Category Archives: Liberal

A day after Christy Clark announced she is resigning as BC Liberal leader, one of the partys MLAs says he is considering a run to replace her.

Prominent former TV reporter Jas Johal, first elected to the BC legislature in the spring election that set off events that have ousted the Liberals from power, says he is thinking about a leadership run but has not made any final decisions.

I think this is a great time to focus on renewal and we need a substantial policy discussion. I am looking forward to that whether I run or not, Mr. Johal said in an interview on Saturday. He is the first of the partys MLAs to announce that he may go for the leadership now that the job is open.

Among the challenges for the BC Liberals, he said, is better connecting with millennial and GenX voters.

He said he is thinking about whether he has the time and energy to completely commit himself to leading the BC Liberals, who have had two leaders Gordon Campbell and Christy Clark since they began their 16-year run in government that recently ended.

Ms. Clark led the party into a spring election her second as premier which reduced the party to a minority. Last month, the Liberals were defeated on a confidence vote, the Lieutenant-Governor then asked the NDP to form the government and Premier John Horgan was sworn in earlier this month.

Mr. Johal, 47, who is married and has an eight-year-old son also said he is considering the impact on his family.

Theres a lot to think about, he said. He was a journalist for 23 years, working for Global Television in BC, Beijing and New Delhi. Before seeking and winning the riding of Richmond-Queensborough in the May election, he was a communications director at the BC LNG Alliance.

Mr. Johal said he was surprised at Ms. Clark's decision to leave.

He also said he did not think his relative lack of elected political experience would be a liability in what is expected to be a crowded race. When you look at voting here and internationally, people want something new," he said.

People dont want professional politicians. I am proud to be an outsider. I bring a different experience.

After six years as premier and saying she would serve in opposition, Ms. Clark told her caucus Friday that she would quit as party leader on Aug.4. She also will quit her Kelowna-area seat. In announcing her decision to the media in a statement, Ms. Clark gave no specific reason for leaving now. She is expected to hold a news conference early next week.

Liberal caucus members praised Ms. Clark on Friday, but the party will now face the necessity of picking a new leader to face the BC NDP government. Caucus prospects were avoiding discussion about leadership runs in the hours after Ms. Clarks announcement.

The BC Liberal party executive plans to meet within 28 days to come up with details on the leadership race. After Gordon Campbell announced his exit in 2010, it took about four months for the leadership convention that saw Ms. Clark become leader. The BC legislature is expected to resume sitting in September.

Follow Ian Bailey on Twitter: @ianabailey

Originally posted here:

Former television reporter Jas Johal considers running for BC Liberal leadership - The Globe and Mail

There is no liberal media bias. But wait!

We are barraged daily by the mainstream media with multiple negative stories against President Trump based mainly on innuendo, leaks and/or anonymous sources. None seem to be based on hard, demonstrable facts or information that the source is willing to come forward to back up.

Even extreme liberal Sen. Dianne Feinstein admits that there is no hard evidence to back up the alleged Russian collusion narrative, yet the media continues to pursue it.

On the other hand, where was the outrage and continuous stream of news reports when Obama lied about like your plan, keep your plan, like your doctor, keep your doctor, and annual cost savings of $2,500 per family when trying to sell Obamacare?

Where were the cries of Russian collusion when Obama was caught on an open mic telling Putins lackey, Medvedev, that he (Obama) would have greater flexibility to deal with Putin after the 2012 election?

Theres not even any doubt of Hillary Clintons mishandling of classified information by passing it through her own private email server rather than using State Department computers.

What about the lies told by Clinton, Susan Rice, Obama, and others that the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi, Libya, stemmed from a video that turned out to have no connection.

What about any investigations into Attorney General Eric Holders failed Fast and Furious gun-running scheme that led to the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry south of Green Valley?

What about Attorney General Loretta Lynchs secret meeting with Bill Clinton at the Phoenix airport while Clintons wife is under investigation by the FBI, which was part of Lynchs Justice Department?

Hmmm. Perhaps there really is something to this liberal media bias after all.

