“We can honor their courage and sacrifice by not being such lazy, selfish, apathetic, cowards”
Yes, because sitting at a keyboard writing articles for a website where the majority of the audience is so brave, Walsh. Bravo!
 April 17, 2015 at 2:24pm
Though many will dismiss this report because it does not confirm their prejudices and fears, it is correct — the Judicial Watch report is not credible, nor does it make any sense.
It claims that Mexican security forces encountered an active ISIS base on the border, and was able to retrieve intelligence, including detailed attack plans, from said base. Yet, if the base was active, how were they able to retrieve this intelligence? The Judical Watch reports makes no mention of a battle between the ISIS fighters and Mexican military, nor of any arrests. If the base was abandoned, or the ISIS fighters scattered, why would they conveniently and carelessly leave behind such valuable intelligence? These are supposed to be the masterminds of our downfall — seems hardly characteristic, and more like something the so-called JV team would do. The Judical Watch report makes no sense.
 April 15, 2015 at 10:58am
Because this “news” confirms the fears and prejudices of the majority of the Blaze’s readers, they are not looking at this with a critical eye. The Judicial Watch report does not pass any sort of smell test — the only way to accept this is if want it to be true, against all logic.
While the article is full of buzzwords to scare its audience, it is short of any facts that make sense.
The article says ISIS has established a base — implying this is a place that is permanently or at least indefinitely populated. Yet the article makes no mention of what happened when Mexican security forces entered the base — if they encountered resistence or not.
If the base was abandoned or otherwise unpopulated for whatever reason, we are expected to believe that ISIS left behind a host of intelligence, revealing their plans. Hard to believe they would be so careless — especially if they are the masterminds of the coming destruction of American as we are lead to believe. Unless they are indeed the JV team Obama labeled them.
However, the article implies that this base is still active, not abandoned, not unpopulated. If Mexican security forces entered, met resistence, collecting intelligence would imply they have neutralized the base. However, as stated before, the article says the base is still active. That being the case, how were Mexican security forces able to collect this intelligence? If the
[-4] March 27, 2015 at 9:21am
If Glenn had any interest in the truth, he wouldn’t be on his radio show at this very misquoting and twisting Norquist’s answers to last night’s question. For instance, when Beck asked about the Muslim Brotherhood, Norquist said, “Well, I understand from certain people that I run it or portions of it,” Beck twists what was a dig at Beck and Gaffney’s charges, into him not understanding what the Muslim Brotherhood is.
Beck is, simply put, a liar.
[-3] March 26, 2015 at 9:56am
It make sense for Norquist to balk at Beck’s offer. Beck has run him down for weeks now, devoting hours of both his radio and TV show to attacking Norquist, all but calling him a traitor and a grave threat to the Republic. Then he wants to offer a comparatively paltry single hour on TV to answer the charges — even when Norquist agrees to the interview, Beck is already running down and spinning what he thinks the answers will be.
And make no mistake about this. Beck, a big government social conservative progressive, cares little for the tenuous connections to radical Islam (notice Beck dances around the “terrorism” charges against al’Amoudi, never telling us what he was charged with…), but is more concerned with Norquist’s libertarian influence on the GOP. That is what Beck and Gaffney and Company, being a social conservative authoritarians, believe is the biggest threat — a threat to their vision of an America that is completely anti-immigrant, devoted to never-ending war, and where government enforces their views on morality, dictating our personal choices. Gaffney has been after Norquist for years, first trying to out him as homosexual, then when that wouldn’t stick, he tried a different tack — attacking him now for who he married, and grasping at whatever straws he can.
After they are done with Norquist, rest assured they will come after the Koch Brothers next, once they find the right angle.
The Koch brothers are open borders amnesty shills, just like Norquist. That's all the angle anyone needs.
Wow, clearly H-I-R never actually listens to GB.
* big government social conservative progressive - I'll gladly give you social conservative, thank you very much. Progressive? Them's fighting words.
