User Profile: jhrusky


Member Since: April 01, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • [-1] September 21, 2016 at 8:55am

    ““If he’s using other people’s money — run through his foundation — to satisfy his personal obligations, then that’s about as blatant an example of self-dealing [as] I’ve seen in a while,” he said.”

    You’ve seen in awhile? Or at least since #CrookedHillary ‘s use of 95% of her foundation’s monies.

    Beck is obviously out to destroy Trump with the constant news pieces putting him in such a bad light. So sad to see this continue as I used to really respect him.

  • [2] August 26, 2016 at 8:30am

    Either he forgets, or he pretends to: others have these emails, possibly Assange, possibly the Chinese, possibly the Russians — but certainly the NSA.

  • [1] July 21, 2016 at 10:01am

    I will give you that — he didn’t agree to endorse although one would typically assume that. What level of support then becomes the question.

  • [1] July 21, 2016 at 9:51am

    Yes, when one wants to make their word mean nothing, they can find every excuse in the book. I guess there’s a different standard for some people who claim honesty and integrity.

  • [2] July 21, 2016 at 9:42am

    While I understand that, the fact still remains — he broke a signed pledge. Personally, I hold myself to a higher standard than that — if I promise something to someone, I don’t have to sign it in order to honor it — my word is my bond. Too many do not honor anything any longer. He has lost my trust. The ONLY thing he is apt to accomplish is to hand this election to Hillary. WIth her we KNOW we may not survive — with Trump it’s a gamble. This election more than any, I’ll choose a gamble before I will a known outcome.

  • [-1] July 21, 2016 at 9:32am

    Does not his word, his signature, his bond, on an agreement to support the Republican nominee no matter whom that is mean anything? I understand many do not like Trump, but 16 other Republican nominees made a promise. If you break one promise, how many others would you break is the question. (And I was a Cruz supporter until I saw that he feels it OK to pick and choose which promises to break).

    Responses (6) +
  • April 25, 2016 at 4:03pm

    Until millions and millions of people start making these demands, it will continue. These demands must be made en mass in some form that a ‘movement’ is created that picks up like a snowball rolling down a mountain.

  • [299] April 25, 2016 at 3:35pm

    And Springsteen, Boston and other leftist entertainers can cancel concerts and refuse to do business with an entire state whose laws do not fit their liberal ideology? Why is there not a HUGE lawsuit against these entertainers as the precedent has apparently been set?

    Responses (7) +
  • [4] March 9, 2016 at 8:15am

    Gosh, how we need common-sense Libertarianism here!

  • [2] January 29, 2016 at 8:06am

    The Blaze appears to be going the way of all other rags — it’s not news anymore, but politicized crap. I am NOT a Trump supporter, but I certainly can tell a ‘hit piece’ when it’s written. Shame on you, Glenn Beck, for allowing this when you proclaim objectivity in reporting.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] December 30, 2015 at 8:51am

    I just read this morning that this is being appealed and the couple has already put up the $140K in a bond-like payment that would sit there until the outcome of the appeal. Someone is listing the wrong news. Here is the article this morning:

    Responses (1) +
  • [16] December 4, 2015 at 4:21pm

    Another Possiibility:

    Some ‘power that be’ high up in the administration knew this was going to take place, and perhaps even assisted in some way. The reason being that they need another event or two in order to secure more outrage towards guns and get gun legislation passed. Obama wants that in the worst way even if it means another ‘False Flag’ operation. But, there may have been evidence in their apartment and it is going to be found by the FBI — so what better way to ensure the scene is contaminated than by allowing a hoard of reporters in?

    As I said, a couple possibilities . . .

    Responses (1) +
  • [25] December 4, 2015 at 4:21pm

    Something just came to mind as I was thinking about this — why would the FBI allow reporters into a crime scene to contaminate it? This is unheard of. It makes no sense at all. Something certainly is not right here.

    One possibility:

    These terrorists were planning an ‘incident’ and the FBI was working with them in as one of those 1000 potential terrorists that are on their radar, perhaps even involved in helping them obtain weapons and incendiary devices, later planning on arresting them with the evidence. The ‘event’ was not supposed to yet take place, but due to something said at this party, the terrorists decided to change that.

    So now, you have the FBI ‘involved’ — and if/when that information gets out to the public as to why it was not prevented, all hell will break loose and faith in the FBI would be gone. Since the administration is in charge of the FBI, that makes the administration look bad as well. Since the journalists are now all over the place, forensic evidence is contaminated and we’ll most likely never get all the information regarding it, thus saving face for both the FBI and this White House.

    Responses (3) +
  • [4] September 9, 2015 at 1:27pm

    Someone didn’t estimate very well the bandwidth they would need for this.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] September 2, 2015 at 8:55am

    I’m pretty sure you’re wrong. She can step aside and let someone else sign that document. But, to refuse the document and to refuse the marriage (which I am personally against as well), is tantamount to the government endorsing a specific religion and that is a bad thing.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] September 2, 2015 at 8:54am

    Nope. If this were a private business the clerk was working in, I’d back the clerk up 100%. But because it’s the government she is working for, she must leave her religion at home else we have a government endorsement of religion and that is not good. We must maintain that separation as our Founders stated.

  • [12] September 2, 2015 at 8:53am

    She is 100% correct here. While I am a religious person and do not agree with same-sex marriage, when you allow a government office to engage in religious actions you trampling on the separation of Church and State and that is a very bad thing. Especially the religious should understand what happens when government endorses any specific religion — just look at history.

    Responses (2) +
  • [1] July 28, 2015 at 8:43am

    She’s just another turd in the toilet bowl of progressivism who is unable to call a spade a spade while sitting in her ivory tower looking down upon WE THE PEOPLE shouting, “Let y’all eat cake!” Heads up, Mika, heads up . . .

  • [2] July 21, 2015 at 8:29am

    C’mon, Blaze! You used to be above this crap! As much as I dislike Franken, he stated what he did in the name of comedy. Trump obviously did not. Did you get into bed with the HuffPo?

  • [2] July 17, 2015 at 8:32am

    Has anyone checked into why he sports a muslim-style beard? Is it possible there are ties there that haven’t been thought of/investigated?

    Responses (2) +
123 To page: Go