Thomas F. Fava, Green Valley

See more here:

Liberal bias? - Green Valley News

In the opening remarks at his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that judges are like umpires. But what happens when the umpire decides that balls look like strikes when one team is at bat, and not the other?

Under our federal system, Congress makes laws that authorize executive agencies to carry out certain functions. They can do so using narrow language that prescribes the methods for executing their aspirations, or they can leave the methodology up to the authorized agency. Under the Chevron doctrine, named after the holding in a landmark Supreme Court case, courts should defer to the agencys interpretation of ambiguous statutory language.

Chevron and Arizona both express a larger guiding principle of judicial deference to the legislating and policymaking branches of government. Returning to his metaphor, Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that umpires dont make the rules... they apply them.

In theory, and often in practice, judicial deference restrains judicial activism by providing a consistent way to resolve disputes over statutory construction and the reach of federal law. It also incentivizes clear legislative drafting, so if Congress wants a law executed in a certain way, it had better say so.

But judicial deference cannot serve either of these ends if federal judges only apply it when one political party controls the White House, and not the other. Yet there is evidence that left-leaning judges frequently do just that.

Researchers recently concluded that Chevron deference appears to constrain conservative judges as to liberal [administrative] interpretations, but not vice versa. When confronted with liberal agency interpretations of ambiguous legal language, all judicial panels liberal and conservative alike were equally likely to apply the Chevron doctrine. But when judges confronted conservative agency interpretations, liberal judges applied Chevron deference to such interpretations far less frequently than conservative judges.

There is some indication that this trend is continuing during President Trumps tenure. The Environmental Protection Agency decided to delay a regulation targeting methane emissions based on a Clean Air Act provision that allowed such a delay in order to reconsider regulations. Yet the D.C. Court of Appeals decided not to defer to the EPAs interpretation of this provision, applying its own judgment to determine that the regulation had been considered long enough. The court summarily vacated the Trump EPAs decision, refusing to apply Chevron.

In the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, passed in 1780, John Adams wrote that the judiciary should not exercise legislative or executive power. This safeguard was necessary, he said, in order to create a government of laws and not of men. Judges that see fit to reject the current rule of deference in favor of judicial activism blatantly ignore this wise precept.

Treating judicial deference as a principle that only applies when a judge decrees that it does turns legal baseball into legal Calvinball. If courts decide that the rules dont apply when precedent leads to a decision they ideologically differ with, the outcome impacts more than the specific case it undermines the publics faith and reliance in judicial objectivity.

Ryan Walters is an attorney for the Center for the American Future at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

Connor Mighell is a law clerk at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

More:

Liberal disregard for judicial deference harms faith in the law - The Hill (blog)

Watching news outlets go out of their way to hide a potentially huge Democratic scandal is almost funny. So-called journalists are too busy covering presidential tweets to report on a topic that might embarrass their friends.

Welcome to theImran Awan-Debbie Wasserman Schultz scandal or Compugrab, as I like to call it.

Awan was the top IT aide to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz. The FBI reportedly seized smashed computer hard drives from hishome. He was arrested trying to flee to Pakistan after wiring almost $300,000 to the country, according toThe Daily Caller,which has owned the story because it does actual news reporting.

Heres an amazing paragraph from the Caller: Awan and members of his family received $4 million from the Democratic congressmen they were working for since 2010. Wasserman Schultz has been especially uncooperative with the probe into her staffers and eventhreatened the Capitol Police chief for gathering evidence. She refused to fire Awan until after he was arrested, even though Capitol Police had already revoked Awans access to the congressional IT system in February in relation to a major security breach. ($4 million, and you wonder where your tax dollars go.)

This is why so many Americans no longer trust the traditional media. Its because we cant. Theyd rather write snarky stories about the presidents Twitter comments than do actual reporting.

The traditional media has barely even acknowledged this story exists. In the 24 hours after his arrest, only CBSThis Morningreported on it for 37 seconds. And co-host Gayle King made a point of ending the story with the claim by Awans attorney that charges are due to anti-Muslim bigotry.

Newspapershave been almost as bad.The Washington Postwasnt just slow to the party. Legal reporter Spencer Hsu didnt mention Awan's ties to Hill Democrats until the seventh paragraph. Imagine the Postwriting like that about Hill Republicans. A headline on an Associated Press story was especially entertaining: Florida lawmaker fires IT staffer; Anti-Muslim bigotry is cause of client's arrest, lawyer says.

