Why do I have to respect Islam? Why is that a requirement? I don’t expect/demand you to “respect” Christianity. The only thing I expect of Muslims is to respect my right to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness. I’ll give my respect to people that earn it, not a religion.
Many in this country don’t feel Muslims respect those rights – since many of us, our sons, daughters, husbands, and wives have had to go halfway around the world to flight against Muslims because they don’t respect those fundamental things in anyone, including their neighbors – most are very leery of Muslims. That’s why you get boneheaded statements from the likes of Trump about banning Muslims. We don’t trust you – and your demands of respect for Islam make it worse.
Stop making demands, and get your muslim community to stop making demands. Instill the love of freedom and respect the rights/liberties of others first. Then we can maybe talk about being neighbors.
 February 25, 2016 at 9:35am
You are absolutely correct. This is also a major reason why I didn’t support Kasich and Fiorina after they made their encryption statements in one of the debates. They are dead wrong about encryption. Sure terrorists can use it – but encryption protects significantly more information from criminal retrieval and exploitation than it protects terrorists. Encryption is like a gun – it can be used for good or evil, depending on the intent of those using it.
This is also why I don’t support Trump – he is asking people to boycott Apple over this. Is that the kind of person you want to have any governmental say over this? You want privacy rights – you don’t get no privacy rights! You’re fired (citizenship revoked)!
December 2, 2015 at 3:01pm
First off, your premise that freedom & liberty being dependent is flawed. One can have open borders, with maximum freedom/liberty. You just can’t do that without controlled voting and no entitlements. If you eliminate entitlements outright then there is no incentive to immigrate unless it is about freedom and prosperity. Without earning the right to vote by assimilating, immigrants can vote in ways contrary to American principles – because they don’t understand them. They will vote for mob rule and destroy liberty.That’s really what the marxists want and why they are trying to bring them in droves.
Secondly, people on both sides of the aisle won’t get behind freedom. There are people on both sides that don’t want the People to have freedom, and principled freedom at that. That makes them less relevant, and less powerful. They think they are smarter than everyone, and they think they should tell you what to do. That’s not freedom. Many of the people in this country are tyrants – lower T. You give them enough power and they will be capital-T Tyrants. Guaranteed. There’s a reason real liberty is an anomaly through human history. Most people want it, but they sure don’t want anyone else to have it.
 August 18, 2015 at 4:02pm
Who decides another’s personhood? By what metrics is personhood decided? Sentience, creativity, intelligence, etc. are subjective metrics. Would you deny personhood to a 65yo woman if they had a stroke but is still ambulatory? They may have lost some creativity, awareness – they may have lost the ability to feel pain in their right arm. Is their personhood in question?
Is a mentally handicapped individual denied personhood? How about an Alzheimer’s patient? They may not understand who they are, or where they are. Do you understand the slippery slope one can go down? By having metrics such as those you propose, someone can change the definitions to exclude individuals that are undesired. That was the entire premise behind the eugenics argument that PP founder Margeret Sanger championed. That’s why the PP lexicon has the arguments that you make. Personhood and sentience are not objective measures – by design.
Here are some objective metrics by which to measure “personhood”. 1) Does the entity contain maximally human DNA? and 2) Is there measurable cellular respiration occurring in greater than 50% of the cells present within the said entity? If those answers are both true, then in order to terminate legally you must have justification to exercise lethal force. Meaning, is that entity posing an immediate threat of death or severe bodily harm to another individual? No? Then you CANNOT justify termination. Don’t like that? Come up with something more rationale and objective.
As with all things, society decides an organism's personhood. It has to, in order to make ethical decisions. To answer a few of your fearmongerong points, many mentally handicapped individuals display most if not all of the indicators of personhood. There are some who do not - looking at it subjectively they are not person's, and we treat them as such. They are kept under the careful watch of the State or of a caretaker and denied many of what most consider basic rights. It is neccessary to do so. There are other conditions and maladies that take someone outside the realm of personhood.
Not being a person does not mean they should be subjected to needless cruelty though. Animals are not person's and yet their slaughter is frowned down on. It simply means they are not neccessariky afforded the same rights as others, and thus the right of others and especially of society as a while takes precedence. If abortion lowers the the amount of individuals who will end up.living in poverty, bringing misery to those around them, it should be encouraged. If a woman does not want to carry a baby to term, that's her right. She is a person and it is her body.
