Farrakhan and Islam – a cancer


Islam is a peaceful religion. Just ask a Muslim or any liberal mind-numbed sheep. Louis Farrakhan is the head of the Nation of Islam. At a meeting last week, in a baptist church, the head of the Nation of Islam said he’s looking for 10,000 fearless men who will “rise up and kill those who kill us; stalk them and kill them and let them feel the pain of death that we are feeling!” Does that sound peaceful to you? farrakhan You have to read the entire rant, linked below, to appreciate the irony. And you know who he’s wanting these fearless men to kill? I quote, “white folks.”

According to CDC numbers from 2011, 42.5 percent of blacks who died, age 15-24 of both sexes, died from being murdered. Murder was the #1 cause of death. For all blacks age 25-34, homicide was still the #1 cause of death, but it dropped down to 25.7 percent. Still over a quarter of all deaths. To see the numbers for yourself, scroll down to the middle of page 35 in the CDC report cited below.

Those numbers are incredibly sad, but the truth is that it’s black people who are killing black people. Even a far left pundit like Juan Williams makes that clear. Williams said. “No. 1 cause of death, young black men 15 to 34 — murder. Who’s committing the murder? Not police. Other black men.” From 1980 through 2008, 93 percent of black homicide victims were killed by other blacks. The FBI report for 2013 still shows that 90% of blacks murdered, were murdered by other blacks.

So Mr Farrakhan, who is it you want your 10,000 fearless men to kill? You are a cancer on your religion and your race.

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/08/04/farrakhan-we-must-rise-up-and-kill-those-who-kill-us-stalk-them-and-kill-them/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/LCWK5_2011.pdf
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/24/juan-williams/juan-williams-no-1-cause-death-african-americans-1/
http://www.politifact.com/florida/article/2015/may/21/updated-look-statistics-black-black-murders/

Advertisements

Gay Marriage – When the Dust Settles


I’m a libertarian. By my definition of libertarian, it’s none of my business who you love or who you want to marry. This ridiculous fight over the meaning of the word marriage is as much the fault of the right as the left. Gay marriage isn’t going to hurt “traditional” marriage. It’s traditional divorce that’s causing the problem. Gay marriage is just as likely to end in traditional divorce, so have at it. If you love someone, and want to make a life commitment, call it whatever you like.

I’m not particularly religious, but the constitution is clear that religion is a special case. constitution It’s protected by the first amendment, not restricted, as some people seem to believe. The very first sentence in the amendment is:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”

That is the only place in the constitution where you’ll find the word religion. Notice it doesn’t say Christianity or Islam. It just says religion. It clearly states that the government can not create or endorse its own religion, or prohibit Americans from practicing their religion.

Sexual preference is not a religion. It’s not protected by the first amendment, or any other part of the constitution. Sex appears once in the constitution, in the nineteenth amendment. This amendment is about your sex not being used to deny you the right to vote. It’s got nothing to do with sexual preference.

What bothers me about the whole LGBT issue is the lack of tolerance for other people’s beliefs on both sides. Regardless, one thing is clear; one person’s sexual preference should not trump another person’s religious beliefs. My definition of libertarian lets people do whatever they want as long as they’re not hurting others. Forcing someone to violate their religious beliefs is hurting them.

If you want to have a gay marriage have one, but you should not be allowed to force some member of a religion’s clergy to marry you. Especially if that person’s religious beliefs mean he or she is committing a sin. gaymarriage Especially when there are priests, preachers, ministers, parsons, and judges who will be glad to marry you.

It’s not the fight for equal rights that’s causing the problem. It’s contentious spiteful activism that’s driving this LGBT conflict, of which gay marriage is a small part. You have the court ordered right to gay marriage now, as you should. And there are people who are willing and able to help you. There are clergy willing to marry you, bakers willing to make you wedding cakes, photographers willing to take your wedding pictures, and venues who will be happy to host your celebration.

If the LGBT community persists in trying to force their right to gay marriage, to violate other people’s religious beliefs, they are the problem. They are the ones who are being intolerant. They are the ones creating the conflict. They are the ones who should be condemned for their actions. Wait for the dust to settle and we’ll see who’s really interested in tolerance.