This is why so many Americans no longer trust the traditional media. Its because we cant. Theyd rather write snarky stories about the presidents Twitter comments than do actual reporting. Hats off to The Daily Caller News Foundations Luke Rosiak for remembering what journalism really means.

2. Summertime For Hitler:President Trumps speech to the Boy Scouts caused journalists and lefty media to have a Goebbels moment and envision the entire event as aHitler Youth Rally.The alt-left marched in goose step comparing American boys to Nazis. Director Michael Moore, soap opera star Nancy Lee Grahn and other liberals pretended that chanting U.S.A. and cheering Trump made them equal to the people who supported Hitler.

While The Viewdidnt Sieg heil like many on the left, it did bash Trump and put pressure on the Scouts. Among The Views Things Not to Say When Giving A Speech to 40,000 Boy Scouts was this horrifying statement: You will be saying Merry Christmas again when you go shopping.

Theres nothing more offensive to secular media liberals than faith. Hard to tell if it terrifies them more in the here-and-now or if they are looking toward the hereafter.

That media pressure, andattacksby the Late Show host Stephen Colbert,Trevor Noah of The Daily Show, and CNNsChris Cillizzaintimidated the Boy Scouts into distancing themselves from Trump. Based on the cheering Trump received, there was no such distance between the president and the Scouts who heard him speak.

3. Those Hateful Conservatives, Oops!:Weve watched six months of demented hate from the lefty media against White House Press SecretarySean Spicer.Hes gone, so now well get demented hate from the media against new White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders.

Ira Madison III, who writes about culture for The Daily Beast and GQ, welcomed Sanders with a cruel critique of her looks. Madisontweeted: Butch queen first time in drags at the ball, next to a picture of Sanders.

Conservatives were outraged but liberals barely noticed. The War on Women only applies to liberal women, after all. White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci called it reprehensible and asked for anapology. Madison gave a half-hearted one for his ill-judged joke.

While working at MTV News earlier this year, Madison embarrassed himself by bashing then-Sen. Jeff Sessions. He accused Sessions of using an Asian-American girl as aprop during a hearing. Sessions, sir, kindly return this Asian baby to the Toys 'R' Us you stole her from, he wrote on Twitter. The girl was actually Sessions granddaughter. Madison deleted the comment.

Never forget that the left believes inNO H8TE.Or, in the words of Madisons bosses atThe Daily Beast,they value an inclusive culture, committed to the public good.

4. The Media Climate Isnt Changing:Liberals whine about global warming, but the media climate is just the same as it was 11 years ago whenthe film An Inconvenient Truthcame out. Who cares if climate guru Al Gore warned then that Earth had only 10 years before Mother Earth turned crispier and reached apoint of no return? That didnt stop him from going Hollywood and producing a sequel.

The news and entertainment media loved Gore then and love him now. His sillyInconvenient Sequel: Truth to Powerhits national theaters Aug. 4. To ensure the propaganda (Oops, documentary) is successful, Viacom is deploying 10 of its TV outlets to push the film. Viacom, whichhasapproximately 700 million global subscribers, is harassing viewers on MTV, VH1, LOGO, Comedy Central, Spike, BET, CMT, TV Land, Nick@Nite and Teen Nick.

MTV will actually air a town hallwhere,Gore will be joined by rapper and Miami resident Fat Joe, as well as 17-year-old activist Delaney Reynolds; DJ and fellow Miami-born artist Steve Aoki will act as a correspondent. Apparently, no sports mascots were also available.

Dan Gainor is the Media Research Center's Vice President for Business and Culture. He writes frequently about media for Fox News Opinion. He can also be contacted on Facebook and Twitter as dangainor.

View post:

Liberal news outlets work overtime to hide a huge Democratic ... - Fox News

Mashable

Fight it Out Mashable Apparently, it's just as successful and it's why Kentucky wrestler Dan Richards has gained national notoriety in 2017 thanks to his new heel character, "The Progressive Liberal," a modern twist on that age-old heel formula except now its exploiting ...

