CBC In Trouble Again – Make Room for AmandaGate

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Ghomeshi, Media

Investigative journalism is not dead in Canada. It may be comatose in the mainstream press which is hamstrung by its own political correctness, groupthink and inability to self-critically look at itself in the mirror. But it is alive and well and firing on all cylinders, driven by the very tenacious, smart, aggressive and determined independent blogger, Jesse Brown.

Brown is the fellow who blew the doors off the Jian Ghomeshi “alleged” sexual harassment and assault scandal in which Ghomeshi, one time progressive/feminist/multicultural boy wonder ruled the airwaves of CBC, while he allegedly preyed,  for many years, on vulnerable women both within and without CBC. Apparently to the knowledge and in the plain sight of CBC employees, poobahs and Toronto’s elitist chattering and creative class.

This time Jesse Brown has turned his laser-like focus on Amanda Lang, CBC’s senior business correspondent and “odds on favorite” to be heiress apparent to the anchor desk of Peter Manbridge, senior news anchor of The National and CBC’s chief correspondent.

But I am afraid that now, for Amanda Lang,  all bets are off for her easy ascension to the throne.

Because Amanda has been caught in serious conflicts of interests, which have undermined her journalistic credibility and called into question her integrity and her future at the CBC.

You know Lang has stepped into serious journalistic doo doo, when the shots are coming fast and furious, not only from outsiders, ie Jesse Brown, but from angry and disgusted journalists within CBC.
Here are the facts as reported by Jesse Brown.

Amanda Lang , as CBC’s News senior business correspondent, hosts CBC’s flagship business news program, The Lang Exchange, which frequently covers the Canadian insurance company.

In the same blog, Brown provided written evidence that Lang had received payments from Manulife Insurance Company, one of Canada’s largest insurance companies, to moderate two public discussions sponsored by Manulife in July and August, 2014.

Subsequent to these paying gigs, Lang, then had on her show, the CEO of Manulife in September, 2014 who talked very favorably about the acquisition of one of Manulife’s competitors.  Which Lang supported very positively and uncritically.

Brown believes that both CBC and Lang were at fault, because neither CBC nor Lang disclosed during the show that she had been previously paid by Manulife and neither suggested that Lang alternatively should have recused herself from this show. Brown clearly suggests that there is an appearance of bias, and that Lang’s favorable treatment of the Manulife CEO on her CBC show, may be related to Lang having been previously financially compensated by the company.

Similarly, in the same year, Lang entered into a contract with Sun Life, to be paid for a speaking gig at one of Sun Life customer appreciation evenings.  And subsequent to entering into such financial contract, Lang had the Sun Life’s CEO on her business show to promote Sun Life’s products for retirement.  Again with the knowledge and consent of CBC. As above, Brown suggests that Lang and CBC should have disclosed Lang’s prior financial arrangement with Sun Life, or alternatively, recused herself from this show.

Brown’s suggests unfavorably, that Lang’s uncritical and cheerleader-like interview with Sun Life appears to have been related to her financial arrangement with Sun Life.

According to Brown, these two incidents with major Canadian life companies,  appear to taint Lang’s reputation and integrity and call into question CBC’s own judgment and integrity for permitting Lang’s shows with Manulife and Sun Life to proceed.

Brown suggests that Lang earns about $20,000-30,000 per speaking gig and therefore she earns about $300,000 annually with these speaking engagements, which ain’t chump change. Together with her non-publicly reported, taxpayer-supported CBC salary of about 300,000, Amanda Lang, public servant, is not suffering financially.

But that’s not all, folks.

Brown reports,  that according to multiple anonymous sources in the CBC, in 2013 Lang tried to sabotage the brilliant expose by fellow CBC colleague, Kathy Tomlinson, of Royal Bank’s abuse of Canada’s temporary foreign workers program.

The objectives of this federal program are to permit Canadian companies to import foreign workers temporarily to fill seasonal positions that cannot be effectively filled by existing Canadian workers ( i.e. itinerant farm workers) or to fill highly specialized jobs, where there are not sufficient Canadian workers who possess the required skills or knowledge ( computer engineering, information technology).

In a series of CBC reports, Tomlinson reported that the Royal Bank, Canada’s largest bank had abused the system, by using an outsourcing firm to bring in temporary workers for its Canadian IT employees to train… in order to sack those Canadian employees and ship their jobs overseas.

Amanda Lang, to her discredit, according to Jesse Brown,” lobbied aggressively within the CBC to undermine Tomlinson’s reporting on the foreign worker scandal at CBC…..When that failed, Lang tried to deflate the story by having RBC CEO Gord Nixon on to the National for a softball interview in which he criticized the CBC’s reporting and dismissed the scandal as trivial. During the interview Lang did not challenge Nixon.”

Amanda Lang then took her campaign to the Globe and Mail, where she penned a dismissive opinion piece defending outsourcing and making light of the abuses at the heart of the RBC scandal. In effect, she called RBC hiring temporary workers “ a sideshow”. And then Lang has apparently lied about her unusual Globe involvement, when she stated that the Globe had approached her to write such an article. When in fact, the Globe now admits that Lang approached the Globe.

But the story gets worse.

When Lang initially tried to derail this story on a CBC conference call with Tomlinson, in which she questioned Tomlinson’s facts and integrity, Lang failed to disclose that she had put herself in a very serious conflicts of interest.

According to Brown, Lang, prior to her unusual meddling in the Royal Bank scandal, had been paid by Royal Bank on 6 separate occasions for speaking engagements ( estimated $15,000 a crack). Prior to having RBC CEO Gord Nixon on her show, to defend RBC’s foreign workers program, Nixon has publicly written a laudatory blurb on Lang’s most recent book. Lastly, also unbeknownst to CBC staffers at the time, since 2013, Lang had been in a serious relationship with Geoff Beattie, a RBC board member.

In sum, Lang was conflicted every which way to Sunday.

To date, as the chop suey continues to hit the fan, and CBC’s Kathy Tomlinson, has come forward publicly to support Jesse Brown’s version of the events, the CBC executives continue to stand by, protect and coddle its high profile, celebrity star.

Sound familiar?

Just as the CBC brass continued to stand by Jian Ghomeshi, when he too had come under constant and persistent criticism by fellow CBC colleagues for his “conduct”.

Amanda Lang is further evidence of the cancerous celebrity culture that has infected the CBC. Where such celebrities appear to operate within CBC’s halls, in disregard of journalistic standards and normal, ethical moral behavior. But yet are protected and promoted by the CBC.

