Half truths, You missed my point. Many here were all screaming about Obama, his mother was a citizen, but Cruz gets a by. That is what is hypocritical.
[-11] December 8, 2015 at 1:03pm
Chloe, I will not vote for someone who has a dual citizenship. Many here on The Blaze slammed Obama for his father not being a citizen and accused him of being born outside the U S.making him ineligible to run Now, a lot of you are looking at Cruz, who has the same scenario, his father a Cuban with a citizen mother, but in Cruz’s case, Hi birth certificate IS from outside the country, why? Because he is Republican? Because he talks a good game? How hypocritical!
[-1] December 2, 2015 at 1:48pm
Utopia, waste of a vote? So you think I should vote for someone I believe is not eligible to be POTUS? That would be a wasted vote. Cruz was born in Canada, not even a U.S. military base. His father was a Cuban national when he was born. You can live in your brainwashed world if you want, I will stick by the true qualification that both parents have to be citizens at the child’s birth to be a natural born citizen. His situation is worse than Obama’s was for crying out loud.
[-1] December 1, 2015 at 7:02pm
Remember all the flack about Obama and his citizenship status? Now a lot of you go for a candidate who had to denounce his dual citizenship and where his father, like Obama’s, was a foreigner at the time of his birth. I would prefer Paul to Cruz. I will probably end up voting Libertarian.
August 19, 2014 at 8:31pm
Blest, I understand, and agree with some of what you are saying, but when you threw in there that Ron Paul was bad and legalizing pot Is bad, I must disagree. I know you must like what Paul’s fiscal positions were right, but you are against his foreign policy, just like Beck. I happen to agree with non-intervention, unless Congress declares war, as it is the best way to be. Think of that like defending yourself from an attacker. If you attack someone because they say they are going to kick your butt, you go to jail. If you wait until he actually attacks and defend yourself, you do not, in most cases. Ron Paul was all for going to war and not holding back, if “The People” through Congress gives that authority.
As far as pot, why should it not be legal for those that want to use instead of alcohol? It is much safer for your health and is much safer as far as auto accidents than alcohol will ever be. The life and death issue? It is 5-life in Idaho for having 3 ounces in possession, so in a lot of respects, it is life or death.
 April 24, 2014 at 4:40pm
Listen to a Great Black Man talking about racism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhVJg1rum_k
We need to get off the BS racist crap that our government and media slam on us, especially when it is not true racism. I do not believe that Bundy is a racist. I posted the entire press conference on the first Blaze story on this, go there and watch it instead of listening to the snipits that the media, Blaze included, give us so we do not get the full story.
 April 24, 2014 at 4:23pm
Here is the entire hour long interview instead of the snipits: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbnRnhrNFEY
Watch the entire thing, he talks about Mexicans and the Watts riots. I do not believe him to be a racist, just an old man that does not speak like a politician and the MSM which we all love to hate, the sounding board for our One Party System, will demonize him profusely.
Sosorryforyou, One other thing with your Constitution post, it is talking about territories owned by the Feds. Once the territory became a State, the land was supposed to become the property of the State and the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, should have been followed. Just so you know.
April 22, 2014 at 4:23pm
Sosorryforyou, Just because the Feds say it is so, does not mean it is right or Constitutional.
“…But this is not the most serious violation of the Constitution. The Founders understood that the size of land holding was proportionally related to the perceived size of the federal government and they intentionally wanted that perception small. The Federal government was permitted to have but 10 square miles for a federal capital. The only other land that they could acquire had to be for military purposes as specified in the common defense clause of the Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17….” “…Again, in the case of the Bundys, the land in dispute was not purchased by the federal government, did not receive the consent of the Nevada State Legislature for sale to the feds and is not for military purposes. The fact that the federal government acquired it fraudulently in the first place, or that both political parties have ignored this part of the Constitution for over a hundred years, does not make federal confiscation now constitutional. Constitutionally Bundy has more right to be there than does the Bureau of Land Management.” http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/pearland/opinion/pease-why-does-the-federal-government-own-nevada/article_d5737f99-a90f-5189-acfd-90
TAX, You seem to be the one acting like a Democrat.
April 22, 2014 at 1:47pm
What attitude is that? Individual Liberty attitude? Small Federal Government attitude? Belief in the Constitution attitude? Fiscal responsibility attitude? The power of “The People” attitude? Of which do you refer?
TAXEVERYONE, All the other ranchers were put out of business because of the fees.
Sosorryforyou, The Constitution says the Federal Government can only hold 10 miles square of land in a State with the States permission and only for the erection of forts, ammo bunkers, etc…. Bundy said he would pay fees to the State, which is proper, but not to the Feds, which would be improper. The power of our government is supposed to lie with “The People” through their States and the Federal Government has the least power and the Constitution is the highest law of the land which limits the power of the Federal Government. Let us all get on the ball. Read the Constitution until your eyes hurt and you understand it.
“Although cannabis intoxication has been shown to mildly impair psychomotor skills, this impairment does not appear to be severe or long lasting. In driving simulator tests, this impairment is typically manifested by subjects decreasing their driving speed and requiring greater time to respond to emergency situations.
Nevertheless, this impairment does not appear to play a significant role in on-road traffic accidents. A 2002 review of seven separate studies involving 7,934 drivers reported, “Crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes.” This result is likely because subject under the influence of marijuana are aware of their impairment and compensate for it accordingly, such as by slowing down and by focusing their attention when they know a response will be required. This reaction is just the opposite of that exhibited by drivers under the influence of alcohol, who tend to drive in a more risky manner proportional to their intoxication.”