More:

Fight it Out - Mashable

Quora Questions are part of a partnership between NewsweekandQuora, through which we'll be posting relevant and interesting answers from Quora contributors throughout the week. Read more about the partnershiphere.

Answer from Charles Tips, Retired entrepreneur, Founding CEO of TranZact, Inc.:

Political outlooks took different routes in Europe and the United States but developed quite similarly.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

A European Union flag in front of Big Ben outside the British Parliament, March 28. Stefan Wermuth/Reuters

Even prior to theAge of Enlightenment, Europe was home to severalrepublican(non-monarchical) governments. During the Enlightenment, a great variety of thinkers began to oppose monarchy and the divine right of kings with concepts formed around the republican idea of popular sovereignty. Liberalism is the name for the range of ideologies, fromconstitutional monarchyto the radicalrepublicanismadopted in the United States following itsRevolutionary War.

The United States at the time of that war had been home to four separate waves of British immigration, only one of which was largelyTory, or supportive of British monarchy. The others tended to be separatist in order to escape the oppression experienced in England. These waves were joined by Dutch Reform republicans, French Huguenots, German Lutherans and Swedish Lutherans (two distinct outlooks), with most of the representatives of these groups happy to have left Europe behind. Support for monarchy was to be found only in certain pockets, and, after the war, never reasserted itself.

Liberalism was strong in Europe and increasingly truculent toward monarchy. The attempt to reprise the American Revolution in France, theFrench Revolution, became shockingly bloody as the antagonisms on all sides were much harsher than had been the case in the American Colonies. When that revolution was followed byBonapartism, theCounter-Enlightenmenttook much of the wind out of the sails of the liberal movement.

Early in the 19th century, various experiments in socialism represented an in-place effort to duck out from under monarchism. With theRevolutions of 1848and the publication that year ofThe Communist ManifestoofMarxandEngels, socialism joined liberalism as a second threat aimed at monarchism.

A generation later, however, the popular working-class revolts Marx had predicted were nowhere in evidence. Meanwhile,Otto von Bismarck, tasked with unifying the many German principalities under Kaiser Wilhelm I, noted the strong appeal of the socialist message to the people. He began exploratory discussions with certain social democrats.

Social democracy was the name for the non-revolutionary form of Marxs communism, something of a ruse made necessary by revolutionary communism running afoul of sedition laws all around Europe. Bismarck decided between the fact the social democrats had no power of their own and that the leadership seemed every bit as monarchistic as he was, just for themselves rather than the House of Hohenzollern to simply steal their platform from them and implement it in the name of the Kaiser.

After many leaders of theSPD, the social democratic party in Berlin, crossed over to work in Bismarcks government (he was by then chancellor), he simply outlawed those remaining socialists who had not. This capture of social democracy vaulted social democracy to the right, authoritarian extreme and left Marx fuming mad and declaring that the use of state power to offer state aid could only result in a dictatorship by a bourgeois elite in need of a permanent underclass to justify their rule.

Still, the paternalistic welfare state, or, sometimes, the high modern state, that Bismarck wrought, became the wonder of the world. As Bismarck later in 1880 told an American interviewer, "My idea was to bribe the working classes, or shall I say, to win them over, to regard the state as a social institution existing for their sake and interested in their welfare."

Bismarck had solved the problem socialism represented, but most of the monarchies of Europe were too benighted to grasp that. Their inability to resist the resulting popular pressures led to World War One which proved lethal to the more brittle monarchies and empires of Europe. Rising were two new socialisms on the Bismarckian authoritarian planfascism and state communism. These emergent socialisms despised each other. Social democracy was despised for having accepted capitalism and for having stayed loyal to the Kaiser throughout the war. Fascism was despised for having updated all of Marxs concepts to better fit the currentzeitgeist. And state communism was despised for having stuck to the original Marxian template (the use of state authority apart) that was widely considered in Europe to be terribly out of date.