According to CBC lifer, Linden MacIntyre- this culture of celebrity is endemic to CBC.

Jian Ghomeshi and now Amanda Lang.  Will CBC ever get its act together, or is it finally the time for the Canadian taxpayers to pull the plug on the CBC?

Obama’s Veto of Keystone Pipeline Will Pave The Way to a Populist Republican Presidency

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

The presidency of Obama has always been about Obama.

Obama’s presidency is not about the American people. Or about the economy. Or national security.  Or America’s national energy security.

It has always been about Obama- first and foremost- Obama’s journey as a product of a mixed race family, through the Ivy League universities of Columbia and then Harvard Law School- to local Chicago community activism, state politics, the Senate, and then the presidency, the pinnacle of political power in America.

Obama’s threatened veto of the Keystone Pipeline is simply derived from his inflated sense of self, personal pique and his view of his historical legacy.

For six years the Republican Congress has frustrated Obama’s efforts to obtain a political consensus on his own favored policies: Obamacare, immigration reform and pro climate change environmental measures (ie a carbon tax or a cap and trade system).

Whereas in the first two years of his first term as president, Obama enjoyed Democratic majorities in both Houses.

But in 2015,  in part because of Obama’s own failings as a president, Obama is now faced with solid Republican majorities in both Houses.

Note in the 2014 mid-term elections, many House and Senate Republicans,  specifically sought and obtained a mandate from the American people to approve and proceed with the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from the Alberta oilfields to North Dakota and then down to the Gulf of Mexico refineries.

After six years of deadlock and gridlock within the Obama Administration, the American people gave the Republican-controlled Congress and Senate the right to proceed with Keystone, notwithstanding Obama’s opposition.In the first week of January 2015, the Republican leadership in Congress announced that its first order of business would be to pass in both Houses, a bill approving the Keystone pipeline. Due to its majorities in both Houses, the vote in both Houses should be filibuster-proof.

However, in the Senate, though the Republicans have some rare bipartisan support from certain Senate Democrats, ( a combined total of about 63 votes of Republicans and Democrats), to date, the Senate Republicans do not have the necessary 67 Senate votes to override Obama’s veto of the said legislation.

Within hours of the Republicans announcing their intention to proceed with a pro Keystone bill, Obama, through his press secretary, announced that he would veto this bill.

To Obama, it is personal pay back time against the Republicans for always opposing his own policy initiatives, these past six years.

By vetoing Keystone, Obama is also burnishing his image, during his last two years of office and post-presidency, as a serious pro environment, climate change president.

In addition, it is also pay back to Obama’s wealthy pro environment supporters in the blue states of California and New York- his billionaire hedge fund buddy, Tom Steyer, and his precious Hollywood supporters, ie Robert Redford, Barbra Streisand, Tom Hanks and Darryl Hannah and other Hollywood movers and shakers, who have raised big bucks for Obama’s two presidential campaigns and to whom Obama still makes a “Splash”.

But this is where things get really interesting, politically speaking, folks!

Let us assume 37 Senate Democrats follow Obama, like lemmings, to prevent the Senate Republicans and the pro-Keystone Senate Democrats from obtaining the required 67 votes to over-ride Obama’s veto.

The Democrats have just screwed themselves with the American people for the 2016 Congressional elections and the presidential election.

Obama will have handed the Republicans a great populist election issue with which to campaign against the Democrats, fund-raise and oppose the inevitable Hilary Clinton candidacy for the 2016 presidency.

Obama’s very own State Department has estimated that this $8+ billion project, which is privately financed, will generate over 42,000 related jobs. That may be a drop in the bucket in the context of the United States’ entire employment picture. But those jobs would be very important to 42,000 American families who would benefit from such employment, income and benefits paid for by private dollars, not by government deficit spending or taxpayer dollars.

Accordingly, the proposed construction of the Keystone pipeline has attracted moderate Democratic Congressmen and very strong moderate and independent support and key union support among the American people. These latter groups could very easily leave the Democratic fold and move to the Republicans in 2016.

In addition, there is great support for Keystone across the board, among Democrats, Republicans and independents for national energy security purposes.  Notwithstanding American oil and gas supplies are increasing, the US still imports foreign oil from such unreliable countries as Venezuela, Nigeria and the Middle East.

Canadian oil from America’s neighbor and most reliable ally, is clearly preferable for national security purposes.

Lastly, the environmental case, even according to American climate scientists , is very weak. More symbolic, than substantive.

Obama’s own State Department has concluded that the Keystone pipeline will have no material effect on the environment, as Alberta oil will still be extracted and shipped by rail or the Eastern pipeline, with or without the Keystone pipeline.

Also the exploitation of the world’s coal reserves create 30 times more damage to the environment than the Alberta oil sands. And pro environment climate scientists strongly suggest the emphasis should be directed against coal and not the Alberta oil sands.

The fact is that as a lame duck president, Obama does not give two fracks about the Democratic party or the electoral chances of the Democratic Congress. And certainly Obama does not care about the chances of Hillary Clinton to replace him as president in 2016.

The Republican leadership knows this and it will hammer Obama and the Democrats on Obama’s Keystone veto, for the next two years if it has to,  as further evidence of Obama’s ignoring the popular will of the people. Also as another example ( together with Obama’s illegal executive order granting citizenship to 6 million illegal immigrants)  of Obama’s elitist, imperial,  and non-populist presidency, which has been aided and abetted by the dastardly Democrats.

I believe that the Democrats are shooting themselves in the foot by blindly supporting Obama’s veto of Keystone.

And by supporting Obama on this veto and probably other politically tone-deaf Obama vetoes or measures, the Democrats will be handing Jeb Bush or Governor Christie, or some other Republican presidential aspirant, the keys to the White House in 2016.

Has Wynne’s Ontario Liberal Government Understated Ontario’s Total Debt?

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Currently,  according to the Ontario Financing Authority and the Budget of 2014,  the Province of Ontario owes a total of $295.8 billion in debt- consisting of $282.9 billion in public debt to the general public and institutions and $12.9 billion in non-public debt to public sector pension funds in Ontario and the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB).

This figure of $295.8 billion which is a huge number in itself,  may misrepresent the true and actual nature of Ontario’s financial obligations- which amount may be at least $42 billion higher, and may be greater by many more unreported and undisclosed $ billions.Let me explain.

