Opposition Parties join to force a snap election in Canada

Posted on by

by Clifford F. Thies

The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois are agreed on one thing: they're tired of the Conservative Party governing in theminority. By a vote of 156 to 145, they defeated the government on a'no confidence' vote, a result of which is that the Canadians will be going to the polls either on May 2nd or 9th.

Public opinion polls conducted prior to the no confidence put the Conservatives within reach of an outright majority. The traditional rule of thumb for which is 40 percent. Indeed, with the Canadian economy among the faster growing advanced economies in the world, and with the Canadian deficit as small as it is, it is likely the Conservatives would have soon called a snap election in order to take political advantage of the strong economic situation.

Cooperation by the three opposition parties may signal a willingness on the part of the Liberals to form a coalition government with the New Democrats and possibly also with the Bloc, whereas traditionally the Liberals and Conservatives were inclined to tacitly support the
other rather than see either of the other two parties gain a share of power.

But, if it is now acceptable for the main parties to take on one or more of the smaller ones, it is also possible that if the Conservatives again finish as the largest single party but short of a
majority, that it will offer a deal to the Bloc. The reason I say this, is that the Conservatives may be amenable to further devolution of the Canadian federation as long as it is equitable. Alberta, and not merely Quebec, grouses under the heavy boot of Ontario. Well, maybe I exaggerate.

Democrat-run City in Missouri outlaws Girl Scouts selling Cookies on Front Lawns

Posted on by

NANNY-STATE WATCH!

From Eric Dondero:

Hazelwood, Missouri, population 25,000 is a suburb in largely urban St. Louis County. It is located right near Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

The city is almost completely controlled by Democrats. Hazelwood Mayor Matthew Robinson is a diehard Democrat, County Democrat Chairman, and campaign supporter of Democrat candidates statewide including Sen. Claire McCaskill and Robin Carnahan. (Source: St. Louis Beacon)

Now Hazelwood is garnering national media attention for outlawing sales of Girl Scout cookies on front lawns. Seems such activities caused dogs to bark in neighborhoods and disturbed the peace.

From the News-Leader, "Cookie skirmish" March 24:

The battle of the cookies is over in Hazelwood. Carolyn Mills received a letter this month from the city warning her that selling Girl Scout cookies on her driveway violated city code. Mills, though, said she and her two daughters would keep selling until all remaining 2,000 boxes were sold.

The City makes their case:

Hazelwood city spokesman Tim Davidson had said a neighbor complained that the cookie booth caused excessive dog barking and unusually heavy traffic on the street.

Equinsu Ochoa at WorldGoneMad blog writes, "Girl Scout Nazi’s on loose in Hazelwood":

According to the designated town idiot, Tim Davidson, the selling of cookies in front of their house violates some dumbass home occupancy code the town has in place.

Apparently this was prompted by someone, without a life or with a corn cob up their ass... next year, I hope they set up the cookie stand with neon lights, balloons and a jumpy castle. In the mean time, they should have people who have at least some shred of common sense run for office and vote out the Girl Scout Nazis.

Photo depiction; not actual event. GirlScoutCookies.org

Voter I.D. Bill passes Texas House

Posted on by

Strict Party Line Vote

Governor expected to sign Bill soon after reconciliation

From KERA Radio - Dallas:

On Thursday the Texas House joined the Senate in adopting a republican-backed voter ID bill.

Bills requiring Texans to show an approved photo when they vote failed during the two previous sessions. But republicans now outnumber democrats two-to-one in the House and they easily pushed this bill through with a party line vote of 101-48.

Differences between the House and Senate bills must now be reconciled. Governor Rick Perry urged both chambers to act quickly so he can sign the legislation.

Mark Hutcherson blogs at Waco News Beat:

As Democrats in the Texas Senate tried to find ways to block "Voter ID" from becoming law, it became clear to me that what they were really trying to do was find a way to keep illegal people voting in elections in Texas. There is no valid reason why a person should not be required to show a valid photo ID when they vote. We all show a legal ID every time we cash a check or even when entering a nightclub on Friday night.