As all three considered themselves the inevitable end state of mankind and all three were attempting to appeal to the same target audience, World War Two launched as largely the rivalry between the emergent state socialisms. That war left fascism in the dustbin of history, and the ensuingCold Warbegan putting soon-to-be-fatal pressure on state communism. Social democracy alone retains currency, and throughout Europe even it is retrenching to more liberal economic approaches and has otherwise devolved away from its attachment to socialism, often being referred to these days simply as mixed economies.

TheAmerican Civil Warhad been a triumph for liberalism, ending slavery and resulting in three constitutional amendments that bolstered our republicanism. However, as theReconstruction Erawore on, the Conservative Democrats in the South greatly strengthened their resistance in both numbers and cunning. At the same time, the North increasingly found itself inundated by farmhands arriving by train seeking factory jobs, freed slaves arriving from the South hoping for the same and teeming masses of Southern and Eastern European Catholics and Jews.

Very swiftly, the great majority of staunch northern liberals switched to an embrace of progressivism, the movement to bring Bismarckian social democracy to the United States. It was a native-stock reaction to protect Anglo-Saxon Protestant privilege that was hyper-democratic (that is, changing our laws to be more majority-rule oriented). Allied with southern Conservative Democrats and dominating both parties by theProgressive Era, progressivism caught on with some ninety percent of Western European-stock Americans, thus representing approaching two-thirds of the total population at the time.

Liberalism was flat on its back. Such facially illiberal progressive programs as forced sterilization of mental and criminal inferiors garnered only single digits of opposition. However, the many anti-liberal excesses of the Wilson administration and, especially, the swiftly growing recoil againstProhibitiongreatly revived liberalism while cutting progressive numbers roughly in half.

Progressives lost the boldness that came of being a strong majority and soon adopted the deceptive tactics of theirFabiancousins in the UK. One of those was that, not wanting to risk running for president under his actual label of progressive in 1932, Franklin Roosevelt cast himself as a liberal. He doubled down on that ruse beginning in 1937 once he got a majority progressive Supreme Court in the hopes of getting hispositive rightsagenda passed disguised as liberal rather than state socialist. The use of liberal to refer to progressives is spurious.

After World War Two, the United States, feeling that its heritage of liberalism had won the war (and not FDRs social democracy) and could best oppose state communism, had a widespread revival of liberalism in both parties, Conservative Democrats apart. The resulting civil-rights pressure from both parties destroyed the Conservative Democrats, while the turmoil within the Democratic Party and especially the rise of student radicals in the anti-war and civil-liberties movements gave rise to a third wave of progressivism, this time half again the size of the second wave and in need of alliance with the very cohorts its grandparents and great-grandparents had despised.

As progressivism peaked prior to World War One, liberalism survived in primarily academic realms and largely based on the study of the conservative outlook of Irish Whig parliamentarianEdmund Burke, who, being a Whig, was not conservative in the European sense of moderate support of monarchy. That movement survives as mainstream conservatism along with several other stances wishing to conserve our liberal heritage.

After the war in the 1920s, a stronger version of liberalism revived, largely based on the wonderment of newly arrived immigrants where Americas famous freedoms had gone. This movement referred to itself as libertarian to express the fact that it wished to go beyond our early republicanism, which, while radical, had managed to secure theLockean social contractlargely only for Western European males, and extend it to all.

Conservative, where not connected to a party as in the UK, is properly a stance; one is conservative about something. There are some dozen conservative stances in the US, most wishing to conserve our liberal heritage (though not in as radical a form as libertarians do) and some being partly statist. All of the liberal ones wish to conserve a form of liberalism much more radical than is found in Europe.

Meanwhile, our progressives have been pushing hard to change our form of government from liberal to state socialist even as their social democratic brethren in Europe retrench toward more economic liberalism. It is fair to say that while political outlooks in Europe and North America have common roots and similar development, they have little pull on each other, far less than events and developments at home, though the push toward globalism hopes to change that.

The United States moved far to the left of Europe, a position our conservatives seek to retain against the progressive desire to pull us back center-right. Europe has stayed center-right. This chart depicts the Enlightenment swing to increasing liberty followed by the Counter-Enlightenment swing back to statism.

A legend can be found atThe Left-Right Political Spectrum Updated.

