Obama Commits a Heinous Act

Anti-Americanism, Marxism, bashing white people, trashing marriage and gutting our military...well, those are all one thing.

This, however, may just doom the Obama campaign right here and now.

From ABC News:

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: Senator Barack Obama told reporters in St. Louis today that he has fallen off the wagon and smoked cigarettes in the last few months.

How COULD he???? How could he do such an unspeakable act? Even his liberal base will surely abandon him after this monstrous act!

John McCain is a shoe-in!

Some Employers Refusing To Hire Smokers

Some Employers Refusing To Hire Smokers
Truman Med Says It Wants To Promote Healthy Habits

POSTED: 4:14 pm CST November 22, 2007
UPDATED: 4:52 pm CST November 22, 2007

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- We all know about the debate over smoking in public places. Several cities have banned it in restaurants and bars. But now some employers are taking it a step further. They won't even hire smokers to work at their company.

KMBC's Jere Gish reported that when you fill out an application, there can be all kinds of questions. But when Julie Draper saw one that asked her if she used tobacco products, she answered truthfully that she was a smoker. Draper said she was stunned when she was told that kept her from getting the job."

The report goes on to say...

"The no-smoking policy is enforced. Gish said a hospital spokesperson told him that recently it was discovered that an employee was a smoker even though that person indicated on their application that they did not use tobacco products. The person is no longer employed at Truman Med.

Employees who started before February 2006 were grandfathered in. But new potential hires are out of luck."

(The full report)

I feel that a business has the right to decide whether to ban smoking or not. It is after all -- their business. With this in mind, I feel a smoking ban should be up to "each" business owner and not something forced upon the business by a government ordinance. If there can be no-smoking businesses, then there should also be ones that allow smoking. Otherwise, there is discrimination against people for doing something that remains legal. This is not right!

I will say this again! No non-smoker (which includes me) is "forced" to go into a smoking establishment such as a restaurant or bar. Going in is choice. And, if a bar's customers is made up entirely of smokers, how can people say that second hand smoke is a health issue? How can they say it and keep a straight face?

Will South Dakota follow Minnesota when it comes to a tougher smoking ban?

By Gordon Garnos

AT ISSUE: Minnesota became the 20th state a couple of weeks ago to ban smoking in most public buildings. This includes a ban in bars and eateries and just about every other public building in the state. Our question is will South Dakota follow in the footsteps of our neighboring state to the east? Also, the question of should more liquor licenses in the state be authorized by the South Dakota Legislature? That will be discussed in Part II in today's column. (Full Story)

Smoking to Affect Movie Ratings

From Fox News:

Smoking will be a bigger factor in determining film ratings, the Motion Picture Association of America said Thursday, but critics said the move does not go far enough to discourage teens from taking up the habit.

MPAA Chairman Dan Glickman said his group's ratings board, which previously had considered underage smoking in assigning film ratings, now will take into account smoking by adults, as well.

That adds smoking to a list of such factors as sex, violence and language in determining the MPAA's G, PG, PG-13, R and NC-17 ratings.

I don't advocate smoking, but if they're going to do this, I wish they'd factor in alcohol use as well. Use of alcohol--largely because it's so widely abused--has killed far more people far more quickly than tobacco.

On a related subject, it seems many PG-13 movies have as much foul language and innuendo as the R movies used to. And there are a few R movies that have no nudity and practically no foul language, just some of what I would consider realistic violence.

I don't know if movie ratings are worth a whole lot anymore, anyway.

Smoking Ban: A Snuffing Away Of Our Rights

I have spent a great deal of time reading comments and arguments regarding the smoking ban proposals and have to shake my head in utter disbelief. How have we gotten to this point in time? It is definitely a world gone mad with the rules going even crazier.

I don't even think smokers are saying that smoking is healthy or a good choice for anyone. But that isn't even what the smoking ban is all about, though some can't seem to get a grasp on that. They are too busy arguing about the effects of second hand smoke as defined in some report or other. Yeah, but what does that have to do with smoking bans in private businesses where customers are there by choice? There by choice rather than necessity?

It is one thing to ban smoking in government owned facilities where the public might be forced to go to do business, but quite another to do so in a bar or restaurant that no one has to go to in the first place. It is then, because it does happen to be a privately owned business, that the owner(s) should have the choice of going smoke-free or catering to the smokers and smoker friendly consumer if they so choose. That is the true issue! The right of the business owner to decide whether the business will serve the non-smoker or the smoker and smoker friendly -- not the issue of whether smoking or second hand smoke is good for anyone ever.

If smokers wish to get-to-gether and share second hand smoke, what is that any business of the non-smoker? No one is asking them to partake. No one is forcing them inside the door of a business where smokers gather, so why should they feel they have a right to go inside and demand there be no smoking because they have decided to be there?

This is not a thing about a smokers' rights or a non-smokers' rights, but rather, the rights of the business owner to cater to the customer of choice!

Shouldn't a simple sign on the door that indicates it is a business that caters to smokers be a clue to non-smokers that can't (or won't) tolerate smoking to turn around and go somewhere else? If not, why not?

(We don't live in a socialistic country yet, but looks like we are headed there or worse. May we stop ourselves in time.)

Second-Hand Smoke Provides a Public Service

From WorldNetDaily:

Stewart Laidlaw, 35, is being barred from Thirsty Kirsty's in Dunfermline, Fife, for failing to control his flatulence.

'No one could smell anything when the pub was full of cigarette smoke,' Laidlaw told Wales on Sunday. 'I never used to complain about the smell of their cigarette smoke, but now everyone complains about me. It's just a natural thing. What can I do about it? I must be the first person in the country to get banned from a pub for passing wind. But it's not a title I want. I certainly don't see it as funny.'

How bad was it?

"We are a bus station pub and trying to keep new customers. The final straw was when an old gentleman came in and had his gin and tonic and the old guy was almost sick.

"Other people have dropped handbags, shall we say. But when everybody's choking and I come out with the spray and say don't do it again, they will appreciate that and stop it.

Congressman Hides Behind Cop

What a pansy. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) didn't like Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) smoking in his own office. Rather than do what most people might do ("Excuse me, Rep. Tancredo, but your smoke is bothering me."), he calls the cops.

Soon enough, however, a police officer walked in to check on the smoke. The officer told Tancredo that the officer came because he was required to do so and not because the officer wanted to. The officer had already told Ellison that Tancredo was permitted to smoke in his office. The visit was more a formality - The Hill.

The article goes on to say Tancredo uses three air air purifiers in his office in consideration of others. Yet Ellison claims the smoke somehow came "through the walls."

I wonder what Ellison would have done if Tancredo had experienced a particularly offensive, um, "outgassing?"