User Profile: RajCaj


Member Since: March 02, 2012


123 To page: Go
  • [1] September 25, 2015 at 9:37am

    Yes….discrimination is tote-cools IF the target is perceived to need to be knocked down a peg or two.

    The new definition of racism that’s being taught in schools these days suggests that racial discrimination is ONLY racist IF the person doing the discriminating holds more “social power” than the target of said discrimination. In other words…racial minorities can racially discriminate against whites and it NOT be considered racist.

    On-top of that, folks in the uber progressive know would suggest that this “child” threatening sexual abuse to the teacher & her daughter is not liable for his statement because he is only acting out internalized oppression set upon him by white America.

  • [1] September 25, 2015 at 8:55am

    Also….there is a difference between individuals taking it upon themselves to electively engage in the use of solar & other renewables (see Glenn’s solar commercials), and the government dumping billions into a less effective form of energy and mandating that everyone pay more to compensate.

  • [5] September 14, 2015 at 4:58pm

    I can’t speak to why one story is shown vs another, but if you’ve listened to Beck for any appreciable amount of time over the last few years….he’s made it VERY clear that the answer is to address culture, not just politics. As such, there are a lot of non-political stories that run on this site that deal with cultural maters.

    The only Ellen Paige story I read on The Blaze was the one where she showed up at a Ted Cruz rally and challenged him with a few questions, to which Cruz responded. From a cultural perspective, why wouldn’t you run a story on how Cruz handled questions from an strong LGBT celebrity?

    Regarding this story……Tom Hardy’s sex life isn’t the subject…..the subject is an instance where a man that’s had other than straight sexual relationships in his life smacks down a softball thrown by a LGBT activist journalist, when given the opportunity to forward the “LGBT agenda” through the media / pop-culture.

    Unfortunately, that’s kind of “new” and news from a cultural perspective.

  • [5] September 14, 2015 at 4:52pm

    I don’t think all gay people tend to think others are gay. That said, they might have a higher appreciation than reality for how many people are gay….given (like most left leaning groups) they self segregate and surround themselves with like minded people.

    I wouldn’t call them delusional, but suffering from a little bit of normalcy bias if they over attribute how many gay people there are.

    I do agree with you on the last part, however. The question the reporter asked was a clear softball to give Hardy a chance to be a gay activist & speak for ALL non-straight actors / actresses…and whatever plight they go through expressing their sexuality in public.

    I think Hardy clearly understood the question, but purposely acted obtuse and wanted the reporter to explain some of the assumptions / implications in his question as a tactful way of pushing back. Had it been Miley Cirus in the seat, I think she would have been more than willing to take up that mantle and play along with the pitch & homerun setup.

  • [1] September 14, 2015 at 4:34pm

    Well in this case, Tom Hardy bucked the status quo of using his fame as a soap box for “insert cause here”.

    To answer your question though….they do it because they think that their fame & exposure will help move “something” forward, that they’ve been instructed or educated to care about.

    So if you’re gay, and happen to be famous….the expectation is that you fight for “your people”. In addition, I’m sure that philanthropic work among actors / entertainers has become the “button – flare” (see Office Space) of today. Not advocating for anything? Maybe you’ll loose out your audition to the guy / gal that IS donating to the cause.

    I don’t know if you watched the show Entourage (most here likely has not). If you didn’t, it was essentially a scripted TV show based loosely off of Mark Wahlberg making it in Hollywood / Entertainment USA. One of the episodes shows Matt Damon & LeBron James stalking the main character of the show (who just signed a big movie contract for a huge payday) and shakes him down for a donation to some philanthropic cause Damon was heading up. In the show, Matt Damon goes hostile after the star of the show declines to donate / do charity work. This bit was meant to be funny, and a self parody of the industry….but it can’t be a joke if it’s at least not half real. I fully believe that is how things have become for world renown entertainers.

    Some go along with it (see Matt Damon), and some don’t (see Tom Hardy)

  • [7] September 11, 2015 at 1:44pm

    Jeez….you people are being willfully ignorant with this.

    This guy is supposed to be an uber smart person (and I’m sure he is), but he keep getting the “he misspoke” pass after several cuiously worded tweets & statements that happend to crap all over his critcs?

    Also, it would be an entirely different thing if Trump smacked down his critics with substance (see facts, not platitudes) and grace. Instead, he takes to social media and levys insults like a 5th grader.

  • [12] September 11, 2015 at 1:36pm


    Seriously? What about Obama pushing a keynesia economic model on the US has anything to do with his supposed Islamist following? What about Obama leveraging Cloward / Piven & Saul Alinsky tactics to isolate & ostrasize opponents has anything to do with his Islamic roots?

    The guy might have a soft spot for Muslims, but his actions as president have EVERYTHING to do with his geo-political & ideologcal view of what “needs to be done” to fix America.

