Yup, it’s almost like Trump and Ailes worked together on this so the Donald didn’t have to face the music and every questions could be a hit piece on Cruz. And there’s too many people up there. John Kasich, Jeb Bush, Rand Paul and Chris Christie aren’t going to win, so why give them the lion’s share of time?
 January 28, 2016 at 11:53pm
Who cares what that fat-a@@ said. He’s just running to get another TV show. And who cares where the banks are, is B of A or Wells Fargo (both in Charlotte) any better? Huckabee is barely a conservative, and he shouldn’t be running for anything after he pardoned someone who went on to kill again.
Huckabee will be Kim Davis's fifth husband. Mark my words.
Wow, Wow, wow... Huckabee is a "fatass"? What would that make Cruz? Shamu?
 January 28, 2016 at 11:48pm
Ailes and Trump are in-cahoots on this one. Trump doesn’t show up so he doesn’t have to face the mounting questions about his very liberal statements within the last year, meanwhile, Fox plays a hit piece on Cruz mid-debate and that Libtard Wallace acts as the hatchet-man. Meanwhile, Trump goes unscathed as he’s off raising money for his own charity, I mean vets, of course it’s all about the vets. This is the extent the establishment, which includes Trump (follow the money he’s donated), is willing to go to take Cruz out.
 January 28, 2016 at 11:42pm
e tu Blaze? Cruz made the point that Jeff Sessions and Steve King, both widely regarded as two of the most anti-amnesty people in Washington, both corroborated his story. His amendment was a poison pill to the Gang of 8 bill and one of many amendments he proposed to make the bill workable. Ted Cruz has led the charge against amnesty and now one of your writers is going all Chris Wallace against Cruz.
Absolutely correct, could not have said it better myself.
How about Megyn questioning Cruz after the debate? She came right out and said that she went back and looked at Cruz’s position at the time, and he is right when he says that he’s always been against both a path to citizenship and general legalization. So why did her question and video montage paint him as being in favor of legalization when she KNEW he actually wasn’t?
During the after debate interview she states that she didn’t like the theater of Cruz saying one thing when he really held a different position. Maybe Megyn Kelly should ask herself this same question.
BTW, I actually like Megyn Kelly, but I think she blew it here. This was far more unfair than asking Trump in the first debate about sexist comments he has made. (On the hand, Cruz should have had a better answer. It's not the first time he's been asked this question.)
Problem is, at the time he said the amendment was NOT a poison pill. He's playing both sides. The people that were there, Paul and Rubio, both called him out for his duplicity.
Your going to be crushed when Sessions endorses Trump.
Trump won by a landslide and I will tell you why.
Debate on fox chanell only
Trump event every channel and internet live feed.
So 5 million seen the debate and the world seen the Trump event.
The next president is a genius
The amendments were a way to make the Bill work. The only reason they were Poison pills is that the Gang of 8 had no intention of actually reforming immigration. It was all about the amnesty. Cruz's amendments exposed that hypocrisy; and, even though they did not even though they never even got to a vote, their introduction and the responses by the Gang of 8 to them, ultimately exposed the truth and kill the bill. Cruz's purpose was to either make the bill one he could support or expose and kill it. He succeeded in the latter. There is no duplicity involved on Cruz's part.
May 27, 2015 at 1:35pm
Spend your time removing the plank from your own eye, pharisee.
 May 27, 2015 at 1:34pm
@bgerald You wouldn’t understand. There’s a reason they call it the “Chair Force” and they call us Devil Dogs. One other significant difference is that we’re kind of a tight knit group. I don’t know any of these other Marines on here, but whether it be on the Internet, in a bar or on the battlefield Marines don’t need to know one another to treat each other as brothers. So please, don’t be disrespectful to the Sgt. Major. He was trying to politely correct someone who was calling our fallen brother a soldier. Personally, I don’t care much what people say about me when I’m dead, but please don’t let them call me a soldier, or a sailor and fight them if they call me an air-man.