Infrastructure Ontario (IO) is an Ontario Crown Corporation, which oversees the initiation , development and construction of public institutional buildings and projects in Ontario, including; new hospitals, expansion of existing hospitals, expansion of universities, new courthouses and other Ontario public centres.

According to Infrastructure Ontario’s website, since 2006,  IO has brought about $42 billion in capital projects to market. Such projects include: the North Bay Regional Healthcare Centre, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre,  the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre and the Durham Consolidated Courthouse.

This sum of $42 billion has in practice and in fact become the financial responsibility of the province of Ontario and as a result, should be treated as part of Ontario’s total debt.

Under IO’s Alternate Finance and Procurement Program (AFP),( but more popularly known as public/private project (P3) program),  the Liberal government under McGuinty and now Wynne set out to build hospitals, universities and courthouses, by trying to shift the construction risk and financing risk from the Ontario government to the private sector.

Historically, prior to the McGuinty/Wynne governments, the Ontario government would go out to the public bond and institutional markets and borrow very low interest rate funds to finance its capital projects. These borrowed funds would be added to the province’s debt.The Government would retain outside third parties to build the public buildings and Ontario would retain ownership and operate the said buildings.

Under the AFP model, the Liberal government developed a scheme by which new public buildings( or existing public institution expansions)  would be built, but financed, constructed and operated by the private sector, and very importantly, without the Ontario government adding to its increasing overall debt.

Typically, Infrastructure Ontario, through public tender, selects a single purpose shell company made of a group of finance, design, construction and operational partners. This shell company then typically goes out to public/ private bond and institutional markets and raises 100% financing, in order to fund the construction of the project, on the basis, that once completed and operational, Ontario government grants to the public institution would be used to pay interest on the 30-35 year bonds.

Because these public/private projects have the support and authorization of the Ontario government, these shell companies are able to obtain 100% financing without putting any “skin in the game”, that is, their own hard cash equity and without providing their own corporate guarantees.

Because the Ontario government is neither the direct borrower (debtor under the bond) or a guarantor of the bond, legally these bonds are not included in Ontario’s overall government debt.
Pretty clever.

Except on closer inspection and in practice, this scheme seems to be more like “off the public books” financing.

Because in actual fact and practice, the Ontario government is still in control of,  and responsible for, these public buildings and institutions, financially and is still ultimately on the financial hook for ongoing interest payments of the bonds and ultimately repayment of these bonds and for any defaults under these bonds.

Firstly, whether a hospital is owned by the Ontario government or is owned/operated by a private shell company, the interest payments on the bond, come from the same source, i.e. government revenues collected as personal and corporate taxes- which are in turn are appropriated or granted to the said hospital by the Ontario government.

Secondly, in the event of a default in the bond, or the bondholder requires the repayment of the bond on maturity, because the private shell company has no equity or guarantees at risk, it will do nothing. The ultimate responsibility will fall to the Ontario government to take over the facility or refinance the bond – because no Ontario government would permit a bondholder to take over a public hospital, university, school or courthouse due to a default in the bond, notwithstanding that the Ontario government is neither a borrower or guarantor of the bond.

Recall the examples of Ornge, the air ambulance and ground transportation service for Ontario and the cancelled Mississauga gas plant.

In the case of Ornge,  on the basis of annual legislated grants to its public service company, Ornge, set up separate private companies and went out to the private markets and borrowed about $250 million to buy helicopters and aircraft to expand Ornge and another $25 million to buy a new Mississauga head office building.

When Ornge’s executives were terminated for cause, in order to maintain the public Ornge service and Ontario’s reputation in the capital and bond markets, the Liberal government took over the payment of both loans, notwithstanding that the province of Ontario was neither a borrower or guarantor of either loan.

Similarly, though the Ontario government was not a party to the construction loan agreement between the Mississauga gas plant developer and its American lender, the Liberal government agreed to pay the American lender well in excess of what it was owed as a result of the cancellation.

Recently, the Ontario government stepped in and agreed to purchase a 70% vacant MaRS II building, purportedly to protect MaRS’ work on behalf of Ontario, notwithstanding that Ontario was neither a debtor or guarantor, and that IO was the actual construction lender in this case!

The Ontario Auditor General, in her recent report called into question the necessity of the Wynne Government paying about $70 million to the American real estate developer, instead of just foreclosing on its loan and extinguishing the entire equity stake of this American investor in the infamous MaR2 Tower, aka, “The White Elephant on College Street.“

For the sake of accurate and honest government financial reporting and accounting, the same auditor should review the whole $42 billion AFP program with a view to properly bringing those financial obligations and any other wonky loans (  incurred by Ontario green energy wind farms and solar companies), back on the Ontario government books and treated as Ontario debt, as the Auditor General did with $800 million of Catholic School Board debt in 2009.

About $800 million of Catholic School Board debt, ( which was originally issued and treated as off balance sheet financing) was deemed by the Auditor General in 2009 to be in reality debt of the province of Ontario.

If Ontario’s true financial debt picture is closer to $350 billion than $300 billion, then Ontario is much closer to hitting the fiscal wall, and appropriate fiscal action should be taken sooner, than later.

Harvard Capitulates to Anti-Semitism

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Lifestyle, Media

As a Harvard graduate, class of 1974, I am thoroughly disgusted by the Harvard Administration’s cowardly capitulation to the anti-Israel BDS (boycott, divestment, sanction) movement on campus.

As reported recently by the Harvard Crimson (Harvard’s daily student-run newspaper), since April 2014, Harvard University Dining Services (HUDS) stopped purchasing SodaStream machines (do-it-yourself soda and water machines which are owned and manufactured by an Israeli-based company). Since that time HUDS also agreed to remove SodaStream labels from existing water-filtering machines currently installed in the dining halls of many Harvard-Radcliffe residences, or Houses.
This highly unprecedented action, in response to complaints lodged in the Fall of 2013 by two radical pro-Palestinian student groups known as the College Palestine Solidarity Committee and the Harvard Islamic Society, is deplorable and panders to the anti-Semitism of this campus boycott.

Apparently, some members of these Pro-Palestinian student groups experienced “discomfort” when they noticed that the filtered water machines in certain dining halls had SodaStream labels on them. These members also believed that the existence of these SodaStream machines had the potential to offend those affected by the Israel-Palestine conflict.

According to one of the groups’ spokespersons,  these protesters believed that the SodaStream machines could be seen as a “microaggression to Palestinian students and their families and like the University doesn’t care about Palestinian human rights.”