    Both Obama & Trump want results….with the Constitution, separations of power & checks n’ balances be damned. They might want different things….but their method is the same.

    Being okay with Trump using a Phone & a Pen to legislate his will, while compaining about Obama doing the same thing makes about as much sense as a Democrat that hated Bush’s over-reach as president, but is okay with Obama doing the same.

  • [4] September 9, 2015 at 10:14am


    As a Saints fan, I’ll be the first to back you up on Goodell not being consistent with how the NFL dishes out punishments.

    However, in this case….Goodell did go after Brady. It was the judge who let Brady go……the same judge found to be in attendance of uber elite politicians & entertainment figures at a party hosted by…….wait for it……Robert Kraft – Owner of the New England Patriots

    Tom may have benefited from preferential treatment, but his color was not the definitive reason he was let go.

    1) He’s a QB – the NFL will give preference to this position because it ensures points are high, which is good for business

    2) He’s a Hall of Fame QB – repeat above + extra protection (See the creation of the “tuck” rule)

    3) He’s a Hall of Fame QB that’s in one of the largest media markets – repeat above + glowing media coverage

    My contention is that if Cam Newton had Brady’s ability, track record & played for a team with the media market that New England does…..he’d get the same treatment.

  • [9] September 8, 2015 at 1:09pm

    Okay…but I still don’t understand why the administration went from “No Deal is BETTER than a Bad Deal” to “Bad Deal is BETTER than War”.

    The statements were only separated by a few years….not a decade. The first statements came along to bring the majority of folks along with the deal….and then the position was switched at the 11th hour, seemingly negotiating from a week hand if the only options made available to us is to accept what Iran verbally agrees to or go to WAR (lacking the authority & transparency to physically verify compliance).

    No political spin here….if a president Romney tried to convince the American people to trust the US to negotiate with Iran by telling everyone that we absolutely would not accept a bad deal…..and then leading up to the deadline told everyone that we had to accept a deal that is classified, but leaked to the public to reveal that it was BAD, else we have to get involved in yet another war these politicians know the American public is tired of…….would YOU call B.S. on those Republicans?

    So what if this is the “best” negotiated deal with Iran than any previous president? Maybe no deals were made by said prior presidents because none of them had the lack of intelligence or political incompetence to enter in a deal with a state sponsor of terror such that the US had no way to physically verify the Iranians held up their end of the deal?

  • [7] August 25, 2015 at 1:42pm

    There are times that “disappointing” the parent isn’t sufficient motivation for a kid to “not” do something.

    I got plenty of spankings and as an adult never resorted to “violence” as the “studies” will show. My parents also explained to me why I got the spankings, and they were reserved for dire circumstances.

    There is a difference between a kid growing up in a family culture where the dad hits the mom because the toast was burnt, or where the mom puts a cigarette out on their kid because they didn’t pick up their room……..and a family culture where children too young to comprehend the complex nature of doing something that potentially jeopardized their life, or the safety of others, get’s a spanking

  • [10] August 25, 2015 at 1:27pm


    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder….for sure, but to Judge’s point….this new amorphous – androgynous look w/ the half shaved head a lot of millennials are taking us is not attractive in my book….but then again, who gives a crap about my book lol

  • [7] August 25, 2015 at 1:24pm

    True…but if you think the MTV VMAs are garbage, you should see the new music videos coming out these days. (Check VEVO on Youtube or smartphone app)

    Even if you had a 24/7 music video station, it’d be filled with Niki Minaj Anaconda crap

  • [2] August 24, 2015 at 5:27pm


    I’ll take it a step further….he’ll likely have to not only maintain the “executive order” status quo set with Obama’s administration….he might have to step that up even more, given it’s going to be MUCH harder to “un-do” these laws / rules / policies that people are now dependent on, than it required to install them.

    That said, while the best case scenario, in this event, would include Trump reversing many of the executive orders that Obama put in place, it would also include a further precedent of the President skirting the constitution, and eroding the separations of power between the executive & legislative branches.

    It’s the PROCESS in DC that needs changing…not just the end results.

  • [-2] August 24, 2015 at 1:21pm

    I respectfully disagree as well…

    Real Estate / Construction is as regulated as most other industries. Where there is regulation (hurdle for free enterprise), there are deals to be made with the folks that wield said regulatory power.

    There are zoning issues that need to be cleared through so that a commercial building can go up where there was once residential or industrial zoned. There are all the building permits that need to be acquired, the labor unions that need to be accounted for (bought off),etc.

    As a matter of fact, real estate seems to be one of the areas you often find corrupted political / business activity. If Trump’s business in real estate is outside of the “crony capitalism” being talked about…..why did he pay off the Clintons, and many many other politicians on both sides of the isle?

    He’s an opportunist….and a great businessman….and by businessman, I mean he’s great at working the wheel of business / government to improve the net worth of Trump & his enterprises.