[-1] May 27, 2015 at 1:22pm
Well, I’m done with this site. You cannot just post graphic pictures of a mother holding a little boy who’s been shot with no warning. My heart sank and I feel nauseous. Ask most veterans what the hardest thing to forget is and for any who have seen it, it’s the dead children. Seeing this picture has pretty much ruined my day.
ROFLMAO!!! The ENTIRE headline tells you that "7-Year-Old Boston Boy Shot as He Rode His Bike to Buy a Bottle of Water. Video Captures Mother’s Horror as She Finds Him Bleeding on the Sidewalk."
Are you so dense that you did not know a 7 year old boy was shot, that a video "captures the mother's horror", and that it is on the video. Did you expect to play the video and find kittens playing? If you were going to be "oh so outraged" why the hell did you click the play button? FFS everyone wants to be a victim... please don't come back, jog on over to the democrat #Iwannabeavictim website, right now and claim your very own 15 minutes!
Here ya go, redeem your day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOjI3JXJw40
I'll bet sunsets make you cry.
 May 26, 2015 at 4:16pm
It’s not disrespectful to not want to see certain things. As a former Marine, who needs absolutely no help remembering because I remember every day, every hour, sometimes every minute. I think it’s irresponsible to be surprised by things like this. I like the Blaze, but this site is a dumpster fire of Internet trends that went out a decade ago. Pop-up ads, pages that take forever to load, cluttered layout with no responsive design. Calling someone else disrespectful who doesn’t want to see that seems, well, disrespectful.
Not if you talk to a congregant of Buckhead Church. They are quite open and proud of the fact that they are 'gay friendly'. I have talked to quite a few of them and they think it's a positive thing. If it saves one soul, maybe it is.
In 1Corinthians, Paul addressed sexual issue, and really pressed for admonishing Brothers (fellow Christians), but of those visiting the church?
5:12-13 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you.” (Expel the Christians insisting in sin without repentance, not guests)
Stanley walks a tight line that could only be fully understood with ALL the facts.
Schmig: "not only was the gay couple attending Buckhead, but that they were serving on one of the church's "guest services teams.""
Read the article.
I read it. Thanks for the heads up. Oh... thanks for the years of great comments.
PIG PEn I can't see any answer in the article. First the writer and stanley are friends and he stated "I heard that your church is becoming "gay friendly" whatever that means". First off what person here does not understand that term "gay friendly" . Christian churches should be sinner friendly but I am getting the impression that Stanley's church does not address the homosexual sin. It would be like a prostitute coming to church every week but making "dates" with the attendees . My Pastor clearly teaches that all sinners are welcome but leave the world behind .
 April 21, 2015 at 11:24am
Well, if you actually knew Andy Stanley or knew about him, you’d know that he drives a 5 year old car, takes a rather meager salary and donates all of the money from his books (which are priced very cheap to begin with) back to his church. You may disagree with what he does or how he goes about it, but he’s anything but a “whore”. I have personally heard the man preach that homosexuality goes against God’s teaching, but perhaps if you’re so concerned with the message being diluted and the affront it represents to the Almighty, you might want to work on the plank in your own eye and put the stone down. Remember, you and I will both need to give an account for every idle word we speak (Matt. 12:36). Also, you might read your Bible and see the Apostle Paul did not chastise the Athenians for their idols, instead he use them to make inroads to spread the Gospel, which is what I think Andy is trying to do.
Pig I have read the Bible. But I also read the article Gonz had posted. I may be wrong to judge so harshly, but my question still has not been answered. And by the reasoning would you want crack heads doing crack in the pews?
About the plank, I do not own a church. I have other issues but one is not being hypocritical.
God bless you and I will pray about what you posted, maybe I'm wrong.