Why did conservatism and liberalism develop so differently in Europe than in the United States? originally appeared on Quora - the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world. You can follow Quora on Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. More questions:

Continued here:

How Liberalism is Different in Europe - Newsweek

Checks are being made to see if Chisholm MP Julia Banks has Greek citizenship. Photograph: Mike Bowers for the Guardian

The Liberal party says it has been given confirmation by the Greek embassy that the Victorian Liberal lower house MP, Julia Banks, is not a dual citizen, and has no entitlement to citizenship.

The confirmation came after questions were raised about whether Banks may have had Greek citizenship conferred on her a development which could have triggered a by-election in the seat of Chisholm.

Earlier on Friday, Liberal sources told Guardian Australia the state party organisation in Victoria was agitated about Banks potentially having a dual citizenship, and checks were being made on her status.

Speaking to Guardian Australia on Friday from London, the Victorian Liberal MP said she was born in Australia, her parents were Australian citizens at the time of her birth and she had never taken up Greek citizenship.

Those facts notwithstanding checks were made to ensure she had not acquired Greek citizenship by descent.

Late on Friday, a spokesman for the Liberal party issued a statement saying Banks was in the clear. We have received confirmation from the Greek embassy that according to records, Julia Banks is not registered as a Greek citizen and also is not entitled as a Greek citizen.

Guardian Australia has contacted the Greek embassy for confirmation.

The question mark over Banks followed a tumultuous week where the resources minister, Matt Canavan, stepped down from Cabinet because he discovered he was a dual citizen of Italy, and serious questions remain about the status of the One Nation senator, Malcolm Roberts.

The government is already facing a high court proceeding over one of its lower house MPs, David Gillespie, with concerns he may have an indirect financial interest in the Commonwealth, which, like dual citizenship, is grounds for disqualification under section 44 of the constitution.

There will be a directions hearing on the Gillespie case in August, with substantive hearings expected before the end of the year.

The Turnbull government holds a majority in the lower house of just one seat.

Banks won her seat of Chisholm against the political tide from Labor at the last federal election, and Liberals fear the government would not have held the seat at a by-election in the current political climate.

Once parliament resumes in August after the winter break, the Senate will refer the cases of Canavan and the two Green senators, Scott Ludlam and Larissa Waters, who resigned after discovering they held dual citizenships, to the high court for deliberation.

If no one challenges Robertss eligibility in the meantime, it is possible that either the government, or Labor, the Greens and some cross benchers, could also move to refer the One Nation senator to the high court as well.

Government sources have suggested it is unlikely they would join Roberts to the other cases, given it would be provocative. Labor is yet to determine its position on that as a course of action.

The Greens leader Richard Di Natale said he would support referring Roberts to the high court. We are going to refer Scott and Larissa, and One Nation should also do the decent thing and refer Malcolm Roberts.

He said in the event One Nation failed to do the decent thing, the Greens would happily join Labor and any interested crossbenchers in sending Roberts case to the court.

NXT leader Nick Xenophon told Guardian Australia on Friday he was also open to referring Roberts to the high court in the event constitutional law experts thought there were valid questions for him to answer.

Xenophon said such a referral should not happen carelessly but it should certainly happen if there was any prospect of a constitutional breach.

Roberts has changed his story about dual citizenship on a couple of occasions, but he told Sky News on Thursday he had written to British officials on 1 May last year asking if he was a UK citizen.

After not getting a reply, he wrote again on 6 June, just before Senate nominations closed, saying if he had British citizenship, he fully renounced it. Ive taken all steps that I reasonably believe necessary, Roberts told Sky News.

But it has emerged the British high commission did not confirm the renunciation until December six months after he nominated as a Senate candidate.

See the article here:

Liberal Party confirms Victoria MP Julia Banks is not a Greek citizen - The Guardian

The latest series of Gallup public opinion polls are out and theres one obscure items which caught my attention. Its not as much of a big ticket topic as the usual fare regarding war, healthcare and the economy, but it probably speaks to something deeper and more ancient in our collective psyche. Were talking about the long rejected (in America at least) taboo involving polygamy. Its illegal in all fifty states to this day and its still widely unpopular, but not quite as unpopular as it used to be. (Gallup)

Polygamy, a practice that President James Garfield once said offends the moral sense, is now seen by 17% of Americans as morally acceptable, up from 14% in 2016 and the highest rate on record dating back to 2003.