SodaStream is an Israeli company that specializes in do-it-yourself soda and water machines. Sodastream’s main factory is located in the West Bank, in an Israeli settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, which is located in a suburb of Jerusalem.

Interestingly, according to well-respected Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, the location of this settlement is not a matter of dispute with Mohammad Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank and its former Prime Minister Salm Fayyad.  Both acknowledged directly to Mr. Dershowitz, that in all negotiations about borders and land swaps, this settlement would remain within Israel’s borders. Although the factory is in an area beyond the Armistice lines of 1949, it is not really disputed territory. Nor does it pose any barrier to a two-state solution.SodaStream has claimed that this factory was a “model of integration” employing 500 Palestinians, 450 Arab Israelis and 350 Israeli Jews on the same salaries and with the same social security benefits. Palestinian employees “received salaries four or five times that of the average wage in the territories controlled by Palestinian authorities”.

Assuming six members to a family, SodaStream also argued that this factory was providing income, employment and benefits to support about 6,000 Palestinians and Arab Israelis.

Clearly, both Palestinian and Arab Israeli employees in this factory, earning incomes four or five times greater than that earned by other Palestinians in the West Bank,  did not believe themselves or their families to be victims of “microaggression”.

By the way, these workers would not have even applied to work in this factory without the explicit support of the Palestinian Authority. Clearly, the latter did not believe these workers were subject to human rights violations in this regard.

So what is the real intent and logic behind this opposition? Why are these pro-Palestinian groups engaging in an anti-Israel BDS boycott of SodaStream?

I don’t buy the silly argument that these pro-Palestinian students feel “discomfort” from the existence of SodaStream machines or feel they are the victims of “microagression”.

The real intent of their boycott is to isolate, demonize, and delegitimize Israel – its people, its institutions, its businesses and its products.

In two words – Jew hatred. Otherwise known as a modern and more insidious form of anti-Semitism.

This more modern form of  anti-Semitism was best explained and criticized by Canadian Prime Minister Harper in his memorable, “Fire and Water” speech in the Israeli Knesset, when he stated,

“But, in much of the western world, the old hatred has been translated into more sophisticated language for use in polite society.

People who would never say they hate and blame the Jews for their own failings or the problems of the world, instead declare their hatred of Israel and blame the only Jewish state for the problems of the Middle East.

As once Jewish businesses were boycotted, some civil-society leaders today call for a boycott of Israel. On some campuses, intellectualized arguments against Israeli policies thinly mask the underlying realities, such as the shunning of Israeli academics and the harassment of Jewish students.

Most disgracefully of all, some openly call Israel an apartheid state. Think about that.

Think about the twisted logic and outright malice behind that: a state, based on freedom, democracy and the rule of law, that was founded so Jews can flourish as Jews, and seek shelter from the shadow of the worst racist experiment in history.

That is condemned, and that condemnation is masked in the language of anti-racism.

It is nothing short of sickening.”

Harvard was stained by explicit anti-Semitism in the 1920s and 30s, due to its clearly discriminatory admissions policies against Jewish applicants and students. Harvard’s reputation is now further stained by its capitulation to this more insidious form of anti-Semitism.

Next, these same groups will be “disturbed” by the very presence of Jewish students and faculty on the Harvard campus. Anti-Semitism at Harvard is a cancer that must be eradicated immediately.

Harvard must not tolerate Jew hatred or anti-Semitism on its campus as racism is not tolerated. Hatred of any form is not acceptable at Harvard.  In this case, there is no defense of the freedom of expression or the democratic right to protest.

Any student who engages in anti-Semitic activities at Harvard should be asked to leave.

Jian Ghomeshi Is The Canary in the Collapsing Mine of Canadian Progressiveism

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Ghomeshi, Media

In a recent Toronto Star commentary, notorious leftist Rick Salutin, tried and failed miserably to come to grips with the public face of progressive, feminist Ghomeshi which apparently hid Ghomeshi’s very real manipulative, physically abusive, female-hating, egotistical self.

Basically, Salutin’s article completely missed the mark.The fact is that Ghomeshi, the popular CBC radio host of Q, a daily entertainment/cultural radio show,  was the poster boy and symbol of the Canadian progressive movement. He Q talked the talk. And red carpeted the walk, at the Scotia Bank Giller Prize, TIFF, Canadian tv and film award shows, Canadian music award shows. You name the Canadian cultural event and Ghomeshi was front and centre.

He was multicultural, a progressive, a feminist, hip, cool, edgy and internationally popular. Leading Canadian feminists: Elizabeth May, Sheila Copps, Margaret Atwood, all sung his praises. Even Barbra Streisand and Barbara Walters, (no shrinking violets, those two) were wowed by his professionalism, empathy and sensitivity.

Richard Florida, the uber urban theorist, thought Ghomeshi would be a great progressive mayor for a new and improved artistically and culturally-based Toronto.

In short, Ghomeshi was a gift to multicultural, feministic, Canadian progressives, much like federal Liberal leader Justin Trudeau.

And Canadian progressives fell for and bought Ghomeshi- hook, line and Big Ears Teddy bear.

But it was all a sham.

It appears Mr. Multicultural, exhibited the dark side of Canadian multiculturalism

The feminist, Mr. Sensitivity, has been charged with four counts of sexual assault and one count of choking. Over 15 women have come forward alleging that this sensitive, progressive, feminist allegedly beat them, choked them and sexually assaulted them.

It appears Mr. Multicultural, exhibited the dark side of Canadian multiculturalism. Ghomeshi appears to have also internalized a non-Canadian hatred for women. A feeling of superiority towards women. A view of women as beneath him, literally and figuratively. As things to be used, abused, dismissed and discarded. A view of women native to certain foreign countries where women are third class, barbarically genitally circumcised, raped and then punished for being raped or honor killed for disobeying the males in their families.

So if Ghomeshi, the Canadian progressive ideal is a sham, perhaps the very concept of Canadian progressiveism is a sham.  Perhaps, behind the smiling, sensitive, Canadian male progressive, is in reality a woman-hating, female abusing, manipulative, egotistical tyrant.

Those are the harsh and cruel Ghomeshi lessons that bred in the bone progressives, like Salutin, refuse to face squarely, honestly and openly.

Because if Ghomeshi is a sham, then what about the sensitive, feminist, multicultural Justin Trudeau, who one day preaches “open nominations for Liberal candidates”, then the next day engages in down and dirty manipulative politics, throwing under the Liberal bus, long time Liberal candidates, in favor of his chosen people?