You also mention eugenics. This is, I feel, uhh unrelated but I wanted to.point out that the idea of eugenics is not immoral. It's noble, it's good. What was evil was the tactics employed. In addition, eugenics' failure is an inability to see what traits are valuable. It's a lack of foresight.
CQ, you just keep on telling yourself all that gobbledygook you just wrote. If it's not a person (Human), then what pray tell is it? An alien? Oh, that's right. You probably think it's a "parasite." That's what the Liberal PP shills are calling unborn children these days.
Enjoy your "heaven" here on earth. It's all you'll ever have. You have my pity.
 May 20, 2015 at 12:38pm
As a Christian, articles like this tick me off. They are just as self-serving to ultra-conservative Christianity as the article says that GoT is to violent, nihilistic immorality. It only stokes the egos that have the exact same world-view, and repels those that don’t share that. How many people, Mr. Walsh, do you think your GoT commentary brings to God? I’m willing to bet that number is a big fat zero.
I do watch GoT – very few series have the sheer number of plots, story lines, and level of character development. Everything in our culture is so superficial; that’s why GoT is the phenomenon it is. People crave depth – and will seek it wherever they can get it.
In my opinion, GoT is a case study in WHY the world needs Christianity. It is a demonstration of what kind of world could come if Jesus isn’t known, and the values of Christianity aren’t embraced. It also is an example of the pitfalls of the human psyche and sin that are tangible to the everyday person. Jesus teaches love – GoT is a demonstration of the world without love. It has examples of why freedom is necessary (anti-slavery), warnings against perversion of justice (inequality under law), warnings against religious extremism (faith militant), and half a dozen other cases I’m not going to get into.
GoT is a prime example of a world without Jesus. If you don’t understand that, and see that as the opportunity to expand the Kingdom of God that it is, perhaps your faith isn’t as strong as you think it is.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, the depth of Game of Thrones is what keeps me watching, there's lots of sex and I believe the show would be just as good if the sex was toned down due to the richness, character development and Good vs. Evil, the politics of ruling in various parts of the show. It's great TV and often very disturbing and though a fantasy show much of it is real when you think of the things that man does to his fellow man. The world of GofT has many gods as we did in our early history but most of us subscribe to one now. Matt Walsh does the show and us a disfavor when he doesn't acknowledge the complexities of a show like Game of Thrones, take away the fantasy elements and nothing has occurred in the show that man hasn't done to man. Thank God we have Jesus to set us on the proper path.
Well your second paragraph says it all about why you don't like what he has to say...
"I do watch GoT – very few series have the sheer number of plots, story lines, and level of character development. Everything in our culture is so superficial; that’s why GoT is the phenomenon it is. People crave depth – and will seek it wherever they can get it."
Just because it the best of what is available..doesn't make it a good idea or a really Christian thing to be doing, don't you think? But of course you'll defend it, Satan has drawn you in and now you're trapped by what you think is a good and pleasurable thing. Drug addicts feel the same way and defend their activities similarly...I get it but I'm not going there...
April 14, 2015 at 2:54pm
The fact that all four were able to flee tells me one thing – this guy only somewhat knew how to use his katana. A good katana used skillfully at appropriate range against 4 opponents can dispatch all four in around 3 seconds. Likely with the first missing a head, the others have items that should be on the inside on the outside, and the last impaled through either the heart or a nice downward through the skull. They are lucky to have made it to the hospital.
August 23, 2013 at 1:12pm
OK. Excuse me in advance for some coarse language. Mr. President, if you are worried about what some balding dude sitting in a chair says into a microphone, you sir, are a *****. If your “Republican friends” are worried what that same balding dude says into a microphone, they are p*ssies.
Look, leaders aren’t p*ssies, because no one wants to follow a *****. Leaders have to have followers. The reason you can’t get people to “do your bidding”, is because anyone with a brain and a pair knows it is the WRONG thing for the country. No one with a brain and a pair wants the government all up in their business.
You aren’t a leader, you are an occupant. Face it – three more years and you’re fired. Permanently. And I pray to God everyday a whole slew of liberty lovers get elected to as many offices as possible so that they can unravel the giant charlie foxtrot you put in place during your tenure.