 April 21, 2015 at 11:16am
So I hear this a lot that Christ did not teach hate, and He didn’t, but he also didn’t teach intellectual tolerance either. Truth by its very nature is absolute. Something cannot both be the truth and a lie at the same time in the same context, despite what many professors may teach today. I think perhaps you’re working with a faulty definition of hate, which means to feel intense or passionate dislike towards something. Believing that something goes against God’s teaching and is therefore sin, does not mean that you hate the individual carrying out the act.
I do not believe that homosexuality is a good thing, but that does not mean I hate gay people. You probably don’t agree with many of the things most of the people in your life do or say, but that does not mean there is a causal relationship towards hate. Jesus taught that He was the truth, in fact he said that, “Everyone who loves truth listens to My voice.” There are not different versions of the truth, truth is absolute. I believe Jesus died and raised himself from the dead. He said that homosexuality was bad, so I accept Him at His word. He also said, love those who hate you, pray for those who persecute you and so I do, or at least try to. Jesus did not teach us to hate someone in return, but He also didn’t teach us to compromise ourselves or His truth in the process.
Also, the 10% of the population being gay thing is a red-herring not math. The study you reference used prison inmates as its subjects.
 March 1, 2015 at 4:58pm
While I would support Walker, and he’d be a lot better than Romney, this is why I’m concerned. His abortion credentials as well as his credentials on immigration are pretty weak, combine that with the fact that he’s a career politician and I rank him as the 4th best candidate behind Cruz, Paul and Carson.
 February 22, 2015 at 12:16am
Some murderers are unrepentant, others just hide it, either way it’s murder and we’ve allowed genocide to occur in these United States.
why would you allow genocide? that's pathetic. if i was wrong like you and really believed, as you claim, that abortion is genocide... i wouldn't sit back and watch like a spineless shill. How's that working for you? you sleep at night letting genocide happen?
February 21, 2015 at 6:55pm
While I agree with the sentiment, I believe you are in serious error to lump Joyce Meyer in there. While I may not agree with everything she teaches, her teaching in no way treats the Bible like a self help book (even though God intended for us to find answers on how to live better in it). Furthermore, it is wrong to attack brothers and sisters in Christ, debate their ideas, rebuke their actions, but if you feel fit to judge them I’ve got a pool I’d like to see you walk across. In the end Jesus loves you and is the only path to redemption, the rest pals in comparison to these truths.
Unfortunately Meyers qualifies as a false teacher. She not only has published that Jesus paid for our sins by going to hell for us also, but goes on to also teach: “There is no hope of anyone going to heaven unless they believe this truth I am presenting. You cannot go to heaven unless you believe with all your heart that Jesus took your place in hell.” Jesus did not pay for our sin in hell. The Bible is extremely clear that it was on the cross where our debt was paid, it was on the cross where the blood of Jesus was shed and accepted as a ransom for us – the cross was the place, the only place where our atonement was brought.
 February 12, 2015 at 5:26pm
Your reading comprehension would suggest you went to public school. What the author is advocating for is protecting children from the indoctrination found in public schools and how our culture could be changed through home-schooling. The not so subtle suggestion here is that we all should work hard to wrestle power from the Federal Leviathan. As someone who home schools their kids, I can say most home school parents teach evolution alongside creationism. We teach our kids about communism and socialism along with anarchy and libertarian-ism. With that being said, we do teach our kids to think what we think in certain areas, it’s called parenting and when we’re done our children are released into the wild to make their own decisions and decide if we were right or wrong. But maybe it’s indoctrination that has taught my 8 year old to write computer code and my 6 year old to read at an 8th grade level. You liberals are free to call it what you like, but I just call it effective.
January 31, 2015 at 7:24pm
How can you read this and arrive at that conclusion? Jesus loves the little Muslims, they are precious in His sight. God tarries only so that more may be converted, including Muslims. I know I struggle with this too, but we must forgive those who persecute us… Even Muslims.
