Mulcair’s Own Huge Eve Adams’ Blunder- It’s All About Olivia

NDP Leader Tom Mulcair just committed his worst political blunder of this ongoing unofficial federal election campaign. He permitted and in fact promoted the candidacy of Olivia Chow to run as the federal NDP candidate in the newly-formed downtown Toronto Spadina-Fort York riding.

Yes, That Olivia Chow!  Yesterday’s, Yesterday’s, Yesterday’s Woman. Holier than Chow. The Yoko Ono of federal politics. Chow has more political baggage than Imelda Marcos has shoes.

Chow is back from the political dead. The NDP’s own version of the Zombie Apocalyspe.Note zombies are undead creatures, typically depicted as mindless, reanimated human corpses with a hunger for human flesh.

In the case of NDP Chow, she is a mindless, reanimated human corpse with a hunger for hard-working Canadian taxpayers’ money, government hand-outs, government pensions and large taxpayer-funded personal expense accounts. And since Mulcair is competitive- the zombie Chow has a new found hunger for political power.

Before we know it, other long dead NDP hateful, anti-Israeli wing nuts as Libby Davies and Svend Robinson, will be making their own zombie comebacks.

Mulcair, a Quebec-based politician, like the clueless Trudeau, who promoted the toxic Eve Adams in Eglinton-Lawrence,  does not know the frack about Toronto politics.

In the recent city-wide 2014 Toronto city mayoral election, Chow was thoroughly humiliated as she came in a very distant third, (23%) having lost to John Tory (40%) and Doug Ford (33%).Chow did not even carry the municipal wards of her former federal riding of Trinity-Spadina.

Chow lost with good reason.

Chow came across as a horrible politician and public figure. She was inarticulate, ill-informed, uninspiring and generally confused and ignorant about the issues.

When Chow stupidly and arrogantly favored buses for Scarberians as opposed to subways, she lost all of the suburban vote and the whole election- right then and there.

No one believed or trusted Chow when she talked out of two sides of her mouth. On one side-fiscal prudence- on the other side- Chow promised budget-breaking and expensive social programs for children and unemployed youth.

Chow’s pathetic political performance exposed a harsh political truth.

Chow’s previous political success, especially in federal politics, was clearly as a result of Chow riding the coat tails of her charismatic, articulate husband, Jack Layton.

And without Layton or his people to prop up the wooden Chow, she fell dramatically on her political face.

Mulcair and his people think that in this upcoming federal election, Chow will fare better as she is running in Spadina-Fort York. Parts of this new federal riding constitute her old federal riding of Trinity-Spadina, which she represented as an NDP MP prior to her ill-fated attempt to run for Toronto city mayor.

But this time, Chow faces a formidable, street-fighting opponent in incumbent Liberal MP Adam Vaughan.

Vaughan has already mercilessly lambasted Chow for being a power-hungry, cynical, opportunist and serial quitter,  accusing of Chow of quitting Ottawa to run for the Toronto mayoralty. And now quitting Ryerson as a visiting instructor to run once again federally for the NDP in parts of her old riding.

This federal campaign will be down and dirty and nasty. And thoroughly enjoyable.

I predict Chow will be once again humiliated in defeat.

But more importantly, the very fact that Mulcair has put his good name behind Chow,  this radical socialist tax and spend, anti-biz, anti-private sector,  John Sewell-like scary/crazy career pol from the 80s will hurt Mulcair personally and the NDP brand in all of Ontario.

For us, conservative political pundits, the return of the politically unrepentant and undead zombie Chow, is like Christmas and Hanukah in July.

In the next few months we are going to have so much fun driving political stakes in that cold-hearted Chow.

Check out the undead Chow’s recent campaign announcement. Her mouth is moving, but not the rest of her face. She is mouthing the words.  But her eyes do not move. She is Soulless,  As Mulcair pulls her strings.  She is so scary.
Chow’s campaign is going to be a freaking horror show.

I can’t wait.

Toronto Globe’s Antipathy Towards the Fords Has Tainted Its Coverage of Olivia Chow, John Tory

I have been reading the Toronto Globe and Mail, religiously, for over 40 years.

