Canadian Prime Minister Issues Gag Order to Party Members over Marriage of Gay Mounties
Posted on | May 26, 2006
It seems that Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, does not trust his fellow members of the Conservative Party of Canada to keep their mouths shut on the topic of the upcoming wedding between two members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Patrol. Constables Jason Tree and David Connors, who have been a couple for eight years since meeting at the University of New Brunswick, will be married on June 30th. Word of the marriage has gotten much attention on both sides of the border. In order to head off any comments that might be embarrassing for the Prime Minister and the party in general, Harper issued a gag order to all Conservative Party members in Parliament ordering them to keep quiet.
I agree fully with the statements made by opposition members from both the Liberal and New Democratic Parties on the issue of the gag order. It does seem like Harper does not trust his own caucus to be socially progressive as Canadians generally are. If that is the case, then why should Canada trust the Conservative Party either when the next election cycle occurs? Harper has already gone contrary to the polls in re-opening the debate on same-sex marriage. The majority of Canadians feel the issue has long been settled after the court decisions in several provinces and the Liberal’s passing legislation legalizing same-sex marriage nation-wide.
I think the comment from NDP MP Libby Davies was a bit more scathing though. She basically calls them out on not being able to wish the officers, who serve Canada, happiness:
"What I would hope the (party) message would be is to congratulate these two officers who are obviously in love and want to get married."
Those who do go against Harper’s gag face sanctions up to and including their removal from cabinet positions. Conservative MP Garth Turner got nailed by Harper after he publicly criticized the defection of David Emerson from the Liberal party to accept Stephen Harper’s offer to become Minister of International Trade. Echoing Conservative Party comments about the defection of Conservative MP Belinda Stronach to the Liberal party in 2005, Turner stated that Emerson needed to go back to the people who voted him into office and get the party changed approved by the electorate. He was called into Harper’s office for a dressing down and on his blog wrote:
"I’m expecting the Whip will be assigning me a renovated washroom somewhere in a forgotten corner of a vermin-infested dank basement in Ottawa. That should go well with my seat in the House of Commons that will be visible only during lunar eclipses."
One thing that I find hypocritical is that one of the criticisms of Paul Martin’s introduction of Bill C-38, the bill that legalized same-sex marriage, was that he "whipped" his cabinet members and that they were forced to vote in favor of the measure. Some of Martin’s cabinet members did resign and voted against the bill. In one of his campaign pledges, Harper said that if he became Prime Minister, he would re-open the same-sex marriage debate with a "genuine free vote" on the issue. But if Harper routinely gags his party members with threats of humiliation and dismissal, how can the vote truly be a "genuine free vote" on the issue, or any other issue for that matter?
Bush Seals Materials Seized in Raid on the Office of Rep William Jefferson
Posted on | May 25, 2006
MSNBC.Com is reporting that George W. Bush, in bowing to anger from Congressional leaders’ anger over the FBI raid on the office of Representative William Jefferson (D-LA), has ordered the US Department of Justice to seal the materials taken in the raid. In a statement, Bush says that he has ordered a seal on the materials for a period of forty-five days to allow Congress and the Department of Justice to come to some sort of an agreement. No one connected to the investigation of Rep. Jefferson is allowed to review the materials and they are to be placed in the custody of the Solicitor General’s office, which is a separate office within the Department of Justice, who is not involved in any way with the investigation of Jefferson. The raid, which was the first FBI raid on the office of a sitting member of Congress in history, came only after Rep. Jefferson refused to comply with a subpoena issued by the department in a bribery investigation back in September. After Jefferson refused to comply, the FBI took their evidence to a judge who issued a proper warrant allowed the FBI to execute a search on the office which occurred Saturday evening.
Now some members of congressional leadership have tried to make this into some kind of "constitutional issue". How is that so? In terms of legal action against sitting members of Congress, Article I, Section 6 of the US Constitution states:
[Congress] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
In case some members of Congress have forgotten, bribery is a felony and those protections are null and void.
Michelle Malkin made the topic the subject of her latest Vent on her video blog Hot Air. In one of those rare occasions, I find myself in agreement with what Michelle has to say about the issue. While I respectfully disagree with her on her statement of how the US Congress " has been stepping all over the executive branch’s wartime powers moaning about this and investigating that until there isn’t much the terrorists don’t know about how we plan to fight them." But I agree with her fully in that the FBI’s investigation was well within the defined powers granted under the US Constitution and the judicial search warrant are part of the Checks & Balances system upon which the division of powers between government branches is based.
