Of course they’re complicit. They’re a part of the entire Marxist obama/clinton regime. Lynch just took the 5th on the ‘ransom payment’ to Iran.
 October 27, 2016 at 8:16am
No, this is what will happen:
Trump will win by record turnouts of conservative voters. Then before Jan. 21, 2017, a national emergency will be declared due to the rapidly deteriorating conditions in Europe and the Middle East. It may be due to some planned ‘false flag event’, but it will happen. Then the boy king will remain in office as he wants to do. There is no way in hell the establishment is going to allow someone to take control of power who could end their gravy train.
As ridiculous as all that sounds, I literally believe (assuming trump wins) that there's no less than a 20% chance that actually happens.
 October 26, 2016 at 8:45am
You actually believe the slop you write? Take personal responsibility but vote for Clinton? Are you mad? What has taking personal responsibility done for this country so far? Wake up! The establishment has rigged the entire system to greatly favor themselves and they will NEVER, EVER change those rules. They will make promise after promise to you, as they have been for 50 years, yet once election is over, it’s back to feeding at the public trough. How’s your obamacare doing? How about your retirement nest egg? What percentage of your income are you giving in taxation? How about the same of 320 million other Americans?
Look, Trump may not be Mother Theresa, but there are only 2 possible choices to put into OUR White House this election cycle: Clinton or Trump. If you have been following what is going on, and what she believes in, Hillary will remove a good part of the 2nd amendment, and the 1st as well, likely the 4th and 10th also. What chance will we, as a nation, of turning the tide after 4 years of her? The rules will change even more, illegal immigration will skyrocket, and there will be little to no chance at all of changing their gravy train game.
THAT is why I am voting Trump and truly believe anyone who loves this country must; not because he’s great, but because he’s our ONLY chance, sort of bloodshed, that we get America back.
 October 26, 2016 at 8:36am
And this is EXACTLY what Clinton will get you — just as Obama favors Islam, Clinton does as well and will bring in tens of thousands more refugees that are literally impossible to vet. You will receive exactly what you deserve per who is put into office.
 October 26, 2016 at 8:32am
And how are you going to clean it up? Put Clinton into office so she can finish the destruction of America? You antiTrumpsters are exactly what the establishment wants to continue their gravy train and their perversion of what our country once was. Trump may not be a good choice, but he certainly will not be as bad as Hillary and those are the absolute ONLY possible choices this election cycle. Useful Idiots indeed!
 October 24, 2016 at 4:17pm
“Though the intent of publishing the list isn’t exactly clear …”
Isn’t exactly clear? What tool at The Blaze writes this slop? Of course the intent is clear! Geesh!
[-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.
 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.
 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.