Author: Mitch Wolfe

CBC’s Ghomeshi Report Rejected as Whitewash

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Ghomeshi, Media

In October of 2014, Jian Ghomeshi, long time CBC host of the popular CBC culture/entertainment radio show, “Q”,  was fired by CBC for allegedly sexually harassing certain women both within and without CBC.

In the wake of the Ghomeshi scandal, CBC hired an outside Toronto employment lawyer, Janice Rubin, to investigate the Ghomeshi affair and report back to the Corporation her findings and her recommendations.

The Rubin Report was just released.

Frankly, the report is nothing but a whitewash. This report totally fails to do anything to eradicate the cancerous “star or host” culture that has spread throughout CBC. As a result, the CBC/Ghomeshi scandal is still eating away at the core of the CBC and public support for the CBC continues to decline, out of disgust for CBC’s continued efforts to cover up this scandal. And its failure to thoroughly investigate itself and cleanse itself.

Before I launch into a criticism of the Rubin Report, a little background information is in order.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ( CBC) is Canada’s major public broadcasting network. It is supported by Canadian taxpayer dollars well in excess of $1 billion dollars annually.

One of the mandates of the CBC is to tell Canadian stories to Canadians.

Well, one of the biggest CBC stories of 2014 and 2015 was the CBC/ Ghomeshi story and how he, for years under the eyes of CBC management and CBC employees, allegedly emotionally abused and sexually harassed CBC female employees. And CBC did nothing.It turns out that CBC not only turned a blind eye to Ghomeshi’s deplorable conduct, certain CBC middle managers, Chris Boyce, executive director of radio and Todd Spencer, executive director of human resources, under the guise of investigating employees’ complaints against Ghomeshi, failed to properly investigate Ghomeshi and hold him to account. In effect, they apparently covered up Ghomeshi’s misdeeds.

Then when some of Ghomeshi’s deplorable actions came to the attention of CBC’s most senior executives, in the summer of 2014, these senior executives initially failed to act on the information, presumably hoping that these allegations would disappear into the ether.

CBC senior brass only acted later in October of 2014 to fire Ghomeshi when they learned that the Toronto Star was about to publish an explosive expose of a multitude of allegations against Ghomeshi by over a dozen women, some of whom were CBC employees and former employees.

In order to forestall a more comprehensive investigation of Ghomeshi and the whole of CBC by truly independent outside investigators, CBC hired Janice Rubin, a Toronto lawyer, who had had a previous contractual relationship with the CBC and had been a guest on several CBC panels.

Basically a friendly investigator.

Though Ms. Rubin was technically an outside independent investigator, there is an appearance of lack of impartiality, objectivity and independence.

Furthermore, the CBC had severely restricted her mandate to investigate and had constrained her investigatory powers.

Rubin was limited to investigating Ghomeshi and the two CBC shows with which he was involved at the CBC. Rubin did not have subpoena powers.  Nor did she have the power to grant immunity to prospective witnesses.

Accordingly, Rubin was not able to talk to many relevant witnesses, who feared that anything they disclosed could be used against them in subsequent proceedings.

As a result, according to well-known Toronto employment lawyer,  Howard Levitt, writing in the National Post, the Rubin Report was a dismal failure.

The Rubin Report did not disclose any more information that had not already been discussed and disclosed already in numerous Toronto newspapers, prior to the report.

Though the report talked about a cancerous “host culture of impunity” in the CBC, that had been endemic to the CBC for years and years, the report failed to deal with any other CBC hosts or stars, both past and present.

The report just limited itself to Ghomeshi and to two managers who were responsible allegedly for permitting Ghomeshi to continue his conduct- unfettered, unrestricted and unpunished.

As Levitt wisely noted, “Jian Ghomeshi did not act alone. His predations were countenanced by a plethora of managers and people in human resources – people who, but for two, still remain.”

Employment lawyer Daniel Lublin, who also reviewed the Rubin Report, made a similar point.

Lublin stated, “The four executives who were participating in that conference call (Lacroix, Conway, general counsel Maryse Bertrand, and vice-president, people and culture, Roula Zaarour), of course, are still there, and this all happened under their watch, and yet it’s the other two (Boyce and Spencer) who were cut,” he said.

“Someone had to go. It wasn’t going to be the CEO or Ms. Conway. Why? Because they call the shots. (Leafs president Brendan) Shanahan didn’t fire himself, he fired everyone else. That’s because when you’re the boss, you get to call the shots.”

Howard Levitt was also particularly disappointed at what the investigation and report failed to do. Specifically, Levitt argued,

“What the report did not do is make the recommendations that the public most wanted to know and which are most needed to cleanse the organization. Who exactly said what to whom? Who should be disciplined? Who should be fired?

What disciplinary procedures should be put in place going forward? What is the specific line for unacceptable conduct in the workplace? What are the lines for reportable misconduct and what are the consequences for crossing them?

Howard Levitt wisely concluded,” That investigation should properly have been done by an independent body with power to subpoena and get to the bottom of problems we have come to learn were endemic at the CBC. Of course, that would have resulted in a revamp of the entire organization, doubtless many dismissals, and threatened the existing CBC establishment.”

I totally agree with Mr. Levitt. A truly independent body with teeth, authority and subpoena power needs to investigate the CBC from top to bottom.

Otherwise, the CBC will never eradicate the cancerous culture of entitlement and host culture of impunity that continue to course through the CBC body.

Certainly, Canadians’ hard-earned tax dollars should not be used to fund a toxic environment where apparently senior male CBC hosts emotionally and sexually prey on vulnerable female employees.

Obama’s Faustian “Nuclear Deal” with Iran Will Lead to Obama’s Own Downfall

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Iran’s current Supreme Being Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeni, has always viewed America, as “The Great Satan”.

However, looking at this deal from another perspective,  Obama’s proposed lopsided and dangerous nuclear deal with the same Ayotollah Ali Khamenei, is in turn Obama’s Faustian deal with the Devil.

As in Christopher Marlowe’s famous play, ‘Doctor Faustus’, this ain’t going to end well for the soon departed, President Obama,  America’s current lame duck Commander in Chief.