That all being said, I think Bush should have shown he had at least a micron’s worth of guts and told Congressional leaders to just shut up. The Department of Justice and the FBI were acting within their constitutional limits and they took the appropriate steps to ensure that the constitutional rights of Rep. Jefferson were protected. The FBI was just doing its job as is described under the Constitution. The executive branch is charged with enforcing the laws passed by the legislative branch. Congress just does not like it when they are on the business end of that enforcement.
Jeff Whitty Discusses Letter to Jay Leno on CNN
Posted on | May 25, 2006
A while back I re-posted an e-mail from Jeff Whitty wrote to Jay Leno blasting him over the amount of gay jokes on The Tonight Show. CNN apparently had Jeff on to discuss the issue. Check out the video below:
Pat Robertson and the One Ton Lie
Posted on | May 25, 2006
I have been hearing about Pat Robertson has some miracle shake that allows him to do incredible feats. According to the Christian Broadcasting Network Pat is able to leg press 2,000 lbs. The got the attention of some weight lifters who contacted Clay Travis, a writer with CBS’s SportsLine.Com who pens the column ClayNation, who subsequently wrote an article on Robertson’s claim. The column, entitled "Pat Robertson’s magical protein shake"
In order to reach 2,000 pounds of resistance a leg press machine, or any machine for that matter, would have to be equipped with twenty-two 45-pound plates and two 10-pound ones. Travis also notes that:
That would mean a 76-year-old man broke the all-time Florida State University leg press record by 665 pounds over Dan Kendra. 665 pounds. Further, when he set the record, they had to modify the leg press machine to fit 1,335 pounds of weight. Plus, Kendra’s capillaries in his eyes burst. Burst. Where in the world did Robertson even find a machine that could hold 2,000 pounds at one time? And how does he still have vision?
Clay closes the topic by stating he sent the following e-mail to CBN asking to interview Robertson and help him set up the specialized leg press machine, because they had to modify one for Dan Kendra too, to do a 2,000lbs load.
Nice try Pat. You should just stick to lying to people about religion and morals.
Congressional Leaders on Both Sides Critical of FBI Raid on Rep Jefferson
Posted on | May 25, 2006
Representative William Jefferson (D-LA) has filed a motion in court to force the FBI to return the items taken from his office in a raid executed by the FBI over the weekend. The justice department noted that they had issued a subpoena for the documents and sought a warrant for the raid only after Jefferson refused to cooperate. Jefferson’s motion is before the same judge that issued the warrant for the raid. In his filing Jefferson calls the raid "Why are Dennis Hastert and Nancy Pelosi in bed together over the FBI raid on the office of ? Congress has been critical of the raid, the first ever on a sitting member of Congress, calling it a gross abuse of power and other such things."
I puzzled as to how this is an abuse of power. The FBI apparently had enough evidence to convince a judge to issue a warrant allowing the FBI to go ahead with the raid. So that means both the executive and judicial branches of the US Government were in agreement that there was sufficient evidence of wrong doing on the part of Rep. Jefferson. How is it an abuse of power to go through the proper channels to obtain a warrant and ensure Rep. Jefferson’s constitutional rights were protected? As far as I am concerned, Rep. Jefferson had an opportunity to cooperate in this investigation and, apparent guilt aside, if he had nothing to hide then he would have had nothing to lose by cooperating. Jefferson reported the subpoena to the House of Representatives on September 15, 2005. That means he had eight months to comply before the FBI sought the warrant.
What puzzles me even more is the question of why House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) are in bed together over the issue of the FBI raid? Congress has been critical of the raid, the first ever on a sitting member of Congress, calling it a gross abuse of power and other such things. I know why Hastert and other Republicans are a little nervous given as they are being investigated for their relationship to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and raids may on the horizon for them too.
It is being painted as an issue of "protecting the separation of powers" but the whole issue to me is that it looks like both Hastert and Pelosi are coming across as saying "Congress is above the law". That sounds a lot like George W. Bush’s chant about how he is above the law with his warrantless domestic spying program and his apparent thought that he could ignore laws when they inconvenienced him. To Pelosi’s credit though, she did tell Jefferson that she expected his resignation from the House Ways & Means Committee in the wake of the investigation and subsequent raid. Jefferson has so far refused to do so. He could still be removed by a vote.