    Trump gets stuff done…..but so does Barrack Obama. That’s the issue for me. I have full confidence in Trump being able to build a wall on the southern border, and build a better financial position for the USA. I just don’t have full confidence he’ll do it on the up-n-up to the letter of the Constitution. If he has to do it through executive order, then his presidency will be as dangerous to our country as Obama’s.

  • [1] August 24, 2015 at 1:06pm

    I may be missing something, but I haven’t seen many “conservatives” advocate for anything you posted. Liberals yes….but most comments I’ve read from people likely voting Republican in 2016 never once advocated for mass illegal immigration, gov handouts, etc.

    I have seen people likely to vote Republican call BS on Trump’s “Have Mexico build the wall” plan….with most taking issue on the logistics of getting Mexico to build / pay for said wall.

    If you’re assuming “conservatives” are taking the position you mentioned because they reject Donald’s plan…that’s pretty short sighted I think.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-1] August 24, 2015 at 1:00pm

    I agree in that he’ll “give it hell” on any given issue he’s working on. That’s not my (or most’s) issue with Trump. It’s HOW he gets it done.

    If “putting in the effort” means he’ll fix any problem he can’t clear through congress through a pen & a phone, he’s no better than Obama, in regard to protecting this country’s people from tyrant governments.

  • [-7] August 20, 2015 at 2:57pm

    While I agree with your sentiment, the child discussed in the video did not die as a result of having it’s skull cut through. The heart beat was a residual effect….an involuntary reflex of the nerves that are still active after death of the child.

    It’s still horrific though

  • [1] August 18, 2015 at 5:44pm

    I guess it’s not logically correct if you don’t consider the aborted fetuses / babies human life.

    But if you do….while it may not be the #1 killer of black people, the abortion rate in the black community is far above any other race. For every 1000 black babies born, nearly 500 are aborted. There were figures released from NY in 2012 that showed there to be more black babies aborted than born. CDC also shows that of all the abortions of black babies, 91% were single…most likely in poverty situations.

    Draw what ever conclusions you want from that….regardless, there are some philosophical issues that need to be worked through in regard to how we think about life. There are degreed bio-ethicists with bonafides from Oxford that are pushing Functionalisim, and the idea that the right of a mother to end the life of her offspring should be based on what they define as “personhood”, which is not determined by some scientific measure of life, or development of specific body parts….but some arbitrary qualifier that tries to measure quality of life. These ethicists suggest that a mother can abort her child up until the age of 2-3….when they attain “personhood”, as defined by these people.

    How soon till someone takes that a step further and extends it to people over the age of 3, and for cases where they might have some handicap? (Hello again eugenics!)

  • [7] August 18, 2015 at 5:00pm

    The fallacy of “choice”…
    Outside of rape situations, TWO people choose to put their reproductive bits together…
    A woman chooses whether or not she takes / uses contraceptives to prevent STDs & pregnancies
    A man chooses whether or not he takes / uses contraceptives to prevent STDs & pregnancies
    If said man does NOT have said contraceptives, a woman chooses whether or not she will have sex with that man
    A woman & a man chooses whether or not they “pull out” before the baby batter gets to the oven
    Finally….a woman chooses whether or not she takes a plan B pill the next day after an contraceptive failure, or a string of bad “choices”

    Truth is, there are LOTS of choices that two people have to make before someone ends up in a situation where they are growing another human being inside her body.

    Furthermore, in regard to people shoving their sky god morality on others….

    While I’m not in favor of people pushing their religious code of life on others….there is something to be said for having a universal truth / moral code that doesn’t change with the winds & whims of time….especially when it relates to the sanctity of life.

    If we were all left to the zeitgeist of the times to determine our morality, we’d be following the lead of Bio-Ethicists, who received graduate degrees in medical practice ETHICS from Oxford, who are making the case for mothers to be able to “abort” their children up until the age of 2-3… Watch that slippery slope!

  • [3] August 18, 2015 at 3:25pm

    I get your political point….but seriously, it’s got nothing to do with The Blaze vs Al Jazeera.

    It’s about the value people are getting for the # of hours folks have to watch TV…with more & more people arriving to the conclusion that it’s just not worth it given the alternatives.

    Also….some cable providers include basic – straight coaxial cable to the TV – cable with the purchase of an internet subscription.

    I was paying almost $200/month for internet + digital cable / DVR service. I now pay $60 for internet + $8 for Netflix + $8 for Hulu Plus = $76/month. I loose some HD cable channels but HD broadcast stations come over basic cable. I lose the ability to watch recorded TV shows the same day they play, but Hulu Plus gives me access to most channels & programing the day after it plays.

    Between the back-log of content available on streaming services (Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc) & other forms of casual entertainment (games, social media), and the few good shows that are on TV….there just isn’t enough time in the day to take advantage of having 200+ channels.

    Responses (1) +
123 To page: Go
Restoring Love