Monday, September 19, 2005

It's hard to be consistent when you have a liberal agenda to uphold........

Once again, the Star Tribune has proven to be a chameleon.

The Sept. 14 editorial "Concealed guns / State's law is in trouble, again" on the property rights of churches in banning guns shows how the paper will change positions on fundamental principles.

Last year, I wrote a commentary about property rights as they related to the smoking ban. I wondered whether the Star Tribune would be upset if government, as it has done with local bars and restaurants, prevented it from engaging in a legal activity on its own property: namely, exercising its First Amendment right to free speech by printing the paper.

But the Sept. 14 editorial stated "Here's the question: If gun owners have the right to carry concealed weapons, shouldn't property owners -- whether a church, a hospital or a business -- have a right to ban them if they wish? Homeowners do, and schools do, but for others the right is circumscribed: It does not apply to parking areas or rented property. That's not reasonable, and it's only a matter of time until some business successfully challenges that provision."
An interesting statement, considering that the paper was vehemently opposed to respecting the property rights of bar and restaurant owners just a few months ago.

Michael Wilson, Coon Rapids might just need your side arm these days at your favorite bar.... what with being forced to smoke outside in the alley.

I am amazed Michael was able to get this letter printed, given that RWJF has funded for only favorable coverage of the pro-smoking ban position.

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


    "Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights"

    Shop for Aircleaners

    Combustion Engine Emissions Eliminator (CE3)