In the Marlowe play, Doctor Faustus was not of the manor-born. He was neither a son of a king, nor a nobleman’s son. He was the product of common folk. But in university, Faustus excelled at academia and especially in the study of Logic ( a great tool for argument, debate and oratory) and in the study of law. Does this remind you of any president we know?

Presumably due to his academic brilliance, Doctor Faustus earned his doctorate.

But Doctor Faustus was not satisfied with just being a brilliant orator and scholar, he wanted to do great things with the rest of his life, so he entered into an agreement with Lucifer, the Devil, who promised him great power and influence, for twenty-four years, but at the end of that period, the Devil would take Faustus’ soul to hell.

Special: 

It should be no surprise that the “good doctor” Faustus accomplished nothing in the next twenty-four years. And at the end of this period, he wished to repent, but it was too late, and his body was ripped to shreds and his soul transported to hell.

The moral of this play, like the Icarus legend, is that pride or hubris, comes before the fall.

Similarly,  I strongly believe that Obama’s overweening pride, or hubris, in crafting a horrible nuclear deal with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, will lead to Obama’s foreseeable downfall. Sooner rather than later.

Let me give you an example of Obama’s arrogance which apparently has dangerously clouded his thinking and his actions in negotiating this nuclear deal with Iran.

I have studied Obama- the man, for many years- as a young man, university student, community organizer, law student, young local politician, senator and then president.

Obama’s both strength and weakness is in the power of his self-constructed views and values and his unfailing belief in himself to influence those around him-  through reason, argument and the persuasive power of his oratory.

It is very rational to Obama that if the US, its allies and other major world powers ( the gang of six- US, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany) engage Iran, a brutal rogue regime, in nuclear negotiations, then it rationally follows that successful peaceful negotiations, will lead to peaceful and positive change both within Iran and with respect to Iran’s relationship to countries within and without the Mideast.

As Obama stated in a recent National Public Radio interview:

(referring to Ira) “If in fact they’re engaged in international business, and there are foreign investors, and their economy becomes more integrated with the world economy, then in many ways it makes it harder for them to engage in behaviors that are contrary to international norms.”

The problem with Obama is that he arrogantly believes himself to be sort of an infallible Sun King- that knowledge and understanding revolve around him, and that he alone has the answers.

Unfortunately, his long-time advisers-  Valerie Jarrett and Susan Rice and his political subordinates- Biden and Kerry- seem more like “ yes men” and props to feed Obama’s ego, rather than independent and objective critics who have the cojones to challenge Obama’s world views and his particular views of Iran.

Accordingly, one of Obama’s fatal flaws, is that he arrogantly projects his own views on the Iranians. And then incorrectly comes to the conclusion that the Iranians naturally and rationally must share Obama’s well-thought out views.

Hence Obama believes that the proper course of action and the only course of action is not only to engage in serious nuclear talks with Iran, but ultimately to permit Iran to successfully build nuclear bombs, several years down the road.

Because according to Obama’s own hope and belief,  and his projection of his beliefs upon the Iranians-  by that time,  Iran will be a more benign, moderate, peaceful nation which would prefer ( to use Obama’s term) “regional equilibrium” with its Mideast neighbors- Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel- than out right conventional or nuclear war.

The problem with Obama’s thinking is that he has arrogantly confused his own thinking with that of the Iranians.

The facts on the ground tell a completely different story.

In 2009, when the Iranian Green Movement of Iranian students, reformers,  liberal intellectuals, secular businessmen and moderates surged into the streets following a disputed election,  radical political change in Tehran seemed possible.

But led by current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-  the Revolutionary Guards, the reactionary clergy, the hard-line judiciary and their supporters and followers crushed the Green Movement. Their leaders-imprisoned, tortured, or killed together with many thousands of protesters.

There is no factual evidence that this Iranian power establishment will become more moderate and more benign in the future. Probably, Iran will become even more militant, more powerful, more power-crazy, and more aggressively supportive of murderous terrorist groups as Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthi in Yemen.

Ayatollah Khamenei, in the midst of these so-called, game-changing peaceful nuclear negotiations, continues to publicly condemn the United States as the Great Satan and even has referred to Obama’s spin on the negotiations as “devilish and deceptive.”

America’s allies in the region such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel consider the infusion of billions of dollars into Iran and the ability of Iran to rapidly ramp up the development of its nuclear arsenal, ( as a result of this horrible nuclear agreement) clear existential threats to their very existence. It follows that these nations will in turn acquire and/or develop nuclear arms to counter the Iranian nuclear threat in their own backyard.

Accordingly, a nuclear arms race in the Mideast is inevitable and a regional nuclear war- probable.

All because intellectually arrogant Obama believes he is the smartest man at the negotiating table and he alone knows and understands the Iranians.

But Obama’s fatal blunders with the Iranians have not been lost on the majority of the American people and their Republican and Democratic representatives in Congress.

I predict that Congress, led by both Republicans and Democrats, will pass veto-proof legislation clipping the wings of Icarus Obama, vis a vis Iran.

And Obama’s Faustian framework deal with the Devil will ultimately lead to Obama’s inglorious downfall both as to his presidency and as to his legacy.

Ontario Premier Wynne’s Whitewash of Billion Dollar Gas Plant Scandal Won’t Wash

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Well, the Ontario Liberal-led legislative committee investigating the gas plant scandal has come out with its report. And surprise – surprise! The Liberal majority on the committee concluded that the costs of the cancellation of the two infamous Ontario gas plants were excessive.

The Liberals also concluded that the fault lies with all three Ontario provincial parties- the Liberals, the Tories and the NDP. Because all three parties supported the cancellation of the said gas plants.

Furthermore, according to Premier Wynne, the Liberals have learned their lesson. They will be more transparent and open.

In the immortal words of NDP provincial leader, Andrea Horwath, “what a load of bull spit!”

In the view of the Ontario Auditor General, and in my humble opinion, the expenditure of over $1 billion dollars to cancel, then relocate and rebuild the gas plants, was totally unnecessary and an almost criminal waste of taxpayer money.