Only a fool or someone who hopes to gain the votes of an illegal immigrant would oppose such a simple and good law.

MINNESOTA: Pro-Choice on Foods advocate investigated for Sale of Raw Milk

Posted on by

Vows to Keep Selling despite threats of Arrest from State Bureaucrats

From the Minneapolis Star-Tribune "Freeport farmer probed for selling raw milk":

For the second time in eight months, a Freeport-area farmer is being investigated by state agriculture regulators for allegedly selling raw milk and other food products illegally.

Alvin Schlangen was believed to be selling raw milk, which by law can only be sold directly from farms, from a south Minneapolis natural food warehouse and at a drop-off point in St. Paul near Macalester College, according to a search warrant affidavit recently filed by the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Continuing:

Schlangen also has allegedly been selling other food without a license, according to the Agriculture Department. Schlangen, an organic egg grower, said he is also the manager of a private food club that leases animals that provide fresh milk, cream and butter for its members. He said he did not break any laws.

"Our [Minnesota Department of Agriculture] does not recognize our right of access to the foods of our choice," he said in an e-mail Monday. "It is time for [Minnesota] consumers to stand up for their rights and stop settling for nutrient deficient, subsidized commodity food."

See related LR story, Jan. 11, 2011, "Raw Milk Sales: Obama administration cracks down on Family Farms"

In support of Libertarian Republican Fitness Pole Dancers for Jesus

Posted on by

LR FOLLOW-UP

Featured Comment from Papa Giorgio

My wife has lost 30lbs at Goddess Fitness. She has become friends with some of the dancers, some of their videos are here at my Vimeo. Her [my wife's] "heroin" in this field I partially filmed at an event we were at, which is at my YouTube. I say this becuase we are conservative Evangelicals who have a young earth view... said to explain our view of Biblical history to point to just how conservative we are. I think some of the ideas that Christians suppress sexuality is misguided. This "repressive" view comes primarily from leftists and their view that the Bible holds women back -- which is just plain wrong. What diminishes human sexuality? Banning all censorship. True, classic, art comes in packages that have some form of censorship. In other words, when there are limits to push, art becomes creative. When censorship becomes what the government will not fund, you end up with the piss Christ, dung smeared on the Virgin Mary, and the like. (You end up with a moral equivalence argument that degrades the human spirit rather than builds up.) This is similar to the Christian's view on sexuality and may explain our satisfaction where as others crave more when all is shown and there really isn't anything to get with these empty cravings.

Editor's note - Two days ago, we ran a story on Christian Pole Dancers in suburban Houston, Texas. Papa Giorgio, who blogs at Religio-Politics on our blog roll here at LR, had this wonderful comment full with links. The video he links is well worth the view.

Canadian McGill Univ. Terrorist threats controversy has a libertarian connection

Posted on by

"My blood is boiling. I want to shoot everyone in this room"

From Eric Dondero:

A Muslim student in Canada, Haaris Khan, recently posted highly threatening messages on his Twitter account against Jews. More information is coming out about the incident, and it now appears libertarians might have also been a target.

From McCleans:

Earlier this month, Khan had attended a screening of documentary Indoctrinate U that was hosted by student groups Conservative McGill and Libertarian McGill. The film alleges that American universities are biased against conservative ideas. During the screening, attended by around 20 people, Khan posted several messages to his Twitter that others viewed as threatening. One message read, “I want to shoot everyone in this room,” while another stated, “I should have brought an M16.”

And this from the National Post:

“I want to shoot everyone in this room,” a McGill University student recently announced using his online Twitter feed, claiming he had surreptitiously “infiltrated” what was in fact an open film screening of Indoctrinate U, hosted by Conservative McGill and Libertarian McGill. “I should have brought an M16,” read another of his messages. In short toxic tweets, the student called the conservative gathering “a Zionist meeting” and a “Satanist ritual,” while sprinkling in insults about Jews.

Evan Maloney the producer of the film said (via Savoir ou se faire avoir blog):

“Its ironic that tame, political speech can get you in trouble and yet when you issue death threats against a group of right-of-center students, that’s not something a university is going to punish.”

