Run for your lives! Books of openly available information are going to get you!
Wes Flinn has something on this too.
To fight against legislation which has such proven results is nothing less than gross negligence, and they're getting people killed.Guess what guys, the vast majority of the murders in Cincinnati are drug/crime related. "Innocent" people are not the majority of people being killed. I would bet a large number are felons and could not carry a gun even under the law being advocated. I hope people see this as an example of lying. Most advocacy groups’ spin there message and come close to lying, but they don't do it as bad as this.
Kabaka Oba, a Cincinnati boycott activist, is the only Democrat who has filed for the seat.It is a fact that Kabaka Oba is a militant black racist and separatist. I have no problem reporting that he is on the Primary ballot, that is reasonable. Just listing him as a "boycott activist" gives him some kind of legitimacy, when everyone with a brain knows he is just the black version of a KKK wizard.
I would argue that it is intolerant to keep religion out of public areas. The exclusion of religion from the public arena is simply taking another side in the religious debate. Putting up a big cross, nativity scene, menorah, Star of David or a giant Torah doesn't push your religion on others because they don't comply with that religious code. It doesn't say "join our religion and follow our beliefs or something bad will happen to you" it says "this is a symbol of what we hold dear and we want to share it." Opposing religious expression is as much a statement of religious beliefs as anything else.Two points: First, a religious belief requires a belief in a god or gods or supernatural entities or supernatural creators. Opposing religious expression is not a religious belief, nor an expression of religion. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is a belief, yet, but beliefs alone don't make a religion. A religion has to do with a god or the supernatural. Second point: in the above excerpt the "we" in the "is a symbol of what we hold dear and we want to share it" comment is what is the problem. This “we” is so varied that they only way to fairly determine it is not make it "we", but make it "me." If you want it on pubic property keep it to "me," if you want to make it "we" why not keep it in your church? If I want to share in your religion why can't I just go into the buildings with a big cross on top? Once I am there the "we" can share with anyone any type of in your face religious expression they wish, without any government intervention (except for established laws).