Based on the Ontario Auditor General’s report (which extensively investigated the gas plant cancellations) the then Ontario Liberal McGuinty government ( of which Wynne was a senior cabinet minister) clearly authorized its outside counsel to negotiate the payment of hundreds of millions of dollars,  to a greedy American hedge fund lender and to an
incompetent gas plant operator, unnecessarily, so as to make this gas plant cancellation debacle go quietly away. Out of public sight.  And out of the public mind.  (See here and here)

Then the McGuinty/Wynne government lied about the full amount paid. Then when the opposition parties demanded to see the emails and documents relating to the gas plant cancellation, the very same government lied about the existence of these documents.

Special: 

Then in order to further cover up, the cover up, the same government retained computer security expert Peter Faist, boyfriend of Laura Miller, ( key McGuinty staffer) to wipe out the offending documents and emails in the Premier’s office.

Then to further cover up, the cover up, the Wynne government triple covered up, by refusing to permit the investigating legislative committee to obtain the testimony of the said Peter Faist.

It is imperative that both opposition parties keep Wynne’s feet to fire on this scandal, as well as the numerous other outstanding Liberal scandals, still under investigation- MaRS, Sudbury election bribe, eHealth, Ornge, just to name the most deplorable.

“Fifty Shades of Grey” More Like Fifty Shades of Bland

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Entertainment

I would like to say that I was blindfolded and dragged, handcuffed, to the opening of Fifty Shades of Grey by my woman friend. But that would be wrong.

Though I did not actually read the original and very popular BDSM (bondage, dominance, sadomasochism) novel by the same name, I was caught up with the Hollywood hype about the film. Who would be cast as the virginal Anastasia and the dangerously handsome Christian Grey? And, of course, how would the supposedly erotic dominance/submissive content be portrayed?

So, truth be told, I was the one who begged my woman friend to attend a viewing of Fifty Shades. She, in turn, was not that interested. She is very literary and intelligent, and had read the book during a business flight. Though she admitted to being mildly titillated by the BDSM sex scenes, she thought the film would be, like the book, a woman’s sex fantasy film. In other words, a pseudo-romantic chick flick with flogging, bonds, nudity, and stilted dialogue. Which, I must confess, all work for me.

Upon entering the suburban theatre for the afternoon show, my friend’s estimation of the film’s appeal was bang on. The theatre was packed with about a hundred excited women of all ages. Some clutched their well-read copies of the book. A few sheepish men were also in attendance. (I told you my woman friend was whip smart.)

Overall, the film itself was enjoyable and will do well in both domestic and foreign box offices, but it had serious flaws. Flaws I would like to nail down.

But first: the positives.

I really liked Dakota Johnson, who played the sweet college lit major—virginal but ultimately strong-willed—Anastasia Steele, the object of Christian Grey’s steely interests.

Dakota is the daughter of actor’s Don Johnson (I loved him as the sexy, wild, white-suited and sockless drug detective in Miami Vice) and Melanie Griffith (the crazy chick in Something Wild, and porn actress in both Body Double and Working Girl). Dakota comes by her free-wheeling, bosom-baring role very naturally. It is clearly in her genes … or lack thereof.

I feel I must warn you: before you see this flick, you will have to suspend your disbelief … from the highest tree.

Long-haired, smart, and great-looking Ana, is a twenty-two-year-old college senior and virgin? Not very likely, in my opinion. Putting that aside, Johnson as Ana is very believable as an independent, strong-willed woman who attracts the billionaire Grey yet retains her strong sense of self.

I understand the film is a bit more humorous than the actual novel. And Johnson has some of the best lines. When Christian is about to introduce Ana to the infamous Red Room (the room with the whips, chains, handcuffs, and other BDSM paraphernalia), Christian refers to said area as his “playroom.” To which Ana quickly queries, “is this where you keep your Xbox?”

Though the film as a whole is not very memorable, some of the sex scenes were fairly erotic at the time of viewing. Yet upon reflection, they were a bit too wholesome and sweet for my tastes. (Like Christian, my tastes are very singular.)

I don’t want to give away the best parts of the film (or of Johnson’s anatomy), but Christian’s first deflowering of Ana had its moments. Christian, with an ice cube in his mouth, running it slowly down a blindfolded, supine, and tied-up Ana’s bare chest to her navel was pretty hot.

On one level, Jamie Dornan—the Armani underwear model/actor—was adequate as the handsome, wealthy, smart, articulate, but emotionally distant twenty-seven-year-old billionaire Christian Steele. What woman wouldn’t be attracted to a billionaire who owns his own company? With his name emblazoned on his own skyscraper and a sumptuous office with tons of models running around as his assistants, not to mention a massive penthouse suite that overlooks the Seattle skyline and owning his own helicopter and a fleet of sports cars, what’s not to like?

Even the standoffish and independent Elizabeth Bennett was attracted to Mr. Darcy’s palatial country estate. 

But as my woman friend astutely observed, Dornan was miscast. He is too pretty, too GQ. The role of Christian Steele called for a powerful, dominant, and potentially dangerous man who was clearly older than Ana. At times throughout the film, Ana and Christian reminded me of a Radcliffe senior and her Harvard B School beau bickering over a latte in Harvard Square.

Rather, Christian Steele should have been portrayed by an actor who was strong, tough, and dangerous, with unconventional good looks. Charming, but with a killer instinct. In other words,  more like a young, disturbing Mickey Rourke pushing Kim Basinger’s sexual boundaries in 9 ½ Weeks. Released in 1986, the film is still considered one of the most erotic and sexually charged to be made in the last fifty years. I urge you to compare this film’s hot ice-cube scene (for your viewing pleasure) with the much tamer and less memorable ice-cube scene in Fifty Shades.

Another negative observation? Grey’s scary Red Room isn’t that scary.

Some of the most important scenes take place in Christian’s playroom, the Red Room of pleasure and pain. It is a very large and brightly lit sterile room, chock full of whips, belts, chains, handcuffs, benches, tables, and steel hanging apparatus. A potpourri of bondage tchotchkes or knick knacks. Upon entering this room of horrors, Ana, a bit scared and curious, breathes deeply. Frankly, to me, this was as about as scary as the weight room at my local gym. And not as intimidating. This pleasure/pain palace should have been darker, smaller, creepier, and dirtier—both physically and psychologically.