Trudeau, who also one day beats his breast about the injustice of missing and deceased aboriginal women and the next day, caters to certain Canadian religious groups whose radical members abuse, torture, and demean women as chattels.

In sum, Ghomeshi, is no mentally deranged lone wolf. He is the canary in the collapsing mine of Canadian progressiveism.

CBC Engulfed in New Payola Scandal

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Ghomeshi, Media

The reputation of Canada’s public broadcasting television and radio network, the CBC, took another hit this past week.

The ongoing investigation of the now disgraced Jian Ghomeshi,  the former host of Q, the popular CBC radio entertainment/music/cultural program, has exposed another ugly can of worms.

Recall Ghomeshi has already been charged with four counts of sexual assault, and one count of choking, by women who formerly associated with Ghomeshi. These charges have yet to be proven in a court of law.

However, this time, CBC and Ghomeshi are being accused by the Toronto Star, that the CBC had received the sum of $5,000 from Warner Music, to help pay for Ghomeshi’s travel and hotel costs, when he flew especially to Malibu, California, to do a personal interview with well-known musical artist, Tom Petty for a Q show “Canadian exclusive.”

Folks, we are talking about good, old fashioned, “payola”- that is, cash bribes ( or related forms of financial benefits) to CBC employees in order to promote artists and their music on CBC.

But you have to hand it to those sharp American executives at Warner Music. For five grand,  they not only secured an interview for their client Tom Petty on CBC’s Q show, which is also broadcast in over 140 American public radio stations, but they also obtained an 18 minute Ghomeshi/Petty filmed interview on CBC’s flagship nightly news show, “The National”.

Talk about a great bang for the American buck!Unfortunately, for CBC’s “ The National”, this show and its journalistic reputation became collateral damage, as this supposedly very reputable daily news show failed to disclose that Warner Music had paid Ghomeshi’s travel costs in order to secure this interview. Thus calling into question the journalistic objectivity of the interviewer, the interview and “The National”, in particular.

Since Warner Music paid for Ghomeshi’s Malibu trip, it is very unlikely that Ghomeshi is going to bite the hand, that so very well fed him.

I sincerely believe that this minor payola incident is just the tip of a much larger and more corrupt iceberg.

This Toronto Star article also alluded to other financial benefits that Ghomeshi enjoyed- ie.  free hotel rooms and airline services and possibly many other services and benefits.

Note also in an earlier Toronto Star article, Ghomeshi showcased and promoted musical guests on his popular show, Q,  who were also clients of his own agent and entertainment lawyer. Thus raising the obvious question, did Ghomeshi financially benefit directly or indirectly from these efforts?

Recall the payola scandals in the US in the 1950s and ‘60s, where money, drugs, trips,  women, and all sorts of gifts, were given to DJs by agents and studios, in order to secure valuable and regular radio play of the studios’ artists, records and songs.  There were congressional hearings and offending radio stations were fined, their licenses threatened or revoked, and offending DJs lost their jobs.

We are not at that stage yet in this very public CBC psychodrama. But we are fast approaching a complete moral and morale breakdown in the CBC and enormous public disgust with the CBC by many Canadian taxpayers who ultimately fund these morally questionable CBC operations.

There should be a total cleaning of house at CBC- of all senior managers and executives who were culpably involved with Ghomeshi.

I know I sound like a broken record or CD.

But now, more than ever, there should be a federal bipartisan government inquiry into CBC- dealing with sexual harassment at CBC and now apparently and potentially illegal if not unethical “Payola” practices at CBC.

This Ghomeshi cancer continues to spread unabated throughout the whole of CBC.

Unless this cancer is rooted out and surgically removed, preferably by an outside and effective government inquiry, once and for all,  this cancer will continue to metastasize and ultimately, destroy from within the whole of CBC.

CBC Fifth Estate exposes apparent CBC Ghomeshi cover-up by CBC Honchos

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Ghomeshi, Media

In Canada, we are witnessing the very odd and exceptional spectacle of Canada’s public broadcaster, the CBC, critically investigating itself over CBC’s initial internal investigation of the Ghomeshi affair.  Or CBC’s apparent cover-up of the rise and fall of its most prominent radio and television star, Jian Ghomeshi.

Confused about who is zooming who?

 

Bottom line. Kudos to Gillian Findlay of CBC’s ‘Fifth Estate’ for her exposing the truth and her take down of CBC Radio Head Chris Boyce. And for Findlay indirectly undermining the CBC career of her boss, Heather Conway,  executive vice president of English services and potentially many other miscreants at the morally and journalistically challenged CBC.In addition, to Gillian Findlay and her “Fifth Estate” team, the other CBC heroes in this sorry CBC saga, are Sean Foley, a former CBC “Q” producer and Brian Coulton, still a “Q” guy. Both worked and survived at “Q” under Ghomeshi, and had the stones to come forward and tell the “Fifth Estate”, what they knew about Ghomeshi and when they knew it.

(Note that Jian Ghomeshi, the star of CBC “Q”, a very popular radio/ entertainment/music show, was fired by CBC and has been charged with four counts of assault and one count of choking)

I urge you to go on the CBC “Fifth Estate” website and watch and listen to this masterful “Fifth Estate” documentary, “The Unmaking of Jian Ghomeshi”. Here is the link.

This is history in the making, folks. Journalism schools and media types will be studying this Ghomeshi scandal for years to come. The meteoric rise and precipitous fall of this media star. The coddling , promotion and the alleged cover up by CBC of this dangerous guy. The non-existent investigation of Ghomeshi by CBC. The apparent public cover up of Ghomeshi’s known activities by CBC. And the ultimate exposure of Ghomeshi by investigative blogger Jesse Brown, Kevin Donovan of the Toronto Star and the takedown of such CBC honchos as Chris Boyce and Heather Conway by CBC’s very own investigative team, “The Fifth Estate”.

The strongest part of “Fifth Estate” program was the interview with “Q” employees Brian Coulton and Sean Foley and Findlay’s takedown of Chris Boyce.Here are some new facts that we learned.

In early spring of 2014, while the “Q” team was on location in Winnipeg, Ghomeshi told Coulton and Foley that he liked rough sex and an ex girlfriend with whom he had rough consensual sex, was threatening to go public with this story.

Ghomeshi was worried he would be tried in the court of public opinion. He also wondered whether CBC would back him up.

In retrospect, this is all BS. Ghomeshi apparently was trying out this story on his fellow employees in order to develop a narrative to insulate him from the real story.