At one time, the Globe was considered very highly as Canada’s national paper, “The New York Times (NYT) of the North”.

Note this was during the golden newspaper years of “The Pentagon Papers” and “Watergate” when the Washington Post and NYT were the “go to” media for objective, unbiased reporting and analytical and critical commentary.And the Globe was not far behind.

But today, the Globe- a mere shadow of its former glory.

I must confess. I still enjoy reading some Globe’s columnists. Liz Renzetti’s Saturday column is always sharp and funny. Ian Brown still writes beautifully.

Margaret Wente still impresses me with her courageous anti-liberal writing. And Liam Lacey’s film reviews are consistently bang on.

I also miss the excellent political reporting of Karen Howlett, former Queen’s Park senior reporter, who was always tough, but fair and never pulled any punches- with any politician regardless of political or ideological background.

But the same cannot be said for the current crop of Globe urban reporters and columnists- especially those involved with the almost year long Toronto mayoral election.

Globe’s professionalism

Okay. I get it. The Globe and its staff were so turned off by the personal problems of Mayor Rob Ford ( the crack smoking, the alcoholism, the inappropriate language while inebriated) that it parked its journalistic integrity at the door, when it came to reporting on Rob Ford.

I do not agree with this position. It reflects badly on the Globe’s professionalism.

But what I further do not understand is why has the Globe failed to hold to account the other candidates- Olivia Chow and John Tory.

From practically the moment Chow entered the race in March, 2014, her campaign was in trouble.

Although Chow had name recognition and was known as popular Jack Layton’s spouse, Chow also carried a ton of political baggage. She was feared as an extreme “tax and spend” lefty, way to the left of David Miller and closer to the scary John Sewell.

Many Toronto voters had never forgiven her for living in a subsidized three bedroom co-op unit while her family income exceeded $120, 000. Chow also had a negative reputation for having one of the highest office and personal expense budgets of all Ontario federal politicians.

Right out of the box, she insulted and alienated a majority of the Toronto voters in the vote-rich suburbs of Etobicoke, North York and Scarborough with her proposal to terminate the very popular and fully funded Scarborough subway for a third-rate bus and LRT solution.

Her first debate was a disaster. She was clearly defeated by Rob Ford. Chow came across in that debate as inarticulate, uninformed, confused and unintelligent.

I believe that Chow never recovered from that disastrous performance and her campaign went downhill from there.

But as to the Globe reporters, they ignored all of Chow’s negative baggage and they ignored her poor debating style,  her uninspiring speeches and her unpopular policies.

Instead, it appeared the Globe reporters and analysts tried to prop up Chow for months with biased and uncritical “puff” pieces as indicated herein. (Here, Here, and Here)

It took the Globe about 7 months (September, 2014) to publicly admit that Chow’s election was in serious trouble.

But consistent with its anti-Ford bias, the Globe then turned to propping up and implicitly promoting John Tory, by once again failing to do its journalistic job and critically holding Tory to account.

For example, the Globe failed to take Tory to task for his classless personal attack on Doug Ford on the very day Doug announced that his brother Rob had cancer, was withdrawing and Doug was taking his place in the campaign.

Secondly, the Globe failed to properly call into question the gaps in John Tory’s business career- ie his many years of being on the board of directors of Charter Communications which went into bankruptcy.

The Globe also failed to question how John Tory with very little media experience could be hired as CEO of Rogers Media by family friend, Ted Rogers.

Recall Ted Rogers was first a lawyer at the firm founded by John Tory’s father and uncle, Torys. And then Ted Rogers and Rogers Communications became a major client of the same firm.

In this instance, the Globe failed miserably to ask and answer the musical question, “If John Tory’s last name was “Smith”, would John “Smith” have had any business career?”

The Globe’s crack investigative team also failed to delve into John Tory’s involvement with Rogers’ publicly disastrous “negative option billing scheme, during Tory’s time at Rogers Media.

In a Toronto Region Board of Trade debate, Tory had the chutzpah to deny that he was at Rogers when negative option billing was introduced.