The penultimate scene is when Ana, frustrated by Christian’s emotional distance, pushes him to show his real dark side, to punish her. Christian then orders Ana to lie face down on a bench as he whips her six times, apparently on the buttocks though the actual flogging on the bare flesh is unseen. Ana counts out loud each blow and cries out in pain.

The problem with this scene, as with most of the film, is that the film fails on its own terms.

This scene is supposed to be disturbing and brutal, but it is neither. Christian, as portrayed by Dornan, is a wuss. His forehand and backhand flogging is weak and limp-wristed. My forehand smash in ping pong is more powerful.

Here is where the director and Dornan as an actor fail miserably. As Christina is whipping Ana, his face is emotionless. Is he turned on? Is he expressing some inner darkness based upon his unhappy childhood? Or is he ashamed at what he is doing? What are his demons, if any? Christian has a need to punish and beat Ana, but why?

So many questions. But there are no answers. And the film literally peters out and ends limply after that scene.

My woman friend advised me that one of the high points of the book is the self-revelation by Ana that though she has submitted to Christian’s will, she ultimately realizes, paradoxically, that she is in control of the situation and of Christian.

There are hints of this interplay of dominance and submission through the back and forth between the characters, but there is no cathartic revelation for either party. Which is too bad for all concerned—the actors and the audience.

Ironically, by the director and actors in Fifty Shades pulling their punches (on the floggings, bondage, and disturbing and dangerous behavior), they made the film more mainstream, more palatable, and probably more massively popular. But definitely less memorable and noteworthy.

I doubt, thirty years from now, we will remember this film as we remember the more memorable and better crafted 9 ½ Weeks … or one of the most disturbing bondage and sadism films in history,  The Story of O (1975).

fifty shades of grey film

NBC Anchor Brian Williams Comes Under Fire For Lying About Being Under Fire

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Media

The ten million dollar NBC news anchor man, Brian Williams, is toast.  Williams announced recently that he has voluntarily taken himself off the air until NBC fully investigates his “misremembering” about his 2003 Iraqi helicopter trip which he claimed came under enemy fire.

Note that this is NBC “damage control speak”, for Williams will be probably terminated and he will never see that NBC new anchor chair again.

We had a similar situation in Canada, where CBC radio personality Jian Ghomeshi, announced that he was voluntarily leaving hosting his popular “Q” radio show, temporarily, for personal reasons. That was the last we heard of Ghomeshi on CBC.

For several years Williams has tried to pump up his public persona, as if he was a modern day Papa Hemmingway (always throwing himself in harm’s way) by claiming in various interviews and even on the Late Night David Letterman show, that his helicopter had been nearly downed by enemy fire.

But as reported by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times:

“A crew member from a Chinook flying ahead of Williams, who was involved in the 2003 firefight, posted, “Sorry dude, I don’t remember you being on my aircraft. I do remember you walking up about an hour after we had landed to ask me what had happened.” Stars and Stripes ran with it, and, by Saturday, Williams announced that he was stepping down for several days.”

Williams has publicly apologized for “misremembering” this incident. But this is clearly not the end of Williams’ shameful conduct.What is truly deplorable and indefensible, is that Williams is trying to appropriate the dangerous and heroic experience of being under enemy fire and potentially facing death or serious injury,  for his own experience. Apparently to pump up his own public image and self-image.

These are the true and singular experiences of military veterans, who put their lives on the line for their country and for their country’s values. For Williams to falsify his experience, is to insult the very veterans on whom he claims to report.

Many military veterans report that being shot at, or being under attack,  is a traumatic and often life-changing experience.  It is not an experience, one treats lightly or takes lightly. It is not an experience one “misremembers”.

No public apology by Williams can wipe away the stain of his mendacity or rectify the damage that he has done to his reputation or to the reputation of the NBC News division, that is now coming under real and serious enemy fire from media critics in the social media.

Apparently, other media reports are emerging of Williams’ potentially falsifying his personal reporting in other trouble spots. During Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Williams reported that from his hotel room window, he saw a dead man’s body float by, implying it was carried by the swirling flood waters beneath his hotel window.

However, actual authoritative experts on scene at that time have questioned the veracity of Williams’ account. Apparently, the part of New Orleans, where Williams’ hotel was located, was dry and not affected by flood waters. So the description of the “dead man floating by” is highly suspect.

More accurately, “Lyin Brian” appears to be a dead man walking.

But NBC News and the whole NBC network have a greater problem on their hands.

Maureen Dowd has reported that other NBC executives and staffers have been aware for over a year that Williams had been inflating his resume. But apparently, there is no evidence that any NBC executive or staffer had the cojones to call Williams to account. Or force Williams to stop embellishing his career at the expense of his integrity and the integrity of the whole news organization.

Chalk it up to NBC’s culture of celebrity. Where no one wants to take on the $10 million dollar media star.

I believe the culture of celebrity has adversely affected the news organizations of all the major media broadcasters: NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN and MSNBC.

No wonder people are increasingly relying on social media- Twitter, Facebook,  online news journals, blogs and the like- for timely reporting of the news.

Canadian PM Harper Drives a Wedge Between Freedom-Loving Canadians and Terrorist Sympathizers

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics, Stephen Harper

In a powerful speech before a very supportive crowd of Canadian Muslims,  Persians, Asians, South Asians and Russians, in the multicultural Toronto suburb of Richmond Hill,  Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper threw down the gauntlet against homegrown jihadi terrorism.

In doing so, Harper has driven a wedge between Canadians who look to the government to protect their freedoms and their democratic Canadian way of life and the federal Liberals on the left who are clearly blind to the threat of jihadi terrorism in Canada.

In his speech, Harper pulled no punches: “Over the last few years a great evil has been descending over our world…Jihadi terrorism is one of the most dangerous enemies our world has ever faced….  Jihadist terrorism is not a future possibility, it is a present reality…Violent jihadism is not just a danger somewhere else, it seeks to harm us here in Canada, in our cities and in our neighbourhoods.”

