No, he played dumb on the whole kit and kaboodle! He only acknowledge today, because he had no choice, that he knew about her private email account. In fact, we all found out today that Obama's administrative staff all knew, and had, Clinton's private email address and knew about the private server. E-mails from 2009 show that Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod understood at the time that Clinton used a private e-mail account and server for official business. What were you saying about those LITTLE DETAILS???
July 1, 2015 at 4:45pm
Yeah that works so well the first time didn’t it.
 July 1, 2015 at 4:22pm
Funny level = 0
[-3] July 1, 2015 at 4:16pm
They didn’t have to, they already enjoyed the same rights as everyone else.
[-3] July 1, 2015 at 4:13pm
Wrong – they upheld a right, not created a new one.
Hey upheld nothing, since no such right was in the Constitution to begin with. It was created out of whole cloth.
Yeah, tell that to a NAMBLA member suing for the same consideration. If liberals have their way, you'd better keep a close eye on your children or grandchildren. There's your "upholding of a right"!
[-1] July 1, 2015 at 12:04pm
The corollary to your argument then is no one except Christians can marry. You can imbue religion into marriage if you choose to, that is your choice but not my requirement. As far as the law is concerned religion has nothing to do with marriage, Specifically, Christianity doesn’t own marriage
[-4] July 1, 2015 at 11:45am
If she feels her job duties betray her religious convictions it is incumbent on find another job, she doesn’t get to pick and choose which duties she has to carry out. This is cut and dried.
[-1] June 30, 2015 at 9:44am
Seems the only head’s exploding these days are the Blazers.
[-10] June 30, 2015 at 9:40am
If you love God so much why do you publish a lie? Isn’t that a sin? Nothing about your marriage, or anyone’s marriage, has changed one iota, absolutely nothing.
[-2] June 29, 2015 at 5:11pm
Six black churches burned down in a week – - not a peep from the Blaze. Let’s all make sure we blame Obama for that too right? I mean radical racists aren’t to blame, what else could we expect them to do, right?
Obama creates more racists daily with his extremist racial division...
CIA false flag... /chuckle.
Well, if this turns out to be a racist group or individual for at least four of the churches. One can speculate it is the NAACP, Obama, Jacksons, and others that have continually spinning the fans of racial hatred. It sure seems queer that we have not seen or heard of Racial violence prior to this man taking office and turning the fan on.
[-2] June 29, 2015 at 3:12pm
You just made a strong argument for the side that believes truth is subjective – which it is except for truths (facts) relating to the physical world.
June 29, 2015 at 2:54pm
She has the same religious freedoms now as she had before the SOCTUS ruling, she can practice whatever religion she chooses, follow whatever customs that dictates. What she can’t do is ignore her duties as a public servant, she can’t impose her religious beliefs on others in her capacity as a clerk of the court. No one is forcing her to remain in her job if she chooses to feel her religious beliefs forbid her to issue marriage licenses to same sex applicants – that is her religious freedom.
It is not codified in law but it has become store policy... http://www.nbcnews.com/id/17665989/ns/business-us_business/t/target-shifts-muslims-who-wont-ring-pork/#.VZGQjflViko
Islamic employees who refuse to work the register ringing up pork products no longer get to work the register; they can go stock shelves or something instead and Target will have cashiers who will actually perform cashier work.
So that's kinda like the case in Texas - do the job or they'll find someone else who will do the job.
Simple - Thank you for you kind words. Lol
June 29, 2015 at 1:47pm
States do not have the right to not follow the Constitution and Federal law.
 June 29, 2015 at 1:43pm
A law is not unlawful just because you say it is. You can think that if you choose but it doesn’t make it so. No law was created by the SCOTUS anyway, only a ruling that the right to marriage is equally applied to all.
They created the "right" to marriage. None existed before this ruling.
Everybody already had equal access to marriage, the traditional union of a man and a woman. A heterosexual OR a homosexual already had the opportunity to join with someone of the opposite sex in marriage, though the latter would be unlikely to choose to do so. A heterosexual OR a homosexual already was afforded the opportunity of uniting with someone of the same sex in a civil union or similar contract with the state, though the former was unlikely to do so. Both of these conditions already had been equally applied to all.
[-4] June 29, 2015 at 1:37pm
What was purged other than an unequal application of a common civil right?
[-6] June 29, 2015 at 1:34pm
She works for men (public servant) not God. If she wants to be a gatekeeper for God then she should work in a Church, not for the government.
[-8] June 29, 2015 at 1:33pm
“Christians are to obey human law except where that human law violates God’s Law.” Well then clerks should not issue marriage licenses to anyone who was ever divorced either should they? Or anyone that eats shellfish, pork or has a tattoo either. I mean you can’t pick and choose which of “God’s laws” you going to abide by can you?