A few weeks later, Ghomeshi told Coulton that there was a Twitter feed, known as @bigearsteddy (refers to Ghomeshi’s live-in to teddy bear by the same name) The existence of the Twitter feed with a reference to his private life had troubled Ghomeshi. As a good journalist, Coulton located this Twitter feed and was shocked to learn that it discussed how Ghomeshi hurt a series of women- ie allegedly physically assaulting them without their consent, including, punching, choking and causing visible bruises.

He made copies of these tweets and showed them to his colleague Foley.

In June, 2004, Coulton received an email from Jesse Brown, the investigative blogger, who had been on the Ghomeshi case for months. This email also disclosed that there were a series of women who also claimed that Ghomeshi had allegedly physically assaulted them without their consent and that Ghomeshi had also engaged in some inappropriate behavior in the CBC workplace.

On the Canada Day week-end, Coulton and Foley met with Chris Boyce, head of CBC Radio and another CBC senior manager. They showed the Brown email and the “big ears teddy bear” tweets. Coulton recalled that Boyce was aware of something, but this was also new information. Boyce promised Coulton/Foley that CBC would do a full investigation.

Now this is where things get real interesting.

According to Heather Conway, in her only TV interview on this matter, with CBC’s Chief Correspondent Peter Mansbridge, (Here is the link to the full Mansbridge/Conway interview )
after receiving the Brown email, CBC launched into an investigation, which was actually quite limited in scope.

According to Conway, HR ( human resources) dived into Ghomeshi’s personal file looking for any allegations of sexual harassment or violence in CBC. CBC allegedly did a cross section survey of Ghomeshi’s bosses and employees in order to determine if any one had been physically abused by Ghomeshi, or were they aware of any incidents at CBC in which Ghomeshi abused anyone, or whether there had been any complaints of sexual harassment in the CBC workplace.

According to Conway on the Mansbridge show, there was nothing in Ghomeshi’s file and none of the people questioned by CBC knew of any problem.

This is the public story that has been put out by Conway, Boyce and Chuck Thompson, head of CBC’s Public Affairs.

However, there are serious holes in this story. The “Fifth Estate” surveyed 17 “Q” employees who were working at “Q” in the summer and none had been approached by CBC Boyce or any one inquiring about Ghomeshi.

When Boyce was asked about this blatant lie, his only response was that the outside investigator Janice Rubin will be looking into this matter.
That is a terrible, non response.

In short, there was no investigation into Ghomeshi.

Accordingly, on the basis of this bald-faced lie told several times to the Canadian people, the perpetrators of this sham: Conway, Thompson and Boyce should be fired from CBC, or at minimum, suspended.

We know from a previous Toronto Globe and Mail article, that in 2012 there was a “Red Sky memo” in Ghomeshi’s file drafted by six then “Q” employees (or there should have been), which detailed what a cruel, insensitive and abusive boss he was.

So for Conway to suggest on national television that there was nothing in his file of concern is another lie.

Conway also lied when she said that until she learned of the video and photos of Ghomeshi physically causing injury to a woman (having a cracked rib) in October,  2014, she thought she was only dealing with Ghomeshi and “rough sex”.

Jesse Brown’s June, 2014 email, (of which Conway acknowledged receiving)  clearly spoke of a series of women who had been allegedly abused through choking and punching, in other words, non-consensual physical assault. All which clearly went beyond rough sex and was closer, to allegedly criminal assault.

The short answer is that CBC, led by Conway, Boyce and Thompson, upon receiving the damning information from Coulton and Foley, tried to bury the evidence and allegedly cover up for Ghomeshi, in the hope this matter would blow over.

And Conway et al are still trying to cover up and ride out this scandal as they are hiding behind outside independent legal investigator,  Janice Rubin’s so-called investigation. Which is another ruse to try to make this scandal go away.

Gillian Findlay, Coulter, Foley and of course Brown and Donovan are the true journalistic heroes of this story. Conway, Boyce,  and Thompson, not so much.

We Are Not Stupid, Mr. President, You Have Undermined The American Constitution

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

There is no question that Obama’s proposed executive order, in effect granting amnesty to about five million illegal and undocumented immigrants, is a grave and serious attack on the American Constitution and upon the founding principles of the United States.

The challenge for the Republicans is to properly and practically respond to this threat to the very essence of the American system of governance.Some of the most persuasive arguments against Obama’s unilateral action were made previously by Obama himself.

In the last few years, Obama has argued that he could not as President prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants because the nation’s laws were clear enough, and “that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”

In addition, Obama has publicly stated “ the problem is, that I am the President of the United States.  I am not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

Precisely.  Recall that, in Obama’s previous life, he was a Harvard Law grad, and supposedly a respected constitutional scholar and lecturer. So in Obama’s case, pleading ignorance of the law is certainly no excuse.

Obama’s apologists are now suggesting that Obama’s previous comments were based upon other people’s faulty legal opinions. That explanation is also invalid. Obama has always prided himself as “the smartest man in the room”, if not the country. In constitutional matters, he is his own best counsel.So what has changed in the last year? The immigration laws have not changed. The Constitution has not changed.

The fundamental principles of separation of powers and checks and balances are still embedded in the Constitution.

At least for now.

In Obama’s recent speech to the nation, the only fact on the ground that has changed is Congress’ failure to act on immigration reform, that is, Congress has failed to fix a broken system.

For Obama and his Democratic acolytes, lackeys and cult-like followers, the ends of granting amnesty to five million illegal immigrants, justify the means of trampling on America’s hallowed Constitution.

Recall the very founding of America was based on the rejection of the superior power of the monarchy or executive over the people, the governed. America was founded and was to be governed on the basis of the separation of the powers of three co-equal main branches of government. And that the power of each branch would be constrained by checks and balances.

It is not acceptable legally or constitutionally for Obama to justify his unilateral executive actions on the basis that since Congress has not exercised its constitutional power to enact laws reforming immigration, that reluctance gives Obama carte blanche to extend his executive powers into Congress’ exclusive legislative jurisdiction.

This is a dangerous extension and abuse of presidential power.

Note that Obama and his apologists have defended this unlawful executive action on the basis that former Republican Presidents Reagan and Bush 1, also issued similar type executive orders to prevent illegal immigrants from being deported.

You have to hand it to Obama and his Ivy League elitist henchmen. They are evil and devious geniuses. For six years, Obama and his people have tried to baffle the American people with their convoluted, complex and deceptive legal hocus pocus and BS.