On this occasion as in other previous occasions, Harper has cited several examples of very real and disturbing jihadist terrorist actions that have occurred in Canada;

  1. The Toronto 18, a Muslim terrorist cell in which its members planned blowing up Toronto landmarks ( the CN Tower), the Parliamentary buildings in Ottawa and capturing Prime Minister Harper and publicly beheading him. This group was infiltrated and stopped. Some of its members have been successfully charged and convicted with terrorist offences;
  2. The proposed blowing up of Via Rail trains by two Canadian Islamic militants;
  3. The tragic murder of a Quebec soldier in Quebec, run down by a car driven by a local Muslim terrorist; and
  4. The equally tragic shooting of a unarmed Canadian soldier on Parliament Hill in Ottawa by another home-grown radical Muslim terrorist.
Stephen Harper SpeechAccordingly, Harper and his majority government has introduced sweeping anti-terrorist legislation which would in effect,  grant Canada’s spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, (CSIS) the power to intervene and disrupt threats to national security.  This proposed legislation would also make it legally easier for CSIS to use these additional powers effectively and expeditiously.  This new legislation is a major change from CSIS merely collecting intelligence and handing off the matter to Canada’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police ( RCMP).

Special: 

Specifically, this proposed legislation is in direct response to the above third incident, whereby the Canadian authorities had sought a court action to monitor or restrict the actions of the alleged Muslim terrorist and murderer, but was denied because of the then legal barriers in place under the current anti-terrorist legislation.

The rationale is that if this proposed legislation had been in place, that murder may have been prevented.

Certain measures in the proposed anti-terrorist legislation are as follows:

  • Giving courts the power to order the removal of “terrorist propaganda” from websites using Canadian Internet service providers.
  • Making it easier for authorities to restrict the movements of suspected jihadis, meaning they can apply to a court if they only believe terrorist activity “may be carried out.” The previous threshold called on law-enforcement authorities to state they believed an act “will be carried out.”
  • Extending the length of time authorities can detain suspected terrorists for up to seven days from three.
  • Relaxing the threshold needed to prevent suspected jihadis from boarding a plane, allowing Ottawa to bar those whom the government believes are heading abroad to take part in terrorist activities.
  • Granting government departments explicit authority to share private information, including passport applications, or confidential commercial data, with law-enforcement agencies.

To Harper, his Conservative government and a majority of Canadians, jihadi terrorism is a very real threat to Canadians’ security, Canadian values, and to Canadian freedoms.  And the fundamental role of government is to protect Canadians, their values and their freedoms.

Special: 

To Justin Trudeau, the leader of the Liberals, his party and to many Canadians on the left, their position is markedly different .

Fundamentally, Trudeau and his Liberals believe that these young men are not Islamic terrorists,  but mentally ill young men. Alternatively, if they are not mentally ill, they are at least misunderstood men who have been alienated from society. Or these men are angry at Canada due to Canada’s foreign policies in Muslim countries. ( Recall Trudeau’s comments about the “root causes” of terrorism after the horrific Boston Marathon bombing.)

In other words, the blame lays with western societies ( or more particularly Canadian society) and Canada’s militaristic foreign policies.

Note the recent comments of Judy Sgro, long time Liberal MP, who blamed the threat of ISIS coming to terrorize Canada, primarily upon PM Harper, for his support of Canadian forces in Iraq, assisting the American-led coalition in fighting the brutal ISIS group.

In a very real sense, Trudeau, his Liberal party and many Canadians on the left who support Trudeau, are somewhat sensitive and sympathetic to these jihadi terrorists because they blame Harper, the Conservatives,  and their anti-ISIS foreign policies on the existence of these terrorists on Canadian lands.

Trudeau’s prescription is to stop all Canadian foreign adventures in Arab and Muslim countries. And that any criticism of radical Muslim terrorists, both locally or foreign or their activities is racist and Islamaphobic, because Islam is a peaceful religion.

Also any additional efforts to combat home-grown terrorism, both legally and militarily should be constrained out of political correctness and an undue concern for violating Charter rights and freedoms.
So herein lies the fundamental divide between these two federal leaders and their parties.

Harper and his party believe it is the fundamental duty of the federal government to fight home-grown jihadis, protect Canadians’ security and their freedoms and values.

Trudeau and his party believe that there is no jihadi problem in Canada. And if there is such a problem, the best way to protect Canadians is through isolationism, non-militaristic peace-keeping and being more sensitive and sympathetic to the radical Muslims in our midst and in our neighborhoods.

I believe that this is a defining moment in our country’s history. The next federal election will be fought on these two conflicting visions and belief systems.

Obama Refuses to Publicly Condemn Islamic Brutality By Name

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

President Obama has been publicly condemned for his recent comments at a National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.  During this service, Obama pointedly avoided condemning recent Islamic terrorist actions, especially the brutal and barbaric actions of ISIS.

Instead, Obama, like most Islamic terrorist apologists, (i.e. Haroon Siddiqui, Toronto Star columnist) tried to indirectly defend Islam, by badmouthing Christianity and Catholicism.Obama made a point of reminding his audience of all the horrible things medieval people did in the name of Christianity ( waging war during the Crusades) and Catholicism (torture and death during the Spanish Inquisition)

Obama, in referring to recent events of Islamic terrorism, but not specifically naming it as such,  lectured:

” Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.”

Yes, hundreds of years ago, terrible deeds were committed in the name of religion. But this not the point.

Islamic radicalism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic brutality- call it what you want- If it drinks like a camel and walks like a camel, it is a camel!!!

The point is that Islamic radicalism, Islamic terrorism, Islamic brutality- call it what you want- If it drinks like a camel and walks like a camel, it is a camel!!! Is happening now!!!

Just recently, the world witnessed the horrific scene of a Jordanian pilot, placed in a cage, who was then burned alive by his ISIS captors. The video of this horrible death was then distributed online worldwide.

As has been suggested, this heinous act was never performed by the Nazi war criminal Dr. Mengele.  And this act was clearly done in the name of Allah.

Roger Simon, a well-known writer and political analyst, had a brilliant explanation for why Obama primarily lectured his audience on the Crusades and slavery, done “in the name of Christ”, while failing to publicly call Islamic terrorism to account.

