Sunday, March 26th, 2023

Anti-Black, anti-homosexual, anti-rooster = unAmerican

Billy Glover

May 25, 2010.

To the Shreveport News:

Rand Paul’s views on the Civil Rights Bill, discussed in his seeking of the senate seat in Kentucky, are interesting in the “liberation” aspects. But in practical terms it means he is now being accused of being what Barak Obama is accused of: being more of a professor/teacher than a person who wants to practice what they preach.

But too many politicians do not practice what they preach. The fact is that if America followed Paul’s beliefs, we would still have slavery. After changes were made each generation since the founding of this nation, the conservatives, in each era, had tried to stop any further progress in civil rights but later accepted the changes made in previous generations.

And that will be what happens in this generation.

And a question for the Pauls (Ron and Rand) is what they believe about same sex marriage in regards to the government staying out of our private lives — as the Supreme Court said in the Loving case when they said the state of Virginia had no Constitutional authority to tell citizens what the race of their spouse should be.

The Times had an interesting, thoughtful article by Joe Cordill on the Hate Crimes Law, saying what Rand Paul says about the Civil Rights Bill. The law can go too far. But the very people who keep saying they want less government and fewer laws and less bureaucrats and less waste of taxpayers’ money seem to still seek to control the most intimate parts of the lives of citizens, and that includes being protected from bigots, often inspired by what their preachers and imams have told them.

Again, do Cordill and Paul practice what they preach?

And here’s a good test question to see what they answer. The Animal Control people in Bossier City have time to enforce a law against citizens having chickens in the city limits.

Now there may be some common sense reasons why politicians passed such a law, but there should also be some common sense in enforcing such a law.

For instance, a family fleeing Katrina had chickens in Bossier City, then left them as they moved on. Those few chickens have managed to live independently since that time, without government help, in a vacant lot. Recently, apparently, some new humans moved into the area and soon called on the government to get rid of those chickens as they didn’t like hearing roosters crowing. How the noise from a rooster is heard over all the other noise in a city is a good question to ask the complainers, who complain in secrecy (a very queer tactic).

So, how do these men think the complaint should be handled? Should the chickens be captured and killed? Or should they be left alone? And how do they feel about citizens who turn to the welfare state to protect them from crowing roosters?

The Founders of this nation would have no problem deciding the issue — they would immediately save the chickens who seek no government help and pose no threat to society or taxpayers and tell the poor humans who need government help in such minor aspects of their lives to move if they don’t like the area they just moved to.

Our nation will be strong only as long as we are like the rooster and chickens and not like the welfare needers who seek government protection in minor aspects of their lives.

And the tea baggers might want to look into such government bureaucrats who have so little to do they can spend days chasing chickens around a vacant lot. Here is a place to start saving taxpayers’ money — obviously there are too many people with too little serious work in Bossier City.

And elsewhere.


About The Author