FARRAKHAN IS WISE TO FLUKE'S EVIL PLANS

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has a theory about the easy availability of birth control that is...interesting, to say the least.

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan says white people are promoting birth control for black women because they fear becoming a minority in the United States.

Farrakhan spoke Saturday at Fountain Street Church in Grand Rapids, invited by the Grand Rapids Community College Black Student Union.

He says white Americans will lose their majority by 2050 and says they've introduced birth control to black women "because they don't want no more black babies."

MLive.com reports Farrakhan says he opposes same-sex relationships. He says he isn't "homophobic" and isn't "afraid of people who choose a lifestyle that's different" but rather is afraid for them.

The Chicago-based Farrakhan says women's role is to stay home and raise children with strong moral values.

He also says he isn't anti-Semitic.

A short article but loaded with provocative, racially-motivated statements and accusations made by a prominent religious leader about birth control, same-sex marriage, the homosexual lifestyle and a woman's role in society.  His sermon was delivered on Saturday.  As of late Monday night I haven't been able to find a single article or press release from NARAL, NOW, the Establishment Media, the Left blogosphere or Planned Parenthood condemning his statements.  Where's Sandra Fluke?  This isn't exactly a new departure for Farrakhan and the NOI, either.  

Now compare that with this and ask yourself why it is that some groups get targeted while others don't.  Why do some groups generate banner headlines while others scarcely get a mention?  Is it cowardice?  After all, the Nation of Islam, unlike the Catholic Church for instance, would not hesitate to protect itself and strike back, perhaps violently.  Being glitter-bombed is not something Farrakhan has to worry about.

And what about on college campuses?  On February 20th, the University of New Mexico student government organization, the Associated Students of UNM, passed a resolution which recommended removing Chick-fil-A from the student union due to the "company’s divisive history of contributions."  Chick-fil-A must be shunned, apparently, because Dan Cathy exercises his First Amendment rights.

Last Wednesday, UNM's Student Union Building (SUB) board, which is comprised of administrators, alumni, and student representatives, voted 8-3, in favor of keeping the restaurant.  Prior to the vote, LGBT student activists insisted that the mere presence of Chick-fil-A on campus made them feel "unsafe."

A group of liberal students at the University of New Mexico tried their best to get Chick-fil-A kicked off campus because they claimed the eatery made them feel "unsafe." The students even took to theatrics, such as crying and hyperventilating, before a vote was held on whether the restaurant could stay or not- despite a majority of students having no problem with them on campus. Gay students claimed that they even felt threatened by the mere sight of students and faculty carrying bags with the Chick-fil-A logo on them.

This is becoming a popular tactic of LGBT activists: linking the reality of anti-gay violence and bullying with mere opposition to aspects of the LGBT agenda, in this case same-sex marriage.  It's a deliberate attempt to equate gay-bashing with the exercising of one's First Amendment rights.  As far as they are concerned, there's no difference between a predator who attacks gays in a park and a man like Dan Cathy, which means that Dan Cathy, in their opinion, deserves the same kind of treatment as a violent criminal.  It's obscene.  But that didn't stop activists from continuing the charade.

"Students started expressing to me they felt unsafe to go into their own campus union building," Sen. Miquela Ortiz of the Associated Students of UNM said. "When they said they felt uncomfortable on campus, I felt it was an issue that I should bring up."

"Please look at this from a moral standpoint," said Brittany Arneson, a student against having Chick-fil-A on campus. "Look at the kids that are here that are telling you, 'I do not feel safe on this campus anymore.'"

Think about what they are trying to do here.  They're claiming that a business, by its mere presence, is making them "feel unsafe" and therefore should be driven off campus.  They "feel" unsafe... I'm sorry, but while there are plenty of crimes being committed on college campuses that would make all kinds of students feel unsafe, the mere physical presence of a fast-food franchise is not one of them.

All you have to do to realize how silly and, indeed, harmful these kinds of accusations are, just apply the same "I feel unsafe" argument to groups of people rather than a business.  What if white students started protesting and complaining that the presence of black people on campus made them "feel unsafe" and that said black people should be driven off campus.  Or if Asian students claimed that Latinos on campus made them "feel unsafe" and should therefore be banned. 

Or what if hetero students claimed that the mere presence of LGBT students on campus made them "feel unsafe" and that they should be removed.  How would that complaint be received?  We all know the answer to that one.  And we also know that suppressing First Amendment rights is wrong.  So is scapegoating entire groups of people in order to silence them or have them removed.

As always, the Left shamelessly insists on demonizing others for activities that they themselves engage in all the time.  It is called projection.  It is facilitated by the cancer of political correctness.