Even though I am an RMGO member, I don’t propose I speak for them as an organization; only for myself. However, from my understanding, this counter-rally is purely to counter the FALSITIES that the Bloomberg rally presents. Their list of “victims of gun violence” include not only regular people and suicides, but those killed by police in commission of a crime and home invaders; perhaps up until recently, Tsarnaev was on that list. Those kinds of additions aren’t “victims” of gun violence – that’s called JUSTICE.
So the anti-gunners need to get off their high-horse. This is a counter-rally to counter Bloomberg’s LIES, and has nothing to do with the Aurora shooting. We as Coloradoans all still mourn the casualties of Aurora.
The fact remains more people each year are saved by guns than are harmed. The fact remains if that theater allowed CHP holders to carry in that theater that night, the Aurora shooting either would never have happened, or the body count would have been far less. But it didn’t, and now a whole community here is associated with a massacre that could have easily been prevented by permitting people to exercise their rights to defend themselves.
Thank you for clarification. It would've been nice if BLAZE had decided to fact check this story for those important details before posting. The Blaze is supposed to be the the ones that get the whole story; the ones who tell the story without glaring omissions. This is just republishing the MSM storyline.
Do you have a citation or a website supporting the notion that more people are saved by guns than are casualties of gun violence? I have never seen any evidentiary support for this idea.
July 5, 2013 at 4:01pm
Nowadays, it really isn’t that hard to contact people. If he’s retired and the Pentagon says they can’t contact him, I would call “BS”. He has a military retirement plan, and I’m sure he has contact info on that so they can send him the checks. Additionally, just Google him, and I’m sure you can figure out how to get in contact. Anyone with his set of credentials certainly has a LinkedIn profile; just send him an email there. Come on, Chaffetz, sick one of your interns on that. If I can find his LinkedIn profile in less than 2 minutes, I’m sure your interns/staff can too. Be resourceful, Congressman. That’s one of the reasons you are in DC….
I'm retired military and I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that they know EXACTLY where he lives. I get mail at my home almost monthly from DOD and I was enlisted wit no where the responsibility of this guy.
Just more "playing dumb" by the administration so as to run out the clock. . . DISGRACEFUL!!!
April 29, 2013 at 3:53pm
My wife gives me grief for carrying my sidearm more in the house than out, but this is exactly why. I don’t give two rat farts if you have a badge or not, if you come to my house to take my kids without a warrant and assault me and threaten my wife, we have a SERIOUS problem. Anyone does that ****, and they’ll likely be staring at the wrong end of my muzzle. I’m prepared to die to protect my kids, so no one should think for one second I won’t kill to protect them too.
Of all the screwed up stuff I see happening, THIS kind of stuff angers me beyond…..
Afraid if you had done that... you're children would be fatherless. The police had hands on weapons as they entered the house. It's easy to say what you would do in that situation, at first I was exactly with you! Over my dead body! But I've about come to the conclusion that's what they want. For once, it looks like justice will prevail for this family. But again, nothing will bring back the two weeks without their child or reverse the possible emotional & psychological damage to the child
April 29, 2013 at 12:31pm
This woman’s statements don’t surprise me in the least. No arguments on either side shock me. Perhaps I’m getting more cynical as I age.
Of course “gay marriage” is about destroying marriage. Because at the foundation of marriage is a religious covenant. These are people that feel discriminated by people of faith. If you destroy the possibility for the covenant, then the religion is diminished. You can redefine religious institutions to legal ones, flip the legality, you can outlaw the traditions of religion, and therefore make religion illegal.
All this gay agenda, anti-gun agenda, abortion stuff are all facets of a war on freedom. You won’t be free to practice your faith or protect the ones you love. By normalizing abortion, it makes it easier to convince people that a child is a “burden” instead of a blessing, and when it becomes more of a burden, the “society” gets to choose if you should have it. Yep, that’s freedom alright.
The people that I really feel sorry for are teen girls right now that are dreaming of meeting someone that actually cares for them, falling in love, getting married, and having a family. Congrats, people. You are robbing your daughters of potential futures. They actually may be more fulfilled by being a parent in a loving marriage than a wage slave, and a c** dumpster for whoever guy happens to flirt with her any given month. Good job – because all that is GREAT for anyone’s self-image.
Fortunately, the pendulum always swings.
April 24, 2013 at 10:47am
Anyone with half a brain knows that is a most dangerous act to try. If you aren’t willing to personally come to my house and take mine, you have NO business forcing one of my brothers in law enforcement to do so.
