table. The preceding is an enlisted man's personal opinion. If anger anyone (liberal/liberaltarian) thank you for making my day.
November 24, 2013 at 11:52am
Your sounding like a liberal Yams. “We’re the government and we have a right to regulate your life!” If the government derives it’s power from the consent of the people, and this man does not give his consent, how do they have power over him? I didn’t know the king, I mean state had a rightful claim on all the wildlife. Yam, there are ways to protect “food sources” without interfering or violating individual rights, and yes, licensing, which is another word for taxing, is a violation of this mans rights.
June 16, 2013 at 1:19pm
Snowden a whistleblower? What did he reveal that we didn’t already know? The real question is, why is it suddenly now being made into a big deal, when in fact we have known for years that this has been going on?
June 7, 2013 at 1:56am
Atheism and secularism are just belief systems like every other belief system, including Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. To say that a person cannot express their belief because it could be interpreted as forcing a belief upon another is hypocritical, for are not the atheist and secularist doing just that. This young man did well not only in expressing his belief, but did so in a respectful way that stood up to those little tyrants who would have had him silenced.