These results come from the May 3-7 Gallup Values and Beliefs poll. Despite growing acceptance of the practice over the last 15 years, polygamy, or having multiple spouses at one time, remains one of the most morally taboo social behaviors in the eyes of Americans.

Indeed, for the first seven years (2003-2010) Gallup measured Americans moral perceptions of polygamy, the rate of U.S. adults who said it was morally acceptable was always in the single digits.

So in a period of fourteen years the concept of polygamy as being morally acceptable has risen from low single digits to 17%. Thats nearly one in five Americans. What explains the change? Gallup is speculating that the advent of television shows such as Sister Wives is feeding into the trend. In a broader sense, theyre guessing that the rise of liberal issues described on the left as equality or social justice markers is stoking enthusiasm as well. Theres also a difference in the wording of the poll question. Gallup used to define polygamy as when a husband has more than one wife at the same time. Theyve now dropped the genders, describing it as when a married person has more than one spouse at the same time. I suppose that might be somewhat less offensive to the ladies.

But to understand where the change is coming from its worth looking at the demographics for this sample. Thats particularly applicable for me as I try to figure out why this is a liberal issue in the first place. The biggest group finding polygamy morally acceptable is among those who describe themselves as not being religious or not being affiliated with any particular religion. In that demographic polygamy finds 32% support nearly one third. Its also slightly more acceptable among liberals than conservatives and Democrats than Republicans. Why?

Its easy to point to our own national history and just say that this is the way things are. But our history is also full of examples of the way we used to do things eventually changing. One of the overriding factors here would seem (at least to me) to be a question of big government versus small government. Theres nothing in the constitution about marriage in general or polygamy specifically. And much like the gay marriage question, the more libertarian part of me has to immediately ask what business it is of the government how many people show up at the alter to get hitched? And for that matter, what business is it of the neighbors if the new, notably larger family isnt causing them any harm?

The idea of forbidding polygamy seems to fail the test of asking how deeply involved in our personal lives we want the government to be. To be clear, I completely understand the reluctance. I personally find the idea not at all to my liking. (I can barely keep up with one wife. What in the world would I do with a few more?) And the religious angle against it in Judaeo-Christian faiths cant be discounted in popular perception either. (Again, ignoring the fact that the founders of these religions didnt seem to have a problem with it at all. King David had at least eight and probably many more -wives, but hey.. its good to be the King.)

But just because I dont personally care for something, thats not a reason for me to call for the government to regulate or ban it. If you cant show demonstrable harm to others resulting from any particular private action or find some proscription against it in the Constitution, its not exactly a small government, conservative position to want Uncle Sam to bring down the ban hammer.

Originally posted here:

Acceptance of polygamy is rising, but why is this a liberal issue? - Hot Air

I hope readers will not be misled into thinking that the people of Hong Kong enjoyed greater freedom prior to the 1997 handover than they do now (Too soon for HK people to fully embrace 'one country, two systems', by Mr Teo Kueh Liang; July 16).

Britain ruled Hong Kong for 155 years, but during that time, the city did not have a representative government or universal suffrage that some quarters are pushing for right now.

Its way of life has largely remained intact since 1997, with people enjoying great autonomy and freedom relative to their mainland counterparts.

Why did it awaken to the need for universal suffrage only now, when it had 155 years to do so?

It is perhaps the reversal of fortune that is most disconcerting to some.

Colonial Hong Kong enjoyed great economic prosperity relative to a backward China.

Now, China has innovated and grown, but Hong Kong's economy has remained largely the same, with emphasis on property, finance and retail services.

Low economic growth, limited job prospects and unaffordable housing have hit the post-handover generation the most, and it is this group that is mesmerised by the "rosy" colonial era.

Low economic growth, limited job prospects and unaffordable housing have hit the post-handover generation the most, and it is this group that is mesmerised by the "rosy" colonial era.

Liberal democracy will not be a panacea for all its ills.

Hong Kong should not exacerbate its woes by dissociating itself from the larger markets up north.