 January 28, 2015 at 12:10pm
The way I understand it, if the man had been fired simply for being a Christian that would be persecution because persecution by definition is: hostility or ill-treatment because of one’s religion. This man faced ill-treatment not because of his religion, but because he rocked the boat. He could have made the same comment, while removing any Christian overtones and he’d have been just as fired. While this may seem like semantics, it’s more a case of stupid is as stupid does. The man could have taken a stand against the policy in a myriad of ways that weren’t nearly as inflammatory. Still, he worked for Ford. Ford was his boss, you may have to tell your boss they’re wrong from time to time, but you should be careful about how you do it. Or to put it another way “A gentle word turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” (Proverbs 15:1)
 January 28, 2015 at 11:47am
Honestly, do you think you’re changing anyone’s mind by comparing them to racists? While I would take umbrage with the comment he made from a theological perspective as well as a practical one, equating someone who thinks that homosexuality is immoral with someone else who believes that other people are inferior or deserve to die because of the color of their skin seems preposterous and diminishes the ugliness of racism. You might now know this, but is was largely Christians that led the charge to end slavery in the United States and it was largely Christians like Wilbur Wilberforce that led the charge to end slavery in the UK. Just because we disagree about homosexuality and don’t particularly care for being force fed the belief that homosexuality is something we should accept and celebrate, does not make us bigots and does not mean that we persecute gays. If you’d like to see persecution of gay people, take a look at what ISIS does to them.
Also, Jesus loves you, He really does and He loves gay people too. His commandments aren’t to oppress us, they’re there to make our lives better.
 January 28, 2015 at 11:26am
Let’s not reduce ourselves to hyperbole, shall we? While Christians may face unfair and inflammatory criticism, as well as having to adhere to a different set of standards, we are not persecuted. To claim persecution is to diminish, what our brothers and Sisters in Syria, Iraq and throughout Africa and China must endure. Furthermore, I fully support Ford’s right to fire him, just as I support my right to not buy a Ford, or another company’s right to fire someone for discussing their homosexuality at work. It’s their company, they should be able to do what they want with it without fear of gubb’ment intervention, but as Christians we should spend more time expressing our joy that Christ has triumphed over death, instead of focusing on these light and momentary troubles. Jesus din’t go to the Tax Collectors and chastise them for being tax collectors, he saved his contempt for the Pharisees, we seem to have a lot of Pharisees here in the U.S.
P.S. If you’re gay, Jesus loves you…also, if you’re not gay, Jesus loves you.
Of course this is Christian persecution. One does not have to be murdered to be persecuted. Having your livelihood taken away and your reputation destroyed for a Christian faith based opinion is indeed persecution. If you think the enemies of Christ will stop with this soft persecution you are dead wrong.
There are degrees to persecution just like everything else. Just because one is worse does not invalidate the other. For all you people who support Ford for firing a man simply for having a moral opinion I expect you to also support any company who fires someone for supporting LGBT or refuses to bake cakes for the perverts.
because of one's religion. This man faced ill-treatment not because of his religion, but because he rocked the boat. He could have made the same comment, while removing any Christian overtones and he'd have been just as fired. While this may seem like semantics, it's more a case of stupid is as stupid does. The man could have taken a stand against the policy in a myriad of ways that weren't nearly as inflammatory. Still, he worked for Ford. Ford was his boss, you may have to tell your boss they're wrong from time to time, but you should be careful about how you do it. Or to put it another way "A gentle word turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger." (Proverbs 15:1)
The way I understand it, if the man had been fired simply for being a Christian that would be persecution because persecution by definition is: hostility or ill-treatment
The article does not say this, but corporations do have programs where the employee is donating a portion of his/her salary to charities of the company's choosing. This would also be wrong if this guy felt his money was supporting a behavior that goes against his beliefs.
Sorta like my tax money, dont like what government is spending it on. It does not make it immoral though.
 November 10, 2014 at 3:54pm
Apologetics (from Greek ἀπολογία, “speaking in defense”) is the discipline of defending a position (often religious) through the systematic use of information.