Now, if you ARE personally willing to come, knock yourself out. Come and take ‘em….
April 23, 2013 at 3:43pm
Ann Coulter is a blow-hard, and not in a good way.
Listen up, Ann. She shouldn’t be in prison for a hijab, any more than you should for wearing a cross. People should just leave each other the hell alone. Knock it off with the militant conservative moral superiority. If she knew her husband was going to bomb people, THEN she should go to prison for conspiracy. If not, let the woman try to right her life, and take care of her kid. Be neighborly and kind and compassionate – who knows, maybe she’ll convert back to Christianity. Either way, be kind; don’t be the self-righteous p**ck you tend to be.
April 22, 2013 at 5:04pm
They don’t dine-n-dash, they just turn off the lights. And listen as the Canucks shriek in terror….
April 18, 2013 at 3:59pm
Here’s a fact, Gabby. While I’m exceptionally sympathetic to those impacted by gun violence, these background checks would do NOTHING to stop it. It wouldn’t have stopped Lanza, Holmes, or your attacker either.
Look, I don’t/shouldn’t need the govt’s permission to sell my property to someone I know. I don’t need some bureaucratic chair-filler to approve of my property sale to a friend or relative. It is MY responsibility to know their intentions and character.
Here’s another fact. If you are so worried about criminals getting guns, how about we DON’T LET VIOLENT CRIMINALS OUT OF JAIL! If a guy robs a store with a gun, how about you give him the prison sentence for that, and then tack on 20yrs because he did it armed. No possible parole on a felony gun crime unless 75% of the sentence is served. Trust me, no criminal is going to knock over a store/person with a gun, if he KNOWS if he’s caught (not killed first) he will serve a minimum of 15 years. A couple hundred bucks just won’t be worth it.
April 18, 2013 at 2:52pm
Man, I’ve seen a few tantrums in my day, but I would have hoped I wouldn’t have seen one from the POTUS. Oh no, you didn’t get your way – what a p***y….
April 12, 2013 at 11:07am
You’re wrong – they know EXACTLY what they are doing. It’s called covert warfare. Indoctrinate, propagandize, assume positions of power, and enticed the enemy to act violently. They WANT violent revolution; nothing entices violence like retaliation on an attempted violent attack. This will be show as one of the first initial spark attacks in the war – assuming the side of freedom and the rule of laws wins. If the other side wins, they get to write history, and this will be forgotten.
This is the time for coolest of cool heads – otherwise, we lose…
April 11, 2013 at 12:25pm
Here’s a fact: all gun control is unconstitutional. It is unlawful to infringe upon that right, anywhere under the jurisdiction of the US Constitution. Period. NY can’t lawfully have a firearm registry or permit program. A right is something you are entitled to. The government doesn’t have authority to deny a natural right. Only when you’ve demonstrated you don’t respect the rights of others, aka guilty of a felony, do you give up certain rights. But you exercising your rights is not lawfully punishable. The only acceptable limitations on that are locations where they under the express possession of a public or private party. Domain and possession are not the same. So they can limit your exercise in government buildings/facilities and conveyances. Outside that, they don’t have authority.
IANAL, yet as far as I’m concerned Bloomberg, Feinstein, Biden, Obama, Cuomo, Malloy, Hickenlooper and others are guilty of “Conspiracy against rights”, under 18 USC, Chapter 13 Section 241. They are THREATENING imprisonment when you exercise your rights under the 2nd Amendment, and they are all talking to each other to figure out how best to do it. Additionally, any officer of the law – DHS, DOJ or state/local law enforcement that attempts to enforce gun laws that are infringements on the 2nd Amendment are guilty of “Deprivation of rights under color of law”, under 18 USC Chapter 13 Section 242.
March 7, 2013 at 4:16pm
I don’t really like Holder’s response either. It still isn’t that explicit. It just says “combat”; mind you, one man’s defense is the other sides “combat”. So if I’m actively defending my life/family/property from an intruder or hostile forces, you could make the intellectual argument that I’m “engaged in combat against” the other party. I would like Holder’s letter to be worded that “a person not engaged in active, offensive military operations against the government of the US, in which law enforcement and/or military personnel are in IMMEDIATE danger, CANNOT be killed by a weaponized drone.” THAT’S the only verbage I would accept.