* concerned about Norquist's libertarian influence on GOP - don't understand why GB would oppose libertarian influences, I think he would relish those
* an America that is completely anti-immigrant - aha - you just revealed yourself. You left out the most critical word ILLEGAL. GB is, like I am, anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant - as he should be. He is most definitely not anti-immigrant, as long as they got here legally.
* devoted to never-ending war - wrong again. GB has said many times, we need to bring our troops home when the job is done and we shouldn't be playing nurse-maid to the world. He does believe is supporting our allies when necessary, especially Israel.
March 26, 2015 at 9:46am
Digidave, and? By her simple birth she’s an extremist Muslim?
Perhaps by that logic Nancy Pelosi is a good, pious Catholic.
People like Robertson, and those who agree with him, hold themselves up as moral ideals because of their beliefs — yet examples like this tell us they themselves believe without their Christian faith they would be rampaging monster. If the only thing holding you back from raping and murdering is your faith, you are a terrible human being and should seek professional help.
March 24, 2015 at 7:31am
““respect for authority and obedience” is essential.”
So, the Blaze will be closing up shop and Beck will no longer criticize Obama, right?
March 23, 2015 at 6:19pm
So what? It’s deceptive. He had a captive audience, who had no choice but to be there.
 March 23, 2015 at 5:52pm
It was no accident Cruz kicked off his campaign at Liberty University, wanting it to appear as though he already has an army of the young behind him. But it’s deceptive. Every single one of those students was forced to attend the speech.
So what? They didn't need to be clapping just listening.
Also I can't think of a candidate besides santorum) who might get less of the youth vote.
Yeah, that's right, they were required to be there…and they even electrically wired up all the seats and used electric shocks to force them to applaud, cheer and spring to their feet in standing ovation!
I was "forced" to go to the classes for my degree...it was awful.
The rule is set that way in this university because these special speeches and convocation sessions are considered graduation requirements. They have many of them in a four year program.
Don't waste you time making more of it than it really is.
Of course they were required to be there. Most christian schools require their students to attend, one, for respect, and two, because there probably were a few tests on what the speaker was saying, so what's wrong with them being required to attend?
March 23, 2015 at 3:36pm
Today’s announcment and choice of venue are tell us much about Cruz’s character, the kind of campaign he will run, and what kind of president he will be. And it does not bode well. In his first act as a president candidate, he decided to engage in deceptive optics.
Cruz wanted to give the impression he has the youth of the nation behind him. In truth, he was speaking to a captive audience. Every single person in attendance was forced by Liberty University to hear him speak.
Funny how everyone here is blaming liberals and Muslims, saying this is the beginnings of Sharia Law in California.
On the contrary, this was introduced by a conservative Christian, believing he is helping enforce Christian morality. This is another ballot initiative he introduced in 2004 — to make the Bible required reading in California classrooms.
The "writers" here know most Blazebots
are on automatic pilot and dogmatic soapboxes.
If you read the article on Peter King and his opinions of Cruz
they are almost 100% "attack the messenger, (King)"
 March 20, 2015 at 9:44am
I should be amazed by how many people here claim to love the Constitution, but think those rights enshrined within are null and void the moment if they are exercised in a manner they do not approve of. I should be amazed, but I’m not. Beck and his fans are the very same big government, anti-liberty, anti-Constitution progressives they complain about.
As repulsive as Mr. Clark’s displays were, it was his right to exercise his freedom of speech in such a way. Mr. Dixon is no patriot, nor is he a lover of the Constitution — same goes for anyone who supported his actions. The moment Mr. Dixon set foot in Mr. Clark’s yard, Mr. Clark would have been well within his rights to defend his property, be it with fists or bullets.
Hey, not all of us are, I agree w/you he was exercising his right to free speech and Mr. Dixon should not have done what he did, I can understand why he did completely but it still doesn't make it right. We have to defend even those we don't agree with.
Also, I think some of these comments are from those that are not fans of GB but rather instigators. Know what I mean?
 March 20, 2015 at 9:36am
A person’s rights do not disappe.ar simply because you do not like how they are exercising those rights