Either he forgets, or he pretends to: others have these emails, possibly Assange, possibly the Chinese, possibly the Russians — but certainly the NSA.
 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.
 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.
 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).
jhrusky, while skirting his pledge to support whomever was nominated, I can't hold him accountable for not endorsing the likes of Donald Trump. It's my opinion Trump was "hired" by Bill Clinton, at that "secret" dinner the two couples had, to destroy the election process and hand the election to Bill's missus!
That pledge was rendered null and void when Trump slandered Cruz' wife and father.
He agreed to support the candidate, not endorse. The agreement didn’t specify the level of support. He bashed Hillary and the dems pretty good. He even said build a wall. That is support.
Did he break his pledge? He didn't endorse any other running candidate.
To the extreme, what if Trump were Hitler - should Cruz endorse him because of a pledge?
What about the RNC, that pledge was signed believing the RNC and the candidates shared the same principles - if we no longer share the same principles, does the pledge still stand? Who really broke that bond you speak of? As far as I'm concerned, the Republican Party left me.
How many pledges did Donald make to his wives? Were they broken?
Tell me if someone called you a liar, make real negative comments about your wife and father than turned around and ask your for your help to further his career what would you do. Now Cruz did congradulate him on winning the primary and stated he would not vote for Hillary that is showing support. Cruz does not need to endorse Trump
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.
 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?
I agree completely, but they will use the you have to have "standing" crap to sue.
Question: if a gay couple pounds on Springsteen's door and demands he play at their wedding can he refuse? Under this new precedent it would seem not.
Bingo! Not to mention refusing conservative radio hosts and politicians the PAID for rights to use their songs as bumper or theme music! For the MILLIONTH time conservative business owners… Don’t tell them why, just tell them “NO!” When they ask why, answer them like you are talking to a four year old (which you basically are). Because I SAID so. You do NOT have to give these people a reason. No reason, no lawsuit. The end.
Springsteen, I've boycotted him since he hit the music scene. I prefer a little more talent and less Springsteen.
The reason that no suit has been filed is that it would lose in court. A business permit plus advertising is the offering of services to the entire public. Discrimination for certain reasons is clearly illegal. For example, you could refuse service to any person with blue eyes and be within the law as long as all races were held to the same rule. You could refuse service to people with red hair. Red hair or blue eyes do not identify race or place of national origin. But if you refuse to serve all white people you will be sued. If you refuse service to one white person because they stink like a dead goat or don't wear shoes it is perfectly legal.
 March 9, 2016 at 8:15am
Gosh, how we need common-sense Libertarianism here!
 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.
Truth be damned... they hate Trump and thats all that matters.
 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: http://tinyurl.com/q398gfo
Naturally the fine would be paid in escrow, it will surely be reduced to less than 10% of the first amount once a sane judge gets the case.
 December 4, 2015 at 4:21pm
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?
I talked to my sister,nervous in So. Cal tonight. I told her NOTHING, no theory, you can make up about this insane gov't we have now is impossible!
 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.
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.
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 . . .
Sounds like Benghazi 2.0.
Reminds one of Fast and Furious, gun deal gone bad.
 September 9, 2015 at 1:27pm
Someone didn’t estimate very well the bandwidth they would need for this.
I'd go as far to say, I get better bandwidth on my Galaxy note 4 than what they're using here.
 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.
umm no... The government shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. This means that the government shall not establish an official religion, nor shall it favor one religion over another so therefore when the SCOTUS recently ruled, they were directly discriminating against the christian religion. Also btw, the way our government is SUPPOSED to work is that either the states' bicameral legislature or the federal bicameral legislature makes the laws the SCOTUS decides if they are constituional.
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!
God decides marriage, not the gov't.
She will obey the King of kings, which is 100% more important than "gov't endorsing religion".
 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.
 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.
There is no such thing as separation of church and state. It appears no where in the U.S. Constituition. The term does however appear in another Constitution...the Russian Constitution. The phrase was first coined in a letter from President Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1801 affirming their right to be free of government interference in the practice of their Baptist Faith. Fast forward to 1947 when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black made mention of that phrase in his Everson vs. Board of Education ruling. Why?? because he hated Catholics and he was trying to find anyway possible for the government to not give any money to Catholic schools despite the fact they had a superior track record in educating students. So now we have generations of people, including yourself that things that separation of church and state is a fact...it is not. What is fact is the the Establishment Clause.
KTurn16 is correct - the separation of "church and state" is a concept referenced in letters as being "implicit but not stated" in the Constitution.
 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 . . .
 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?
 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?
Absolutely...give him some novocain with a knuckle sandwich...
You got that right! He wouldn't have any teeth left to fix huh!
Yes...it would be interesting to see the dentist...in traction!
I' ll second that.
I used to come on Blaze frequently, watched Glenn from the start. There used to be a great group of informed people on here, most of what I see today are ignorant people who's first and only answer is kicking someone's teeth in. Use your brains. Educate yourself before you comment. As we say in the Military don't just complain bring an answer. Well if not this then what? How would you go about extracting a tooth without the child flailing about and causing serious harm to herself? Oh let me guess you would have knocked her out completely? Well then you have no idea the risks of anesthesia. General anesthesia carries risks, and to do it for a tooth on a child? Which is worse, the possibility of death/brain damage, or being frightened for a few minutes? Which actually if the NO2 was running the child probably wont remember anyway. I have had many dental procedures with NO2 and don’t remember squat! If you have been on the Blaze long enough you have seen at least one story of a girl who died due to anesthesia in a dentists office. With today's technology semiconscious sedation (NO2) with a papoose is the way to do it safely. The equivalent to your ignorant statement would be to electrocute me for using a defibrillator on you when your heart stops. That F'n hurts and is scary as all hell. Use your brain for more than spewing violence. PS I am NOT a Dentist, so I'm not just sticking up for my own.
@Navydoc2008 – you’re wrong on several points. 1st. Most dental procedures such as having a tooth pulled only require numbing of the area and a topical application on the gums to blunt the sting of the needle. 2nd. Most dentists have experience dealing with children and will delay or cancel the procedure if the child’s behavior poses a problem ie., risk vs. risk. Further, the parent’s presence also has a calming effect on the kids. If the parents are the problem, then there's procedures for that too. Third, kids are more resilient than you think they are, I remember getting fillings at 10 years of age. I was scared but I just accepted that it had to be done. Fourth, the use of a papoose board is a restraint. That is its sole function. It’s a frightening experience to be placed in one and know that you are completely defenseless, helpless. Now imagine a 8 year old having to deal with being strapped down and no mommy or daddy for moral support….how could this have turned out any other way. Fifth, it is part of the design of policy to ban parents from escorting staying with their kids – precisely because of the parent’s reaction to the restraint. It is arrogance on the part of the dental staff who attempt to justify that policy.
Finally, you need to lighten up on your reaction to the comments about the dentist’s teeth. It’s just a verbal release of outrage. Most rational people would not actually assaul the dentist - for legal reasons anyway...