Simon suggested that we should first look at Obama’s criticism of ISIS, which Obama described as ”a brutal vicious death cult that in the name of religion carries out unspeakable acts of barbarism, claiming the mantle of religious authority for such actions.” Note the use of the word “religion,” not “Islam,” or the even more telling “Mohammed,”  a warlord who married a little girl and a figure, one can safely say, not very much like Christ.  Nevertheless, Obama can attack Christians and name them in a speech, but not Muslims.

According to Roger Simon, the reasons for Obama’s conduct are as follows:

Obama is not a religious person. He rarely goes to church, except for political purposes.

Obama is nominally a Christian person.  But more importantly, Obama identifies emotionally from his youth in Indonesian madrassas and from his ideological predisposition, with Third World Muslims.

So now, Obama is confronted with those same Muslims behaving like barbarians across Africa and the Middle East and sometimes into Europe and America.

Obama’s reaction is shame. This is the same reaction for the majority of Muslims throughout the Islamic world — shame.

Islam has been described as a shame culture. This is the kind of society that will go berserk, violent and murderous over cartoons.

The French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo also took great delight in mocking Jesus Christ, the Pope and Jewish rabbis in very tasteless cartoons. But no representatives from these religions went on a killing spree against the Charlie Hebdo writers and editors.

The argument is that Obama is very much a part of this Muslim culture. And the suggestion is that Obama is genuinely and quite deeply ashamed of the religion, he, in part, came from.

The problem is that Obama, the president of the United States and one of the most powerful people in the world, cannot adjust to or accept the calamities that Islam is causing.

Unlike the President of Egypt, Obama cannot even call it or publicly name it-  Islamic terrorism.

Obama cannot call a “camel a camel”.

I also believe, like Roger Simon, that Obama’s emotional and cultural attachment to Islam and his failure to adjust or accept Islamic terrorism and brutality, explain his determination to whitewash the behavior of Iran and make a deal with the equally murderous and brutal Iran, that will jeopardize the safety and security of the whole world.

I also believe that this is a horrible situation.  For these above reasons, President Barack Obama is absolutely the wrong human being to be leading the West at this point in history.  Heaven help us.

Trouble at Queens Park and Toronto City Hall- Kathy and Johnny- Splitsville?

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in John Tory, Politics

It looks like the political honeymoon between Ontario Liberal Premier Kathleen Wynne and newly elected Toronto Mayor John Tory is over. Kaput. Finito.

Kim Kardashian’s short-lived questionable marriage to basketballer Kris Humphries lasted longer.

And this is after John Tory went to the trouble of legally changing his name to John Liberal. In deference to Kathy’s strong political Liberal leanings and the fact that Kathy and her minions had brought their considerable organizational skill and manpower to this relationship, in order for John Liberal to beat back the Ford resurgence.  And win the Toronto election, especially in the inner city.

What went wrong with this May- October relationship? Premier Kathy, the Iron Bell, seemed so sympatico with the former Rogers Cable guy.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Recall in mid-election campaign, Johnny expressed his undying admiration for and devotion to Premier Kathy. Johnny tried to score political points by stressing that unlike his opponent Doug Ford,  he had a friend in Kathy in the Ontario Premier’s office.

Johnny may come across as a bit entitled, a bit dilettantish and certainly spineless

Johnny may come across as a bit entitled, a bit dilettantish and certainly spineless, but his claim to fame is that he is a likeable guy who can get along with all his colleagues. And especially with the powerful Premier Kathy, who rules the roost at Queens Park.

You may recall that former Mayor Ford’s relationship with Premier Kathy, was dead on arrival, from the get go.

The reasons are numerous.

Their personalities and ideologies clashed horribly.

Ford was a straight-shooting, street smart governmentphobe and taxaphobe, who believed the best government is one which governs least. Ford also had some serious personal control issues. And he pointedly avoided the Pride Festival and everything gay.

Premier Kathy is an openly gay,  bleeding heart liberal school trustee/mediator/community organizer type, who believes government is the panacea, regardless of costs. She has no clue how the private sector and business operate. And she couldn’t care less. Her modus operandi is to create jobs by using borrowed government funds to bribe companies to stay in Ontario, at ruinous costs to the Ontario taxpayers and the companies themselves.

Ford and Kathy clearly had different value systems. Ford really respected taxpayers’ dollars. His original campaign in 2010 was based on stopping the gravy train at City Hall and cutting unnecessary waste to the tune of $800 million to a billion dollars.

Premier Kathy was part of a government that blew blithely billions of taxpayers’ dollars on corrupt and crazy schemes ( eHealth, Ornge, OLG, gas plant cancellations, MaRS) without remorse or an errant eyelash.

Ford also had the unfortunate habit of undiplomatically reminding Premier Kathy that she should get her own deficit-ridden, spendthrift government in order before she tried to interfere with his more cost-conscious and cost-effective administration.

So when John Liberal came a courting Premier Kathy early in the mayoral campaign, the Premier helped staff up Johnny’s campaign with her loyal senior advisers. Anything to get rid of the boorish Ford brothers.

I think Johnny was more interested in tapping Kathy’s government revenues, than her friendship

In retrospect, I think Johnny’s intentions with Kathy were less than noble.

I think Johnny was more interested in tapping Kathy’s government revenues, than her friendship.

The issue came to a head between these two love birds around the time of Johnny’s first budget.

As I predicted, ( together with many right thinking pundits) Johnny is just another tax and spend liberal hiding in Bay Street Blue threads.

Contrary to his campaign promises, our new Mayor has raised TTC fares and imposed additional hidden fees on Ontario residents for water and garbage pickup services and a whole host of user fees.

Instead of holding the line at City Hall, he has increased salaries for councilors, their office budgets and he has increased his own office budget by a whopping 50% over the previous mayor, well over $2.2 million annually. He is quickly heading to David Miller country, a previous spendthrift mayor who was practically run out of town for his profligate spending policies.

Johnny has also designated more money for young children riding the TTC,  additional buses, the homeless and for affordable housing. Which is all fine and dandy if there were sufficient funds in the city’s coffers.

