/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Thursday, February 02, 2006

Private ownership threatened again

--posted by Tony Garcia on 2/02/2006

Emminent domain is not the only threat to private property and ownership. First there is the pack of private business hating people backing three freaks' effort to sue Wal-Mart. Why? Because they have the unmitigated gall to decide what they will sell and what they will not sell.
Backed by abortion rights groups, three Massachusetts women sued Wal-Mart on Wednesday, accusing the retail giant of violating a state regulation by failing to stock emergency contraception pills in its pharmacies.

The lawsuit, filed in state court, seeks to force the company to carry the morning-after pill in its 44 Wal-Marts and four Sam Club stores in Massachusetts.

The plaintiffs argued that state policy requires pharmacies to provide all "commonly prescribed medicines."
Fogleman said the company "chooses not to carry many products for business reasons." He would not elaborate. But in a letter to a lawyer for the plaintiffs, a Wal-Mart attorney said the store chain does not regard the drug as "commonly prescribed."
This is (a) not emergency contraception and (b) not "commonly prescribed medicine". The real roots behind this are (1) hatred by the Left of Wal-Mart for being successful and ununionized, (2) hatred by the Left of all things indicating actual private ownership and self-determination, and (3) the effort to force all thing abortion-related down the throats of everyone. In this case they are trying to shove it down the throat of a private business.

Have we forgotten that PRIVATE OWNERSHIP is one of the foundations of this country? Yet the Left continues to attack everything relating to private ownership which begs the question: Are they consciously trying to reverse the foundations of this country?

The next example of the attack on private ownership comes from South Carolina.
In a Victoria's Secret store, surrounded by frilly bras and blown-up images of barely covered models, Lori Rueger says she was told to find somewhere else to breast feed.

Rueger's story -- told during a hearing in support of a state bill to ensure breast feeding is allowed in public places -- so angered a state lawmaker that he's urging women to form a national Mothers Against Victoria's Secret movement.

"It's really kind of subhuman behavior. And subhuman behavior warrants some kind of strong response other than just a little law that we pass in South Carolina," Rep. Walt McLeod, D-Little Mountain, said Wednesday.

Rueger was one of more than a couple of dozen mothers, doctors, lawyers and other breast-feeding advocates who were on hand to urge passage of the bill.

The 29-year-old Charleston mother testified that she was in a Victoria's Secret store in suburban Mount Pleasant and was told by an employee that she could not breast feed her baby in a dressing room and was encouraged to use a restroom in a nearby store instead.

Breastfeeding may be "natural", but so is sex. Are stores required to allow people to copulate in the dressing rooms? Hell no. The problem again is that this is an assault on private ownership and self-determination. If I have a store and I want to allow breastfeeding that should be as much my perrogative as not allowing that in my store.

People, please stop thinking that you have the right to do anything you want anywhere. And stop attacking one of the very critical foundations of this country: private ownership.


Post a Comment

<< Home