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
Just remember that next time a bunch of gays disrupt a mass. Rights have limits.
March 20, 2015 at 9:34am
It is clear most of the people here did not bother reading the article. Which is prett typical.
 March 20, 2015 at 9:32am
That is complete and total BS. The days you speak about never existed.
At the outbreak of WWI, there were over 500 German-language newspapers in the United States.
 March 20, 2015 at 9:06am
While this letter confirms the prejudices of most here, due to this confirmation bias, most here will be blind to the problem inherent in the letter. She has a lot of misplaced blame. Though she blames homosexuality for the hurt she felt growing up, it was not homosexuality that removed a father from her life — it was her father’s choice not to be part of her life. The blame for the heartache she felt falls squarely on the shoulders of her father, and no one else.
How do you know it was her father’s choice not to be part of her life? Most of these cases (lesbian adoptions) result in a household where it is preached that men are never needed. My guess is that her mother did everything she could to prevent the father from ever seeing his child. I’m certain there was also a good deal of brainwashing too by telling here as a child how much of a horrible person he is.
March 20, 2015 at 8:55am
Actually, we have not known this for thousands of years of human experience. For thousands of years, it was 1 father, 17 mothers…