But guess what? There ain’t, Jack.

There seems to be a big fat gaping hole of about $86 million, unsupported by proposed tax revenues or ancillary revenues. I estimate that this hole is well over $100 million and probably heading to $200 million territory.

So Johnny boy, we got a problem.

Mayor Johnny was hoping that he could sweet talk Premier Kathy into waiving certain funds owed by the City to the province, about $80-90 million.

And Johnny thought he had a deal.

But Kathy’s henchman Finance Minister Sousa, kiboshed that understanding and instead insisted publicly that there was no such deal or waiver. And instead, the province will lend Johnny boy $100 or 200 million, at market rates ( read usurious rates administered by a heavy-set guy named Cheech)

So what happened to that special relationship you had with the Premier, Johnny boy?

The fact is that the City of Toronto does not have a revenue problem, it still has a spending problem. It is spending more than it can afford.

If Doug Ford was the mayor, unlike the spineless Johnny, he would be looking very carefully to the overpaid and overstaffed police, emergency and fire prevention services.

Do we really need police knocking back double and triple over time for supervising condo construction projects or highway infrastructure projects and earning well over $100Gs per man for work that could be more cost-effectively outsourced to private security forces?

We could easily save $12 million to $15 million per year in outsourcing and privatizing garbage services in the east.

But John Boy seems to have deep sixed that idea for fear of offending his profligate lefty friends on council.

We have too many Toronto public schools, with little enrollment, that should have been closed years ago and the surplus land sold off to developers and the revenues used to repair and maintain our aging public housing stock.

There are many other revenue generating and cost-saving ideas. But the current mayor is a spineless political dilettante who has been promoted well beyond his competence and we are stuck with him for another four years as he runs around glad handing and being likeable, but ultimately totally ineffective and ineffectual.

Newly Elected Toronto Mayor John Tory Predictably Breaks Campaign Promises and Veers to the Left

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in John Tory, Politics

Remember during the many mayoral debates during the almost year long Toronto mayoral campaign, John Tory courageously promised that if elected,  he would raise TTC fares.

You do?  I seem to recall just the opposite.In practically every debate, Tory channeled former US President George Bush ( the father, not his invading Iraqi son); as if to say, “Read my lips, no new taxes- TTC fares will be frozen”

Tory also promised that he would be fiscally prudent as his predecessor, Mayor Rob Ford, “but without the circus”.

In other words, unlike Ford, Tory would be honest, principled and run an administration with integrity and transparency.

Recall in the first critical publicly televised debate among the main competitors: Rob Ford, Olivia Chow and John Tory;  John Tory scored his strongest points by hammering Chow on her support of retaining city unionized garbage services in the east end of the city.

In that April 2014 debate, Tory impressively cited that the privatization of garbage to the west, had yielded savings of about $11 million annually, or $44 million over four years. As a result, Tory, if elected mayor, as Ford, was in favor of privatizing garbage services in the east of the city, at considerable savings.Well, fast forward about 9 months. January, 2015. Within about two months of being elected Toronto mayor, Tory unveiled his first city budget.

And guess what?

Contrary to figuratively swearing on a stack of bibles, Tory reversed himself and instead supported the raising of TTC fares.  Then in a failed effort to hoodwink the Toronto public, Tory tried to distract his breaking a major campaign pledge, but offering free TTC travel to young children, 12 years and younger. At a further loss of $7 million in revenue from Toronto’s coffers.

Whenever slimy politicians are in trouble, lack firm policies or want to distract the public, they play the “kids” card.

As in, “Think of the children”. Or “We are only doing this for the children”. Or “What will our children think of us in the future”. And other such political garbage.

Then Tory committed another blatant lie. Tory, the scion of old and established Rosedale family, Mr. Civic Virtue-Mr. Decent- Mr. All Around Nice Guy brazenly explained that,  “ he was shocked, really shocked when he looked at the TTC books for the first time, he realized that things were worse than he had believed, and that the only way to cover the repair costs and improve TTC service was to increase TTC fares. And by the way, this is all the fault of Mayor Ford’s previous crash and burn policies”

John Tory was a candidate for Toronto mayor twice. He was head of a group called Civic Action which spent a ton of time researching the costs of Toronto transit and the revenue tools needed to improve the TTC. Tory was a news radio host who dealt with the TTC and its problems, on a regular basis.

In short, Tory knew all about the ins and outs of the TTC and the costs to maintain the system and improve it.

Poor citizens of Gotham, if you believe Tory’s malarkey, I have some very cheap environmentally suspect lands by the Toronto waterfront- for sale.

Recall when Mayor Ford was accused of lying about his drug use and alcoholism, he was mercilessly hounded by the tv media and print press for months and months.

When John Tory blatantly lies about his lack of knowledge of TTC costs and finances, there is surprisingly very little major criticism of Tory’s cynical about face- from the mainstream media,  including the right wing press- National Post and Toronto Sun.

Nada. Zero.

How shameful! How hypocritical!

Furthermore,  I seem to recall during the said election campaign, that Tory never explicitly stated he would increase user fees to raise much needed revenues.

But lo and behold, in his first budget, Tory and his partners in tax increase crime, quietly slipped in some serious increases of user fees relating to use of water in Toronto homes and the use of city facilities, i.e .hockey rinks.

And don’t forget Tory raised the fees relating to garbage pickup services.

Did you know the City of Toronto has more than 3,000 different types of user charges, ranging from TTC fares and admissions to the Toronto Zoo to fees for fitness classes at municipal recreation centres?

The city collects about $1.67-billion in user fees and $1.5-billion in rates for things such as water and garbage collection. Revenue from user fees and rate programs amounts to 28 per cent of the city’s revenue take, compared with 34 per cent for property taxes.

No wonder Tory can say with a straight face that he will keep property tax increases around the rate of inflation. Because he is less transparently raising a whack of dough through user fees!

Speaking about privatizing garbage collection, which was one of the central planks of Tory’s campaign,- as I predicted during the mayoral campaign, Tory has caved to the pro union lefty councilors on city council and has shelved privatizing garbage collection on the east side.
Another lie and serious broken campaign promise.

