TheBlaze Books Give You More!

CommentsDisplaying rayne's 10 most recent comments.

• Is the U.S. Military Really Planning to Court-Martial Christian Soldiers Who Proselytize? TheBlaze Explores the Stunning Allegations

  May 8, 2013 at 10:18pm

  And this, dear reader, is JOURNALISM.

  Thank you, The Blaze.

  Carry on.

• U.N. Wants to Stop All Production, Testing of Killer Robots

  May 3, 2013 at 11:45am

  In reply to piper60.

  Killer robots are a real problem. That’s why I have Old Glory Insurance:

  http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/old-glory-insurance/n10766/

• Meet the Teacher Who’s Bringing God Back Into Public Schools — But Who Says He’s a Big ‘Threat’ to Religious Conservatives

  April 15, 2013 at 12:45pm

  In reply to Lloyd Drako.

  I a “religious conservative” parent, I would certainly prefer this teacher to those who think that all religions or religious expression should be banished from the public square.

  However, as the above post shows so well, as much as I agree with this teacher’s aspiration to be critical and unbiased, he clearly does have a left-leaning bias against religion in general.

  It’s the same bias you see in the left-leaning Supreme Court justices: their answer for the problem of not allowing the US government to promote (“Establishment”) any particular religion leads them to the solution of imposing an agnostic/atheistic dismissal of ALL religion. They think this is the fair, “unbiased” point of view. Whereas, were they intellectually honest, they would admit that this is just putting their faith (yes, FAITH–because NEITHER the existence nor the non-existence of God, et. al., can be “proved”) in secularism–which is still just bias of a different sort.

  I doubt that it is possible, either practically or theoretically, to be truly “unbiased” on the matter of religion. (I think that is why Establishment Clause jurisprudence is so muddled–the Court equates “non-Establishment” with “unbiased” but doesn’t see the inherent logical impossibilities of government trying to be truly “unbiased”.) Unless, of course, you are truly agnostic to the point of apathy about the whole thing . . . and if so, why then do you care if there’s a menorah, creche, or cresce

• Gov’t Report: Racism Rampant in Justice Department’s Voting Rights Section

  March 13, 2013 at 11:36am

  In reply to civilwarcometh.

  Nicely done! You hit nearly all the latest buzzwords in the field of Education (I’m a teacher–I’ve heard them ad nauseum over the past few years): “[I]mprove … level of educational achievement”, “rigorous”, “well-rounded”, “lifetime of learning”, “evidence-based”, “best practices.”

  Now just throw in “assessment”, “community of learning”, “safe learning environment”, or “differentiated instruction” and I’ve got BINGO!

• Do You Know the Problem With This Piece of Russian Propaganda?

  March 8, 2013 at 5:05pm

  In reply to burdenedsoul.

  Dude, do you know how many times you just popped up on the NSA watch list?!? Keep your head down friend!

• Have You Thought About These Counterarguments to Allowing Women in Combat?

  February 22, 2013 at 12:02pm

  In reply to UNALIEN.

  Statistically, it’s actually a no-brainer. While, yes, in general men top women in most of the important characteristics that are required for front-line combat (strength, aggression, etc.), the “general” man or woman is not who we’re dealing with here. There’s a prerequisite level of competency that ought to be met for combat, and just because, on average, there will be more men than women that reach that level, we shouldn’t for that reason ignore all the women who CAN reach that level. An argument can be made that that is an idiotic waste of human resources.

  However, despite the statistics, I think I still agree more with the original opinion of Unalien: in the quest for “equality” our society has lost a lot of the respect we once had for women. Chivalry is dying. That’s not a good thing. Sending women to the front lines to do one of our ugliest jobs further chips away at respect for women.

  But then again, I can also see the other side of the argument that says that denying the women who do want to go is paternalistic and trying to protect them from themselves. It’s a tough issue all around.

• Islamic Group Accuses LEGO of Peddling Racist & Discriminatory Star Wars Playset

  January 25, 2013 at 12:12am

  In reply to Serenabit.

  No, no, not “Arabic”: These are Turks. Big difference: Turkey is where you get that wonderful confluence of European PC, liberal, there’s-a-prejudiced-racist-bigot-hiding-behind-every-tree-and-under-every-shadow nonsense and the particular Muslim strain of the-Crusades-never-ended-woe-is-us claptrap.

  That is what is going on here.

  I’m just miffed because now I have to get this Lego set sooner rather than later–before the price skyrockets.

• S.E. Cupp Gets Into Heated Debate With Co-Host Over Bob Costas’ Gun Control Rant: ‘Absolutely Absurd’

  December 4, 2012 at 11:58am

  Years ago Disney did a cartoon about this argument, only in it cars were on trial instead of guns. There was an actual courtroom and the car was on the defense stand being interrogated by the D.A. Really brought out the absurdity of condemning the inanimate object and ignoring the real people who have done something wrong and who are actually at fault.

  I think someone needs to dig that up. Could be instructive again.

• Comedian ‘Redistributes’ Children’s Candy in Hilarious ‘Obama-Style’ Halloween Prank

  October 31, 2012 at 11:16am

  In reply to LeadNotFollow.

  Or just wear a regular Obama t-shirt and tell everyone your going as a “journalist”.

• Should the NFL be tax-exempt?

  October 16, 2012 at 4:58pm

  I don’t know if you call this a “loophole”. They just match the IRS definition of what a “non-profit” is–which is actually pretty easy to do. “Non-profit” means all extra profits that would go to shareholders as dividends, etc., are instead not allowed to go to share-holders, but instead must be put back into the business.

  “Non-profit” does not mean “operates as a loss.” Non-profits still want to be in the black–you can’t operate very long if you’re perpetually in the red. But for some reason that hasn’t yet been challenged or changed (because no one brings up the issue), the IRS has decided that all non-profits are tax-exempt (in most cases).

  Note that while the tax code says shareholders get little to no benefit from non-profits, there’s really not many (any?) limits or regs. saying that employees/directors of non-profits cannot make an obscene amount of money.

  This article misses the mark. It brings up a point that is perhaps valid, but there are much bigger issues at play here. Like, if we redefine “non-profit” or change who is tax-exempt, where are those new lines drawn?