Thanks to Jonathan Gruber, ObamaCare’s architect, we now know that Obama and his people have been playing us for fools, for being stupid. Clearly not up to their lofty Ivy League elitist intellectual standards.

According to Gruber, in order to pass ObamaCare, the people were misled into thinking: (1) ObamaCare was not a tax; (2) it would lower, not increase health and medical costs; and (3) the biggest whopper, if you liked your doctor and insurance plan, you could keep them both.

Similarly, according to Obama, his ImmigrationCare, has legal precedent.

Lies, lies and more lies.

Unlike what Obama is about to do, Presidents Reagan and Bush 41 issued immigration regulations that were expressly authorized by a law passed by Congress. (PowerLineBlog, Nov. 20, 2014)

In 1986, Reagan signed into law the Immigration Reform and Control Act. The Act required him to adjust the status of certain illegal immigrants to the category of “alien lawfully admitted for temporary residence.”The Act also authorized the Attorney General to allow other illegal immigrants who did not qualify for the amnesty to remain in the U.S. if needed “to assure family unity.”

Based on this Congressional act, Reagan’s Justice Department issued regulations that permitted some illegal immigrant spouses and children to stay in the country for the sake of family unity.

It is critical to note that this regulation was not an exercise of prosecutorial discretion or the assertion of a generalized right to suspend “oppressive” immigration laws. Rather, the Reagan administration made it clear that it was carrying out the direction of Congress.

In 1990 President George H.W. Bush ( Bush 1), through regulation, expanded the Reagan Department of Justice’s interpretation of “family unity” to encompass all spouses and children. Like Reagan, Bush merely interpreted the 1986 Act, as Congress had called on the executive to do.

In both instances, Reagan and Bush 1 attempted to effect and enforce Congressional intent. In neither case, did they try to usurp Congress’ constitutional power to enact legislation.

Obama, by contrast, will not be fulfilling a congressional mandate to interpret a new statute. He will be overriding the immigration law in the name of “prosecutorial discretion” on the ground that Congress has not enacted a new statute.

As above noted, this is a dangerous and arrogant attempt by Obama to usurp the powers of Congress and in the process, undermine the American Constitution.

The Republicans have a moral and legal obligation to resist Obama and to vigorously defend the Constitution against this dangerous and out of control president.

Impeachment is neither achievable or practical. In my next article, I will try to suggest what the Republicans can and should do to properly defend the Constitution, defend the United States against this “home-grown usurper” and demonstrate to the American people that they are capable of governing this country responsibly for the people and by the people.

Obama, The Lawless President Is About to Illegally Grant Amnesty to 5 Million Illegals

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

Talk about brazen!

Obama is about to unilaterally grant amnesty to over five million illegal and undocumented immigrants, without any Congressional consent, through his extraordinary and potentially illegal use of “Presidential” executive order- notwithstanding that Obama’s popularity with the American people is at an all time low.

Currently, Obama’s approval rating with the American people is trending below 40%.In the recent 2014 U.S. midterm elections, the American people sent a very clear and resounding message to Congress and to U.S. President Obama. The American people were very dissatisfied with the Obama presidency, Obama’s major policies, and even with Obama, himself.

Accordingly, the House Republicans, as of this date, picked up a net total of twelve Congressmen and if they win the remaining five seats being contested in run-off elections, the House Republicans will have attained the largest Republican majority in the House since 1928.

In the Senate, Republicans gained majority control of the Senate, picking up eight Senators for a total of fifty-three Senators ( and a possible fifty-fourth seat with the likely defeat of Democratic Landrieu in the upcoming Louisiana Senate run-off.)

Obama is so out of touch and unpopular with his own party, that certain Democratic Congressional candidates, in the last election, did not even want to be seen with or campaign with him, due to his perceived unpopularity.

Where I come from—Canada—when the people speak, through their votes in an election, we conservatives listen. Because we Canadian conservatives, as American Republicans, believe that the people are always right.

Clearly, in Obama’s mind, the people are not always right. In fact, Obama and his fellow Democrats, obviously channeling one of ObamaCare’s key architects, Jonathan Gruber, believe that the American people are stupid.Apparently, to Obama, the American people do not know any better. So Obama is apparently going to ignore the wishes of the people, and instead he is going to plunge ahead unilaterally, without Congress and impose an immigration solution on the entire country.

According to reliable reports, Obama is planning to issue executive orders which will in effect grant amnesty to five million illegal and undocumented immigrants. And permit them to stay and work in the United States.

Obama will argue that he has received a legal opinion from his own appointed Attorney General, Eric Holder, which will suggest that Obama has the legal and executive authority and discretion as President to order that these five million illegal immigrants not be deported and in addition, that work permits be provided to these same persons.

Ironically, for many years, Obama himself has been arguing the exact opposite- that to do what has been suggested by pro immigrant activists- is illegal.

In March 2011, Obama argued that he could not as President prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants. He stated to the effect, that the nation’s laws were clear enough, “that for me to simply, through executive order, ignore those congressional mandates would not conform with my appropriate role as President.”

In February 2013, in response to an activist asking Obama if he could do more to keep illegal immigrant families from being torn apart due to deportation, Obama replied, ” the problem is, that I am the President of the United States. I am not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed.”

In November 2013, when pressed by activists to stop the deportations, Obama argued that only Congress had the authority to do what they wanted. He then stated, “the easy way out is to try to yell and pretend that I can do something by violating our laws.”

So what has substantially changed, between then and now, to cause Obama to do a complete 180 degree turn?

Well, nothing fundamentally, except as a result of the recent midterm election, Obama and his party have been crushed and the Republicans now control both Houses for the remainder of Obama’s term. And that the American people have sent a clear message to Obama that he must deal openly and honestly in a co-operative and bipartisan fashion with the Republicans, who now control Congress.

But, for Obama, once an outsider, always an outsider. I suspect that Obama believes that he is now liberated to go his own arrogant way, oblivious to constitutional checks and balances. I sense that Obama does not give a frack about the greater American people or even his own Democratic party. I sense that Obama, in his final act, has morphed into his own version of the Sun King, where American politics should just revolve around himself.

And he will do what he wants to do, regardless of the consequences.

By ignoring the majority will of Congress—by the stroke of his pen—Obama will figuratively and publicly behead the elected Congress, a co-equal branch of the American government.

With this one incredibly selfish and provocative and apparently illegal act, Obama is in effect declaring jihad on the American Constitution.