Ideology, advanced by a minority of pan-democrats, does not address the livelihood concerns of ordinary people.

Aligning Hong Kong within the ambit of "one country, two systems" is what will ensure its relevance.

Lee Teck Chuan

Excerpt from:

Liberal democracy not a panacea for all of HK's woes - The Straits Times

VICTORIA Christy Clark, a gifted political campaigner with an ever-present smile, announced her resignation Friday as leader of British Columbias Liberal party, one month after her government was tossed from powerin a dramatic confidence vote.

Herresignation is effective Aug. 4, the former premier said in a statement. She is also leaving as a member of the legislature serving the riding of Kelowna-West.

Serving as premier and serving the people of B.C.for the past six and a half years has been an incredible honour and privilege, Clark said. I am certain that B.C.s best days lie ahead.

Clark broke the news to her Liberal caucus in Penticton where members had gathered to prepare fortheir new political roles in Opposition after 16 years as government.

An emotional Rich Coleman, a former cabinet minister in the Liberalgovernment, said Clark stepped aside to allow the party to elect a new leader and begin a process of renewal.

The party executive now has 28 days to set a date and plan for a leadership vote, said Coleman, who will serve as interim leader.

Ive never worked with anyone with more passion and love, strength of leadership and management in my entire life, he said. What shes given this province should never be forgotten. Its a tough day for our family, our B.C. Liberal family.

Former Liberal cabinet minister Terry Lake said Clark likely struggled with herchoice but decided to put the growth of the party ahead of herremarkable political career.

Given the results of the election and the mood of British Columbia, and probably within the party and the caucus, she thought that her stepping aside would be the best thing for all the people involved, he said in an interview.

Formercabinet minister Bill Bennett said Clark could have stayed as leader, but he understands her choice to make room for renewal.

Im not happy about the decision, he said. I wish she had hung on, but I understand why she thinks its better for the party to have fresh leadership.

Clark, 51, led a come-from-behind victory in 2013, sweeping her party to a surprise win over the New Democrats who held a 20-point lead in the pollsat the start of the campaign.

But she couldnt pull off a majority government in the election thisMay, winning 43 of 87 seats in the legislature, one short ofa majority.

The Liberal governmentlost a confidence vote at the end of June.

Clarksaid that when she offered her resignation to Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon she tried to convinceGuichon to call an election. Instead,the lieutenant-governorasked New Democrat Leader John Horgan to form government.

The New Democrats, with 41 seats, formed a minority government with the support of the Greens, who won three seats. Horgan and his cabinet were sworn in last week.

Horgan said in a statement thatClark was adedicated servant of the province.

As an MLA and as premier, Ms. Clark fought passionately for what she believed in, he said. I know she will take that passion and energy to her next opportunity.

Green party Leader Andrew Weaver issued a statement thanking Clark for her service, callingher a fierce advocate for the province both at home and abroad.

A highlight of my time in the legislature was working directly with Christy Clark to implement sexualized violence policy legislation for B.C.s post-secondary institutions, he said.

Her leadership and willingness to work across party lines on this vital issue has made universities and colleges across this province safer for our students, and for this I am grateful.

Clark was first elected to the legislature in 1996 and became deputy premier and education minister after the Liberals landslide victory in 2001. She left government in 2005 to spend more time with her family.

She won the B.C. Liberal leadership in 2011 and became the first woman in the province to lead a party to victory two years later.

Her government became known across Canada for consecutive surplus budgets while other provinces struggled with deficits.

Clark faced the prospect of sitting on theOpposition benches and was likely to be reminded of her education policies that led to a lengthy legal battle that ended witha Supreme Court of Canada victory for teachers in November 2016.

The Clark governments approval of the $8.8-billion Site C dam project is also likely to be the focus of much debate as the NDP government plans to submit the project to a review process.

Lake said it must have upset Clark to walk away from the political battles looming on the horizon.

Success is not for quitters, Clarks governmentsaid in a February 2016 throne speech.

Dirk Meissner, The Canadian Press

Here is the original post:

Former BC premier quits as Liberal leader and as member of legislature - Nanaimo News NOW (press release)