Changing Minds


etch-a-sketch While I was coming back from the shed this morning, trying to remember why I went to the shed in the first place, I realized my mind is changing as I get older. When I was younger my mind was like a pencil and a tablet. I could write memories on that tablet and they were almost indelible. Now my mind is more like an etch-a-sketch. Not only is it harder to write, but I keep shaking my damn head!

Indiana RFRA Hysteria


The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration act is a relatively small piece of legislation. It’s five pages long, but the text of the law fits in three pages. Even so, the people getting their shorts in a wad over how the law promotes hate and discrimination, aren’t willing to read it for themselves. RFRA They take the lies of liberal special interest groups and the liberal media’s interpretation of the law as gospel, and lose their freaking minds.

All legislation is encoded in legalese. This law as a whole is referred to in the senate as Chapter 9, Religious Freedom Restoration. I’m not a lawyer, but I can read, and I’ll do my best to break this down for you one section at a time. There are eleven sections in the law.

Sec. 1 is about what the law applies too. That’s all other government laws and regulations.

Sec. 2 is about what it takes for a law or regulation to be exempt from this law. It requires another state law to explicitly exempt that law or regulation.

Sec. 3 defines “establishment clause” and “granting” for the purposes of this law, and then explains their relationship to the law. The “establishment clause” is the part of the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the sections of the Indiana state constitution dealing with religion. Granting means granting.

Sec. 4 explains what “demonstrates” means in one sentence of legalese. It means demonstrates.

Sec. 5 explains what “exercise of religion” means in one sentence of legalese. It means exercise of religion.

Still no mention of sexual orientation, discrimination, hate, or any other terms that would enrage liberals. Well, unless you count religion.

Sec. 6 explains what “governmental entity” means. It means any part of the state government, but it’s got the weasel words “or any other similar entity established by law” in there.

Sec. 7 explains what “person” means. It means any person or group of people who are not a “government entity”.

Now that we’re two-thirds of the way through the legalese, we get to the actual law part of the law.

Sec. 8 says the government shouldn’t be allowed to keep a person from exercising their religion, even if it means going against some other laws or regulations. There’s one exception to this. That’s if the government has a compelling interest, and keeping people from exercising their religion is the least restrictive way to satisfy that compelling interest. More weasel words.

Sec. 9 says a person whose exercise of religion is restricted may use this law as a defense.

Sec. 10 says if a government entity is restricting a person’s exercise of religion they can be sued.

Sec. 11 says the law isn’t intended to be used against persons.

Read it yourself. The state of Indiana provided a link to the text of the law. Then quit whining about all the things this law is going to do to discriminate against people in the state of Indiana. The words discriminate and deny don’t occur in the law. RFRAMoreThanCupcakes-855x1024 This law was written so that the government can’t force people to do things that violate their personal religious beliefs, period.

One other word not mentioned in this law is “Christian”. Neither is any other specific religion, or practice that can be construed as a religion, mentioned in this law. This law is written for all the people of Indiana, not just Christians.

I’d be ashamed if my only knowledge of an issue this big, came from what I read in the mainstream media, or from viewing info-graphics, like the one to the right, from special interest groups who have a clear anti-religious agenda, and a real flair for hyperbole. Stop being sheep. Get the facts and think for yourself.

Proposed M855 Ban


This is an open letter to the ATF that’s copied to Congressman Messer and Senators Coats and Donnelly of Indiana.


ATF,

It’s difficult to be respectful when your organization clearly has no respect for the constitution. The continual back and forth between your organization’s gun control motivated prohibitions, and the resourcefulness and innovation of the firearms industry, is frustrating and expensive. And pointless.

m855Now you’ve decided to take M855, one of the most common rounds available for the modern sporting rifle, and ban it for law enforcement safety reasons because it can also be used in a handgun. You keep trying to find ways to get rid of the “black rifle” and you keep failing. This is because the informed American public are not interested in gun control.

Law enforcement the world over would be safer if law-abiding citizens were armed and able to defend themselves and others. Try using logic instead of knee jerk emotion, and show the American people you actually believe in safety, instead of gun control. I’ve copied this email to all of my federal representatives. Respectively, I hope your organization is prepared to choke on what you’ve bitten off.

Sincerely,

Jerry Nowlin
nowlin@nowlin.com

CC: Congressman Luke Messer, Senator Dan Coats, Senator Joe Donnelly