One of the things people do not understand is a concept called liberty.

I once commented that LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act for the wrong reasons and that it went too far.

He asked what I meant by that and I told him that LBJ was a power hungry politician that signed the bill after making the comment "After I sign this bill, we'll have those ni&&ers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!"

That's the wrong reason to sign a bill. He signed the bill strictly for political reasons. He wanted to seal the black vote and I suppose he did.

Truth is Johnson was no real friend of black Americans. If you dig through history it was the blue dog Democrats that fought every piece of civil rights legislation that came down the pike if it involved giving blacks equal rights. Look up his voting record if you don't believe me.

It is also interesting to note that Martin Luther King was a Republican. 

It is probable that the Republicans were no real friends of black America as such. Maybe they simply believed in liberty and justice for all. 

On the other hand, maybe they didn't. Maybe they believed that if the black community had the same rights everyone else did they would be less of a burden on society.

Truth is it is the duty of government to insure that all governmental entities treat all Americans properly.

Fact still remains that Ike's administration laid out the ground work for the Civil Rights bill when he sent troops into Little Rock.

The other thing I explained is that it should have been legislated that it effected government and public sector monies only and NOT private enterprise. Private enterprise should not be restricted. 

If a guy wants to run a restaurant and limit his business to include or exclude certain groups for whatever reason it's his business. It's none of the government's affair.

Of course I got called a racist. 

I'm not. It's just the fact that the person I was talking to didn't understand the concept of liberty. I believe it was Jefferson that said that if it neither broke my leg nor picked his pocket he was good with that.

I am simply one of those people that thinks the governent should mind their own business and let things get settled on either a state, local or personal level.

There isn't a law out there that can change a man's heart. That has to be done on a more personal level.

Governmental set-asides and minority preference laws do nothing good for race relations and only serve to add resentment.

They also cheat successful minorities out of the satisfaction and respect they deserve for being successful when they do succeed. 

As far as restaurants and other public accomodations go, most things should be up to the proprietors. Pennsylvania seems to have the right idea over the smoking in bars issue. They let the owners decide. Some proprietors run smoke-free, a few let their patrons puff away.

There's a joint near where I live and it has a sign outside proclaiming it to be a smoking bar. I don't see a problem. If you don't want to sit in a cloud of smoke, go to the next joint down the line. The beer tastes the same there. Stop whining.

Yes. It really is as simple as that.

Liberty's a bitch and as much as it can be an inconvenience it can be a joy. 

I am one of those people that will fight like hell for ANYONE to have their rally for their cause. If the Klan or any other group  want's to hold a rally, fine. Let them. I won't deny the Klan the right to set up a stand and spew their hate.

Then again you will probably be surprised to see me in the crowd of spectators booing and hissing them and disrupting their hate speeches. 

I will spend Monday fighting City Hall to see to it the the most despicable group in the world is insured their right to assemble. I would also spend Tuesday at their rally booing, hissing and making life miserable for the same people I fought for the day before.

Liberty's a bitch.

A while ago I read where the mayor of Boston wouldn't let the Chick-Fil-A people open shop in Boston. The person that proudly told me about it is a Boston area resident and liberal.

The Chick-Fil-A people apparently apparently have religious values and close on Sunday and are not supporters of same sex marriages. It's their right. It's their business.

It's the right of the people to boycott the place, though.

It seems to me that the people of the City of Boston are allowing the government to do their bidding for them and that's just plain lazy. They have given up a part of their liberty. If you are a big supporter of same sex marriages, then don't eat there.

Incidentally I read the Chick-Fil-A's mission statement or whatever you call it and it is to serve people with dignity no matter what their race, creed, color, etc, or sexual orientation.

It is the only time I have seen sexual orientation in a corporate mission statement. However I will admit I don't go around reading corporate missions statements.

Personally I would laugh like hell to see the Chick-Fil-A people come to Boston, open a store and see it boycotted. I don't care if the boycott is successful or not. I'd just like to see a little liberty in action.

I'm a fan of the bus boycott started by the Rosa Parks incident. The black community boycotted the bus company and brought it to its knees. They whacked the bus company where it hurts. Right in the wallet. They formed car pools, whatever.

It should also be noted that many of the people that supplied transportation during the boycott were white.

Personally I think the lunch counter sit-ins were a waste of time and bad strategy. They should have taken a different tack and simply opened a lunch counter down the street. (open to everyone) The secret weapon there would be Bubba Johnson's grandmother's ribs or something along those lines. 

Someone could have done two things in one fell swoop. They'd likely taken a chunk out of bigotry and made a few bucks while they were at it.

It really doesn't take a whole lot to out-cook a department store lunch counter. One taste of Grandma Johnson's ribs and it's adios department store lunch counter. It wouldn't be long before the department store would be screaming for anyone's business and the Jim Crow signs would have disappeared.

Good food tends to overcome bigotry. Smart marketing makes money.  

Personally I don't eat at Chick-fil-A because I don't really like too much fast food in my diet. As for same sex marriages, I differ with the Chick-Fil-A people there, too, but that's OK.

I simply wish the government would go out of the marriage business entirely and award civil unions to any people that wanted one. I suppose I'd limit a civil union to homo sapiens, though. Marrying out of species seems a little too strange for me.

If you want to get married, go see the appropriate religious people to marry you. Hell, see me. I'm a minister.  (From the government's point of view, it would simply be a civil union.)

Truth of it is, I'm a person that thinks the government doesn't solve problems. I think it creates them,

It's not too much to give a person liberty and then allow them to take care of themselves and go as far as their talents and deterination take them.

It's not too much to ask a person to take care of themselves and keep their hands out of the government coffers. Taking government money is picking my pocket.

Besides, carrying the poor doesn't seem to be working out very well. It's driven us deep into debt. It reminds me of the 'Don't feed the bears. They will become dependent on people and not be able to feed themselves.' signs in parks. 

Ben Franklin opined that the best thing to do for the poor would be to leave them to their own devices. He said that making life difficult enough for them would make them find a way to get out of poverty on their own.

Another one of the founding fathers comented that the government that governs least governs best.



To find out why the blog is pink just cut and paste this: http://piccoloshash.blogspot.com/2009/12/my-feminine-side-blog-stays-pink.html NO ANIMALS WERE HARMED IN THE WRITING OF TODAY'S ESSAY