Palin on the bus station attack in Israel: America needs to stand by our ally against Islamic Terror

Posted on by

From Eric Dondero:

CNN reported "Fatal Bombing in Jerusalem":

A woman was killed and more than 50 other people were wounded in a blast near Jerusalem's central bus station, as the evening rush hour began Wednesday, authorities said.

The explosion took place in a crowded area with "a lot of civilians and two buses," said Yonatan Yagadovsky, a spokesman for Israel's emergency services.

Wednesday's explosion was caused by a medium-sized device in a bag that had been left near the bus station, Israeli police and medical officials said. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the terrorist attack.

Sarah Palin appeared on Greta's show last night on Fox. She had some strong words for the administration, and their moral relativism approach to the Middle East.

Via Politico:

“I think there are many in Israel who would feel even more comfortable knowing that there is an even greater commitment from those who presently occupy the White House that they are there on Israel's side, and that our most valuable ally in that region can count on us,” Palin told Fox News’ Greta Van Susteren in an interview in Naples, Florida.

“Why is it in that the past, too often, the U.S. government has told Israel that they’re the ones, the Jewish community, that they need to back up, they need to back off or there will never be peace,” she said. “Why aren’t we putting our foot down with the other side and telling the Palestinians, If you’re serious about peace, quit the shellacking and the shelling. Quit the bombing of innocent Israelis.”’”

Photo note - American/Israeli flag on Palin's lapel.

Obama/Biden/Clinton Foreign Policy: Who let the Dogs Out?

Posted on by

by Clifford F. Thies

The Obama Administration has now notified Congress that the President has begun a war in Libya. Under some interpretations of the War Powers Act, the President can begin a war anyplace in the world, for any reason he decides, as long as he notifies Congress within 48 hours.

The Congress then has 60 days to authorize the use of force which, if it doesn't, the President then has to withdraw within 30 days. How long, after withdrawing, he can re-commence the war Congress didn't authorize, as a fresh war, all on his own, isn't very clear. 1 day?

As to why President Obama has begun a war, he's not telling. Secretary of State Clinton says the U.N. resolution is very broad. I guess that means it could be for any reason. And, what is the purpose of the war, that's not very clear either. Possibly, it is to have a democratic government in Libya. After all, since we no longer live in a democracy in the United States, it's probably a good thing that there's a constitution someplace, somewhere in the world in which the President cannot just go and unilaterally declare war on other places, but has to get an authorization to use force from the representatives of the people.

There is, of course, another view has to whether the War Powers Act allows the President to initiate the use of force anyplace and anytime and for any purpose that he wants. I will cite the great constitutional scholar, Joe the Vice President Biden, back when he was just a Senator running for President. Speaking in Iowa, in 2007, he said,

"And I want to make it clear, and I’ll make it clear to the President: that if he takes this nation to war in Iran, without Congressional approval, I will make it my business to impeach him."

O.K., so Joe the Vice President got a little confused about who impeaches the President and who removes the President for violating the Constitution we used to have in this country. Under that relic, it's the House of Representatives that impeaches the President and it's the U.S. Senate removes him. But, you have to excuse Joe because, at the time, he was speaking on his own and not plagiarizing anybody who actually knows something about the Constitution.

Or, what about the great Constitutional scholar Barack H. Obama, who according to his supporters taught "Con Law" at the University of Chicago Law School? What does he say about Presidential war-making?

"The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."

Well, that was when President Obama was running for President. Now that he is President, things are different.

About what about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was once discussed as a possible nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. What does she say?

"The President has the solemn duty to defend our Nation. If the country is under truly imminent threat of attack, of course the President must take appropriate action to defend us. At the same time, the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the President can take military action — including any kind of strategic bombing — against Iran without congressional authorization."

Again, I have to point out that this was back in the day when Clinton was merely a candidate for President. Now that Obama, The Promised One, Our Messiah, Our Eternal President, has been elected, the Constitution merely gets in the way.

I for one am hopeful there is democracy in Libya. It will restore balance to the universe. Plus 1 democratic country in northern Africa. Minus one democratic country in Northern America.