In fact, I recall Tory was hired in 1995, one month after this negative option billing policy was introduced at Rogers Cable. And I remember distinctly that John Tory was given the task of managing consumer opposition to this Rogers’ policy, where consumers were additionally billed for services to which they had not consented.

Instead of critically analyzing Tory’s business career, the Globe instead hit a new journalistic low with its recent so-called expose of Doug Ford’s business experience at his family firm, Deco Labels.

Crack investigative journalist Robyn Doolittle, ( remember her from the Rob Ford crack video expose) thought she made a journalistic scoop by revealing that Doug Ford’s attempt to set up New Jersey branch met with failure.

Conversely, she proved that Doug Ford was a superior businessman to Tory, because Doolittle’s article instead revealed that Doug Ford single-handedly turned a non-existent Chicago office into a successful operation, purely as a result of his own efforts.

Ironically, other large Canadian companies, unlike Deco Labels-Chicago- failed to succeed in the United States ( ie Royal Bank, Canadian Tire and Peoples Credit Jewelers, to name a few). So the fact that Deco Labels- New Jersey failed, does not detract from Doug Ford’s success in the tough American market.
In sum, how the mighty Globe has fallen.

The Globe’s failure to hold Fords’ opponents to account during this mayoral election has called into question its journalistic integrity and objectivity.

Time will tell whether the Globe will ever recapture its journalistic reputation.

Mayoral Candidate Olivia Chow’s Disturbing Support for Queers Against Israeli Apartheid

In a recent Toronto mayoral debate,  leading mayoral candidate John Tory reopened the debate about whether the controversial Toronto group, known as Queers Against Israeli Apartheid (QuAIA) should be permitted to march in the very popular annual summer Toronto Pride Parade.

Mr. Tory, to his credit, argued that QuAIA, which promotes a virulent message, should not be permitted to participate in a Pride Parade that is publicly funded by Toronto taxpayers.Mr. Tory also argued that if he was elected Mayor, he would deny public funding to the Pride organization, if the Pride group permitted QuAIA to march in its annual parade.

On the other hand, Ms. Chow in the same debate,  supported QuAIA’s right to protest in a publicly-funded Pride Parade, on the basis that the Toronto City solicitor opined that the use of “Israel Apartheid” was “protected speech” and that the Toronto City Manager Penachetti believed that the participation of QuAIA, did not violate the City of Toronto’s policies against hate and discrimination.

Again, to Tory’s credit, he stated emphatically at the debate, that he believed the city’s position was wrong and such anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish views had no place in a Pride Parade which celebrates human rights, tolerance and inclusivity.

I agree with John Tory’s view and here is why I believe Chow’s support of the anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic QuAIA, is unprincipled, immoral and contrary to Canadian values.

Anti-Israeli Apartheid movement is funded, financed and sponsored by Hamas

The anti-Israeli Apartheid movement is funded, financed and sponsored by Hamas.

According to Hamas’ constitution,  it wishes to kill all Jews and to eliminate Israel from the Middle East. These views are clearly anti-Semitic and hateful.

For Hamas, the anti-Israeli Apartheid movement is an attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel and destroy it diplomatically. Hamas wants to do to Israel diplomatically, what it cannot do, to date, militarily.

Accordingly, the then Federal Liberal leader Ignatieff, labelled the anti-Israeli Apartheid movement as anti-Semitic.

This view has been endorsed by current Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. I also believe that this is the view of Thomas Mulcair,  leader of the federal NDP.

Conservative Prime Minister Harper’s public condemnation of the anti-Israel Apartheid and BDS movements as blatantly anti-Semitic, is also very well known and has been widely reported.

Furthermore, the Ontario Legislature has unanimously condemned Israeli Apartheid week as “odious and unacceptable”.

So we have two levels of government that have condemned the Israeli Apartheid movement.

In the subject debate, Chow argued that her pro-QuAIA position was based upon her reliance upon expert opinion.

Interestingly, Chow is a bit selective when she relies upon experts. The very same City Manager Pennachetti in the past issued a major report praising the Scarborough subway extension, which Chow chose to ignore, because such a report undermined her pro Scarborough bus and LRT view.