He is brazenly challenging the Republican Congress to come after him and fight him in the courts as to whether as President, he has the legal authority to issue these executive immigration orders.

In the process, Obama will do great damage to the American body politic. He is pitting millions of angry and vulnerable illegal immigrants and their supporters against the majority of very angry American people who hate and fear the abuse of presidential authority over the wishes of a majority of America’s federally elected representatives.

Obama’s proposed executive action is the act of a desperate and now dangerously out of control president, apparently unfettered by the American Constitution, that at one time, Obama swore to uphold.

On Keystone Pipeline, Obama Flips the Bird at Canada, America’s Largest Trading Partner

by Mitch Wolfe, posted in Politics

For six years, President Obama has been bobbing and weaving on the proposed Keystone pipeline.

But recent events, outside of Obama’s control, have forced his hand.

As a result, Obama has been forced to come out of the shadows on Keystone and state clearly his position, which is clearly negative on the Keystone pipeline.This position exposes Obama as an arrogant, insensitive, egocentric, ignorant and deceitful political hack, who is trying to appeal to the basest xenophobic instincts of the American people.

As of Friday, November 14, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed a bill by an overwhelming majority, (252 to 161) to approve the construction of the Keystone pipeline from Alberta through the United States and south to the Texan refineries in southern United States. This is the ninth time that such a bill has passed Congress during the Obama administration.

The difference this time is that U.S. Senate, still controlled by the Democrats, (that is, until early in January, 2015) has decided to proceed to vote on a similar bill, this Tuesday, November 18, sponsored by the current Senator for Louisiana and a Keystone proponent, Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu.

According to Senator Landrieu, she has the support of all the current Senate Republicans (45) and 14 Democratic Senators. She has expressed confidence in obtaining the magic number 60 Senators in support, which will guarantee passage of this bill in both Houses.

In anticipation of this now very real possibility that this pro Keystone bill will pass, Obama,  during his recent visit to Myanmar (formerly Burma) defended his opposition to Keystone as follows:

“Understand what this project is: It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land down to the Gulf where it will be sold everywhere else. It doesn’t have an impact on gas prices.”

What a despicable, deceitful and contemptible little man Obama is!

What a despicable, deceitful and contemptible little man Obama is! One can almost hear the disdain in his voice as he parrots anti-Keystone lobbyists’ talking points.

Obama is not referring to Canada, as America’s largest trading partner and its most loyal and trusted democratic neighbor and ally. A country that has fought with America during two World Wars, the Korean War and more recently at the request of the United States, fought bravely alongside the Americans in Afghanistan at great loss of human life and at enormous financial cost.

Instead Obama is clearly treating contemptuously Canada as if it was some rogue anti-democratic, anti-American misogynistic Middle Eastern potentate, pumping dirty oil and befouling the environment.

Obama is infamous for treating America’s closest allies- poorly and treating America’s sworn enemies- (Iran) deferentially.  It is no wonder that Obama lacks close relationships with western leaders and is generally considered to be one of America’s most untrustworthy and spineless American leaders in modern day history.

Let us look more critically Obama’s actual above comments.

Firstly, Obama is lying through his smug teeth when he states that the Keystone pipeline “is providing Canada the ability to pump their oil.”  Whereas the Keystone pipeline would provide a much-needed link between the Alberta oil sands and the Gulf Coast refineries, the absence of the Keystone pipeline has not stopped the pumping of oil from the Alberta oil sands.  In the absence of pipelines, west to British Columbia and south to the United States, there has been increased use of rail to transport Alberta crude to the American (160,000 barrels per day) and Asian markets, by way of Canada’s west coast. In addition, a eastern pipeline is being developed using an existing gas pipeline, to transport Alberta oil (estimated 1.1 million barrels per day)  to Quebec and New Brunswick for refining, thus skipping the US entirely.

Obama is merely ignorantly parroting the anti-Keystone propaganda, that rejection of the Keystone pipeline will destroy Canada’s ability to pump Alberta oil. As has been shown, nothing could be further from the truth.

Secondly, Obama falsely suggests only Canadian oil will be transported through the proposed Keystone pipeline. This pipeline will also be used to transport U.S. light oil from North Dakota’s Bakken Shale to the Gulf Coast refineries. In other words, the Keystone pipeline is not an export pipeline, as Obama wrongly suggests.

It also makes economic sense for American oil companies and refineries to have both Canadian oil and American oil be transported by Keystone to the Gulf refineries, than for the same American companies to import higher-priced oil from Venezuela and the Middle East, to be refined in the Gulf Coast refineries.

Thirdly, Obama’s ignorance of basic economics 101 supply and demand is appalling. The oil markets are global. Everyone agrees, both critics and opponents, that the existence of the Keystone pipeline will increase the supply of oil in the world. And increased worldwide oil supply will ultimately lead to reduced gas prices. Conversely, restricting the supply of Canadian oil, will lead to Middle East oil-producing nations increasing the price of oil, which will lead to higher gas prices. Homer Simpson has a better grasp of oil and gas pricing than the U.S. clueless and highly over-rated current President.

Obama further added:

“I have to constantly push back against this idea that somehow the Keystone pipeline is either this massive jobs bill for the United States or is somehow lowering gas price.”

How intellectually dishonest! None of the Keystone’s proponents has ever suggested that Keystone would create a massive number of jobs.

The U.S. State Department has estimated that a total of 42,000 jobs will be created, taking into account the temporary construction jobs, the permanent maintenance jobs and the indirect jobs created to support this construction project.

Obviously, six key American labor unions, normally supportive of the Democrats, view these proposed jobs as significant and hence are pushing their Democratic representatives to support the pro Keystone bill.

Once again, the mendacious Obama appears to be speaking out of two sides of his mouth. On one hand, Obama is constantly urging Congress to spend taxpayers’ money on infrastructure projects to create jobs. Yet he implies that the 1,179-mile Keystone infrastructure project, (which is to be privately financed) will not create much needed American jobs.

Obama’s whole pathetic opposition to the Keystone pipeline, has finally exposed him as an intellectual lightweight, way out of his depth on this energy/infrastructure file and apparently overly influenced by anti-Keystone lobbyists and special interests.

Obama’s dithering and mendacity on this whole file has even alienated many Democratic Congressmen and Senators and many of his Democratic supporters.

I predict Obama will become the most reviled and unpopular Democratic President since the Peanut President and Palestinian terrorist sympathizer,  Jimmy Carter.