The ACLU constitutes one of the cruelest jokes played upon the American landscape. That these Progressive peddlers get to operate their twisted ideological game under a moniker that is at best a mockery of the words American and Liberty (though Union is spot on),and an example of the perversity inherent in the Left.
This one of those, wow…really? stories. Did he hate her so much that he killed her, then used her head to kill himself? Or “love” her so much (in a jealous, twisted, mistaken sort of way) that he couldn’t be parted from her? Did he think using her head in that block of concrete a metaphor for their lives? Twisted, for sure, anyway you stack it.
Maybe he threw the knife and it ricocheted and hit him.
 January 5, 2016 at 9:49am
“mistaken and conflated multiple events unintentionally”
So either he caught Heston’s Alzheimer’s*, or his mouthpiece is lying about his lying. And, I don’t see how it’s possible to lie “unintentionally” since it take a conscious effort to do it. You can be mistaken, can misremember, even misspeak, but to claiming the tale was unintentional is truly straining credulity (which is already in short supply in his campaign).
*(yes, I know that’s not possible, the quip was for effect)
 January 5, 2016 at 9:36am
Binky; The Right to association is also a Right not to associate. Did the couple sue people who chose not to go to the “wedding”? Your Rights go only so far as the next persons. No matter how hard you try, others can not be forced to believe as you do. You and the Gay Mafia, can never force acceptance. And stunts like this will only further alienate those around you.
If you want to repeal anti-discrimination laws, that's fine, argue that point. There's merit to it.
What is typically argued however is 'Christians should be above the law if they find it objectionable', which isn't going to happen. Either everyone obeys the law or we repeal it.
The law needs to be repealed and a new one written.
What Blinky actually meant to say is that his messiah Obama is typically above the laws he finds objectionable.
At least that would be a truthful statement instead of the bigoted, lying statement he made about his most generalized and hated population - those generic "Christians."
And when are you going to demand that the couple should be "above the law" for discriminating against their religious rights and the business owners right to their own labor. You are obviously a Democrat KKK and Carpet Bagger. Since you obviously still believe in forced Servitude, Slavery and being indentured to people against their wills.
Especially when it is by females that by gender/sex are befitting from the deaths of millions of males over the centuries for their rights to begin with. Because there is no way women have actually put their lives in the trenches and got their guts blown out for them to force people into labor for them. Even the payment will cost time, labor, resources and limited life of the individual. And the couple should be sued for such if any illness is a cause from them. Along with the Gv departments and people involved. Because all you need to do is prove someone else in those position would have done something different to resolve the issue. Which makes it about the person in the position.
 January 5, 2016 at 4:21am
Interesting that both Bay and the the people that made American Sniper felt compelled to challenge the Progressive narrative on their subjects.(through out American Sniper they pointed out that the “insurgents” were mostly foreign nationals not Iraqis, meaning it wasn’t an internal revolt the Left called it) I wonder how this will affect the filmmakers?
 January 5, 2016 at 4:10am
If they left that market for “greener pastures” I really don’t think that they should be allowed to return. May be put a cap in place, one move per franchise. To paraphrase and old saw…You can run from the consequences, but you inevitably bring the problems with you.
Raiders did it.
Oakland Raiders -----> Los Angeles Raiders ----> Oakland Raiders
Thanks to Al Davis. Thought he could make more money in the LA market.
Loved the Raiders and the 49ers when I was young. The Raiders summer camped in my home town.
Follow the money.......
 January 5, 2016 at 4:01am
Boy, could I be more insightful? (please see the end of the post:www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/01/04/here-are-the-specific-executive-actions-obama-will-take-to-reduce-gun-violence/#comment-10450564)
As to the basic premise of this story, well that’s not all that hard to predict. When has Obummer ever allowed the Law (Constitutional or otherwise) to stand in his way? Dictators “don’t need no stinking” laws. Revolutionaries (admitted or otherwise) don not have any respect for anything but their own views. This will end up on the docket of Supreme Court, guaranteed.
We can say Radical Islam all we want, it’s the spineless sycophants that can’t. It’s anyone who can’t see the problem that has been festering at the instigation of the Progressives. Here’s a “means test” for you, if any person applying or running for a position in government can’t (or won’t) acknowledge Radical Islam and define it correctly, maybe they should seek work with a Soros entity instead.
Generally speaking I lack the devious mind bent that is sometimes necessary to see where much of this might lead. But a few things did peek out from the smoke. More ATF agents (you know that trigger happy, storm trooper bunch from such episodes as Ruby Ridge) More money and resources going to that bunch of “geniuses” at USDS (like we need more government employees able to access our private information) Directive requiring the Justice Department “ensure smart and effective enforcement of our gun laws”….which includes the phrase “targeting ‘the worst of the worst’ gun crimes.” (I can’t imagine how this won’t be abused can anyone say focus on whitey) And the last and far from least significant, the following quotes: ” “engaged in the business” of selling guns” and “Health and Human Services issued a final rule expressly permitting HIPPA covered entities to provide to the NICS…necessary information. (nope, I can’t imagine how either of those phrases could bypass someone’s Constitutional Rights or be abused through their ambiguity)
January 4, 2016 at 7:53pm
I understand the practical application of the process, but if you don’t think that the leaders of the parties would not be able to influence the outcome you are being naive, and only a little less so if you think that they couldn’t find a way towards the outcome I mentioned.
 January 4, 2016 at 6:24pm
I could have gone the rest of my life without that visual, thank you so much….Oh! You meant Bill, not Hildebeast? Well, that’s not quite as bad, but still a disturbing image. If Hillary has anything to do with it, whatever they are they’re likely made by Master Lock.
Oldtimer; Exactly right, this was planned. Now he can claim he has already addressed the question. I wonder how much in Clinton Foundation funds was funneled to the reporter? Or maybe there was some quid pro quo of a physical nature, Ms.Vega is a huge step up in looks from his wife
The last point is the lesson that people should take away from this, use cash, credit is for large purchases like cars, homes, etc. Why risk the hit for a overpriced cup of coffee.
 January 4, 2016 at 6:03pm
I hate to tell you slayer, any job that involves either the government or unions can’t be considered free market. And I can’t think of many jobs at any University (other than the student worker ones) that don’t already pay at least $15/hr. And maybe that’s the target. It’s a real good idea…give the little brains full of mush an unrealistic idea of what their labor is worth, not.
His support would not have any sway on the procedings. A Convention for Proposing Amendments is run by the state legislatures.
The Article V Convention is limited by the Constitution to PROPOSING Amendments, which must then be ratified by 38 states before becoming "a part of THIS Constitution. There is no authority to "change the Constitution" at an Article V convention. It is highly unlikely that any Federal officeholder would be "head of an Article V Convention" (NOT Constitutional Convention. It is designed to be used by STATE LEGISLATURES to rein in the Federal Government.
I understand the practical application of the process, but if you don't think that the leaders of the parties would not be able to influence the outcome you are being naive, and only a little less so if you think that they couldn't find a way towards the outcome I mentioned.
Of course some like Rubio will have opinions. But the state legislators run this convention. And they answer directly to the people, who live right down the street from them and know their address and phone. And will vote them out if they do something foolish.
Moreover, disobeying the States directives can get a delegate (commmisioner) a fine, a felony charge, and jail time. So it is in Indiana and some other states.
Read Indianas Laws 2 control ArticleV delegates>http://tinyurl.com/m3plvfh
You do know Congress and the President play NO ROLE in a convention to propose amendments outside of Congress MUST name the place and time for it one the required applications are submitted...right?