It seems once again, Chow is hiding behind selective experts’ opinions and is refusing to take a principled and moral stand.

The Canadian federal government (together with US, Britain and the EU) has also publicly maintained that the anti-Israeli Apartheid movement, which singles out Israel ( while ignoring the human rights abuses of Syria, Iraq, Libya, Sudan, Iran etc) is more than mere opposition to Israeli government policies, but is in fact Jew hatred and hence anti-Semitism.

This is a view also held by a majority of the members of the Ontario legislature.

In view of these facts, Chow appears on shaky moral ground to support QuAIA’s right to march in a publicly-funded parade.

John Tory stated that he respected the right of QuAIA to protest , but it can protest anywhere it wants, just not in a Toronto taxpayer and publicly-funded Pride Parade.

Another point Chow should consider is that Hamas, the key backer and beneficiary of the anti-Israeli Apartheid movement – kills, tortures and discriminates against the Gazan LGBT ( lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, transgender) community.

Contrast that with the fair and equal treatment of the LGBT community in Israel.

So why is Chow putting herself on the same side of Hamas, which kills, tortures and discriminates against the Gazan LGBT community?

Since the Pride Parade is about tolerance, the celebration of the LGBT community and inclusivity, why does Chow not take the position that the anti-Israeli QuAIA ( which many Jewish and non Jewish Torontonians believe to be a hateful, Jew-hating, anti-Semitic organization) has no place in the Pride Parade?

By Chow failing to take a clear and principled stand against the anti-Semitism of QuAIA, Olivia Chow risks being tarred with the same toxic brush.

Why the Unlikeable Radical Leftist Olivia Chow Lost The Toronto Mayoral Election

There are over two months left in this mayoral race. But Olivia Chow’s dream of finally stepping out of the shadow of her more politically talented husband, Jack Layton, has turned into a political and humiliating nightmare.

Several months ago, when Chow jumped into the race, the obsequious mainstream media,  that is, the journalistically suspect CBC, Toronto Star and Globe and Mail, declared her the frontrunner. And the candidate to beat. .

But according to a recent Forum Research poll, Chow has fallen precipitously from first place-( 35% )to third place- 25%, two points behind the unsinkable Mayor Rob Ford (27%), and 10 big points behind the surging John Tory (35%).

Two recent events have further killed her chances of election.

Councilor and former TTC Chairman Karen Stintz, one of Chow’s opponents on the right, has dropped out of the race. Stintz had been stuck at 5% for most of the campaign.

Stintz fiscally conservative supporters will avoid Chow like the Ebola plague. And instead will gravitate to Chow’s opponents,  John Tory and Rob Ford. Catapulting both of them further ahead of the nose-diving Chow.

The Prince of Darkness

But Chow’s most egregious error to date in this campaign, (and there have been a manure load of errors) was to publicly lie about the role of one of her key political advisers.

None other than The Prince of Darkness himself.

The director of her own war room operations.

A black political operator so cunning, tough, brutal and merciless.

Imagine the evil spawn of Tricky Dick Nixon and Dick Cheney- the incomparable Warren Kinsella.

In an over the top, tweet, that will certainly go down as one the nastiest public assaults, Kinsella accused John Tory of being a racist segregationist for Tory’s proposed transit scheme that purportedly excluded some Toronto black communities.

But, as in the classic Watergate, the attempted cover up by Chow was far worse than the crime.

Instead of publicly castigating Kinsella for his impolitic suggestion, Chow lied publicly and stated that Kinsella was just “one of thousands of volunteers”.  Even though Kinsella’s company was on the Chow payroll as a media consultant. And Kinsella was a critical director of her quick response war room operations.

Chow’s public statement was such a bald-faced lie, that even the craven Pravda-like CBC/Star/Globe, which to date Chow and Kinsella have intimidated with Putinian efficiency, could not ignore or cover up Chow’s immense public blunder.

Her grand public lie once again cast a harsh light on Chow’s entire flawed public character.

A public persona, characterized by a pattern of morally questionable behavior that Chow has exhibited throughout her whole public life.