No wonder Toronto voters cannot trust their elected representatives. They promise what we want to hear during an election. Yet once elected, they bob, weave and back track.

Well, at least, our new mayor,  the lying, left-leaning political hack, has shown his true colors.

Buckle Up for A Federal Spring Election

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

I predict Harper is going to the Canadian people this spring for a popular mandate from the Canadian people to fight Islamic terrorism both at home and abroad. As I indicate in the below article, the defining issue will be, do Canadians want their government to protect Canadians and our democratic way of life or do Canadians prefer political correctness and appeasement to the forces which wish to attack us and destroy our Canadian way of life?

If you stand for the Canadian principles of peace, order and good government, please share this post.Why Canadian PM Harper Will Pull The Election Trigger in the Spring

Forget about that fixed federal election date in October, 2015. Prime Minister Harper is going to the Canadian people this spring to seek a popular mandate to defend the Canadian people, Canadian values and Canada’s way of life, against Islamic terrorism.

This will be the defining issue of this spring election.

This election, as in the historic federal election of 1988, ( fought on the free trade issue) will pit two very different leaders, Stephen Harper, leader of the Federal Conservatives, against Justin Trudeau, leader of the Federal Liberals, and their starkly different visions of Canada. And their starkly different views on Islamic terrorism.

PM Harper made it very clear where he and his party stand on Islamic terrorism, when he stated publicly, in response to the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris:

“The fact of the matter is this, ladies and gentleman: The international jihadist movement has declared war. They have declared war on anybody who does not think and act exactly as they wish they would think and act. They have declared war and are already executing it on a massive scale on a whole range of countries with which they are in contact…

And they have declared war on any country like ourselves that values freedom, openness and tolerance. And we may not like this and wish it would go away, but it is not going to go away and the reality is we are going to have to confront it.”

Harper then further stated the invasion of Iraq and Syria by the Islamic State militants last year is only one example of many examples of the conflict between western democratic forces and the international jihadist movement. Harper cited the attacks on soldiers in Canada and a December hostage-taking in Sydney, Australia, in which two hostages died, as other examples of this jihadist war in which Canada and the west are involved.

Harper further explained that Canada’s military interventions in Iraq—both advisers and air strikes against militants—are a response to the rising conflict between the west and Islamic terrorist forces. The Prime Minister said:

“That is what obviously we are doing in concert with our allies—dealing with the very worst manifestation of this—which is an entire jihadist army that is now occupying large parts of Iraq and Syria and obviously other things we are doing both here and in concert with our allies to try and prevent and deal with terrorist planning on our own soil.”

On the domestic front, the Conservatives will go on the offensive with increased legal tools to combat home grown Islamic terrorism.

Remember in hockey as in real life, the best defence against Islamic terrorism is a very good offence.

I predict the Conservatives shortly will come in with aggressive new legislation that will provide police, RCMP, CSIS and other domestic security agencies with the legal tools, powers and measures to deal with Canadian citizens or residents who openly support terrorist attacks on Canadians or back groups that promote this goal, as well as to monitor terrorist groups or groups and individuals who sympathize with such terrorist groups. Specifically, lowering the bar to preventive arrests.

Interestingly, Justin Trudeau, leader of the Federal Liberals, in this hard fought Federal pre-election campaign, is beginning to look more and more like the male Olivia Chow, another early frontrunner, whose Toronto mayoral campaign and appeal stumbled badly and collapsed well before election day.

Since Trudeau became leader, his campaign for Prime Minister was built upon the major plank that he was not Stephen Harper ( as Chow was not Mayor Rob Ford). And that Trudeau was new, shiny, tall, good-looking, with great hair and that serious and substantive policies, ( as Trudeau’s flippant view that the all-important federal budget that will balance itself) would just take care of themselves.

Unfortunately, for Trudeau and the Liberals, national security-related events have sideswiped Trudeau’s lead, namely:

  1. the murder of two Canadian soldiers, one in Quebec and one on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill, by home-grown Canadian Islamic terrorists;
  2. the takeover of portions of Syria and Iraq by the murderous Islamic terrorists, ISIS, and the very real threat by ISIS against Canada;
  3. the Islamic terrorist hostage-taking in Sydney, Australia: and more recently,
  4. the Islamic terrorist killings of Charlie Hebdo journalists and Parisian Jewish citizens in Paris.

According to recent Ipso-Reid poll, the Conservatives have increased their lead over the Liberals by a 35% to 31% margin.

The reasons are obvious for Trudeau’s decline.

The Canadian people have lost confidence in Trudeau and his party being up to the job of performing the most fundamental function of the federal government, that is, to protect the Canadian people and Canada’s democratic way of life.

In the wake of these above events, Trudeau and his party are missing in action. And when they are not missing in action, they are fumbling, stumbling, bumbling and scrambling. All for naught.

Trudeau and the Liberal gang who cannot talk or shoot straight, cannot bring themselves to admit that the killings of the two Canadian soldiers were terrorist events ( they claim these wrongdoers were mentally ill, not terrorists.). Alternatively, if they were terrorists, they were not Islamic terrorists, because Islam is a peaceful religion. Alternatively, if they were inspired by Islam to commit terrorist acts, it is more important for Trudeau and the Liberals ( and their cowardly liberal enablers like the CBC, CTV, the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail) not to offend the Canadian Muslim community, than to root out Canadian Islamic terrorists and prevent future Canadian home-grown Islamic terrorist acts against Canadians.

In Trudeau and the Liberals’ view, the promotion of multiculturalism, diversity and tolerance trumps the concern for safety and national security.

Fortunately, Harper and the Conservatives take a strong opposing view. The Canadian principles of peace, order and good government and the respect for the rule of law and democratic values and institutions trump political correctness and the appeasement to cultures and to a radical militant form of a religion which wishes to destroy Canadian values and kill and maim its people.

Because stark choices have been provided by Harper and Trudeau, as above noted, that is why Harper will be seeking a decisive and popular mandate from the Canadian people in the spring to fight Islamic jihadism at home and abroad in order to protect the Canadian people and its way of life.