In 30 years of public life, Chow has never once admitted to making a mistake. She has never apologized or taken responsibility for her many errors. And they are legion. For example.

How did Chow in 1985 secure a below market subsidized Hazelburn co-op unit, within one year ( according to her own autobiography) when the wait list for such affordable housing was many years and over 30,000 needy families were ahead of her in line?

What about her untruthful and unbelievable public defense of her husband’s cure for a bad back, when he was caught naked in a police raid at an illegal massage parlor around the corner from their home @ThisAintTheElmwoodSpa?

Why did Chow as MP rack up one of the highest personal and office expenses than any Ontario federal MP including federal Tory Cabinet ministers?

Obviously, as in Hazelburn fiasco, Chow as a public figure, believes that she is entitled to her public entitlements.

And that as a leftist political activist, she is above moral reproach.

Well, the chickens have come home to roost for Olivia Chow.

Her campaign is in disarray as she falls further behind John Tory and Rob Ford.

Her moral failings,  her arrogance, her weak character, and her confused policy platform have finally done her in.

History will not be kind to Olivia Chow, widow of Jack Layton.

In running for mayor of Toronto, Chow believed that she would be Hillary to Jack’s Bill Clinton.

Instead her imploding political campaign has demonstrated that she is more like Yoko Ono who was nothing without her John.

Socialist Chow’s Past Subsidized Co-Op Continues to Cast Cloud on her T.O. Mayoral Campaign

The city of Toronto is currently experiencing a long, drawn out, almost year-long mayoral campaign.

The current Mayor Ford, returning from a self-imposed two-month rehab, is battling Olivia Chow, a former federal member of Parliament for the New Democratic Party (NDP- Canada’s mainstream democratic socialist party), and John Tory, former leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.Chow has been leading in the polls since she first announced early in 2014.

But Chow has been dogged by allegations that, notwithstanding her humble immigrant roots, early in her political career she used her Toronto NDP socialist connections to score herself cheap affordable housing ahead of thousands of more deserving Toronto families in need.

Within hours of Olivia Chow announcing that she would be running for Toronto mayor,  another mayoral candidate, Karen Stintz, issued a statement reminding Toronto voters that Chow lived in a taxpayer-supported subsidized Toronto co-operative apartment from 1985-1990, and especially from 1988-1990, when Chow’s family income was approximately $120,000.

Stintz’s statement referring to Chow: “She (Chow) has a history of being a double dipper. First, when it comes to housing and taxpayer salaries, and now, when it comes to securing her full Ottawa pension after just 6 years of MP service and then seeking the mayor’s salary. “One of Chow’s major campaign planks is that in contrast to her wealthy opponents, Ford and Tory, she comes from amore humble immigrant background, which is accurate.

The inference is that, due to her humble background, she cannot be accurately accused of representing the downtown elites or being an elitist herself.

With the greatest respect to Ms. Chow, I believe the facts point to a different conclusion. I maintain that in 1985 Chow joined the ranks of Toronto’s political elite to which she has been a member for nearly 30 years and coincided with Chow securing a much sought after, below Toronto market rent unit in the federally subsidized Hazelburn Co-Op Apartments.

To accurately assess the full measure Chow as a mayoral candidate, it is critical that the facts of Chow’s residency in the Hazelburn Co-Op Apartments, from 1985-1990, be fully disclosed.

Let me take you down memory lane to Chow’s Hazelburn Co-op Apartment issue of 1990, to ascertain why Chow’s past questionable conduct raises questions today about her character and her suitability as Toronto mayor.

On June 14, 1990, Star reporter Tom Kerr revealed that Olivia Chow and Jack Layton had been living separately in the taxpayer-supported, federally subsidized Hazelburn Co-op in downtown Toronto (Dundas/Jarvis area) since 1985. And in 1988, after their marriage, they had moved into a three bedroom apartment there and were paying $800 per month in allegedly market rent, notwithstanding that their combined family income was approximately $120,000. At that time, Chow was an elected public school trustee and Layton was an elected Toronto city councilor. (Source here and here)

In a subsequent June 21, 1990 Star article, Kerr confirmed that this 72-unit Hazelburn Co-op was subsidized by Canadian taxpayers through the federal Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which provided the Co-op with a 2% mortgage which cost the Canadian taxpayers about $405,000 per year.  The assumption being that actual market interest rates were considerably higher and hence annual interest payments would have been $405,000 higher, which would have translated into higher monthly rents per unit to cover the higher interest payments. (Source)

According to the June 14 Star article, commencing March 1990, Chow and Layton voluntarily paid an additional $325 per month to offset their share of the co-op’s Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation subsidy, the only members of the co-op to do so.

According to the same article, Chow and Layton, subsequent to the June Star articles, left the Co-op in June and bought a house in Toronto’s Chinatown.

Chow and her supporters have tried to bury this story for years under spin and half-truths.

The popular rationale, then as now,  is that Chow was paying market rent. Her unit was not subsidized by the taxpayers.

But corpses and skeletons—poorly buried—have a tendency to resurface with a vengeance.

And the stench can be overpowering, as potentially in this case.

Chow acknowledged through her own conduct that she paid a monthly amount of $325 as her portion of the CMHC subsidy, in addition to the monthly rent of $800.00.

But this CMHC subsidy issue raises further questions.

It is agreed that Chow had been a resident of Hazelburn Co-op from 1985 to June 1990. So Chow has been the beneficiary of her portion of the $405,000 annual CMHC subsidy from 1985 to March 1990.

Assume her portion of the subsidy was 1/72 of $405,000=$5,625 per year for 5 years. So that Chow had been subsidized by taxpayer money for approximately $28,125.

Furthermore, based upon my own experience of downtown apartment living in Toronto in the 1980s, actual market rent for a 3 bedroom apartment, even in the Dundas/Jarvis area, was considerably higher than $800 per month, and perhaps closer to $1,000-1200 per month.

I believe that Chow’s claim that she was paying actual Toronto apartment market rent at $800 per month is questionable and subject to further scrutiny and investigation.

I also do not believe in coincidences.

The public exposure of Chow’s living arrangement in a tax-subsidized co-operative apartment was clearly embarrassing to her as evidenced by her departure from Hazelburn Co-op within a month of the Toronto Star expose.

This matter was also embarrassing for Chow because Chow had always held herself out as being sympathetic to the marginalized and homeless in Toronto and those Toronto residents desperately seeking and needing affordable housing.

In the 1980s, as today, there was a lack of affordable housing and there were long waiting lists for such housing.

Olivia Chow, with her combined family income of $120,000, had many more housing options than those Toronto residents below or just above the poverty line ($20,000 per year) or even middle income residents ($40,000-60,000).

No matter how many ways Chow tried to spin it, the Hazelburn Co-op was not intended to subsidize $120,000 income earning families.

In effect, public opinion, then, as now, holds Chow—the defender of the poor and the downtrodden—of taking allegedly through her political and personal connections a subsidized unit that should have gone to Toronto residents more deserving than Chow.

The writer of the blog referring to the latter Star article made a similar point:

“Until everyone can enjoy a housing subsidy, they must go to those who need them more. A problem with any form of government spending on housing is that people with connections tend to grab them rather than for those they were intended or who need them more.

It does not look just curious, it looks bad. But I think the Laytons eventually got the message and moved to private housing. “

This housing scandal strikes right at the core of Chow’s character and suitability for mayor.

Chow has publicly lectured Mayor Ford to face up to the truth and take responsibility for his actions. Ms. Chow should practice what she preaches.

To date, Chow has never apologized for allegedly jumping the queue and allegedly using her connections to secure a 3-bedroom apartment in the Hazelburn co-op, notwithstanding the huge waiting list for such housing by more deserving Toronto families.

Furthermore, to date, she has never explained or apologized for taking advantage of taxpayer-funded CMHC loan subsidy, notwithstanding her family’s income of $120,000.

This is not an isolated incident., but I believe part of a pattern of behavior throughout Chow’s political career of double dipping and living large on the backs of the Canadian taxpayers. (Source here and here)