The question of Turkey as a reliable international partner has swum around my mind for some time now. There was the infamous case of the Israeli commandos landing on an aid ship destined for Gaza, in which several people were killed. Turkish President Erdogan immediately broke a long standing relationship with Israel, and even threatened to have future such convoys escorted by the Turkish navy. Presumably, he was prepared to go to war with Israel over the issue of the Palestinians in Gaza. Considering the ramifications of that action on Turkey, Israel and the world community, it must be said that Erdogan operates on the slippery end of sanity and/or judgement. In other words, he is a hot head with an ego the size of his country, and judgement normally associated with school children fighting in the playground. It may also be adduced that he is a war monger waiting for the chance for that one big war that will give him glory in the history books of Turkey.
Little has happened to change my assessment of either Erdogan or Turkey from that time til now. Erdogan has lashed out at its largest trading partner Germany, and now has a very chilly relationship there. Turkey itself is on the cusp of being forever banned from entry into the European Union. However, the real eye opener has come in the form of the Syrian War. The first major incident, other than all the shouting from the sidelines, was the shooting down of a Russian bomber in Northern Syria. It was clearly an ambush by two Turkish fighters on a Russian fighter bomber which was not designed to really defend itself against such an attack, because it is primarily a bomber and not a fighter. The pilot was killed parachuting to the ground by Turkish supported militants in Syria.
Then there was the Turkish invasion of Northern Syria under the pretext of ridding its border of Syrian terrorists. Of course it just happened to be coincidental that the Kurds were taking over Northern Syria, and the Kurds want to establish their own country which is to include a bite size piece of South Eastern Turkey. Erdogan said at the time, fresh from surviving a coup against him, that Turkey was only securing its border and was not attempting to cause Syria's president to lose power. All well and good Russia likely thought. We have a "partner" to help us get rid of all these terrorists and rebels in Syria. However, just a few weeks ago, Erdogan was caught on camera at a relatively private event, stating that Turkey was in Syria to get rid of its President Assad, and that it had no other purpose but that.
Well that was no doubt a bit of a shock to Russia who was in the process of renewing relations with Turkey. There were hurried assurances from the Russian foreign ministry that they would seek clarification from Erdogan, and public statements saying the Russian government would "rely on the previous official position of the Turkish government. Perhaps not surprisingly, Erdogan never came out and publicly qualified his remarks. Instead the whole matter was left to quietly go away so to speak. Yet, a comment such as that can never go away. It rests, now quietly, at the heart of Turkish involvement in Syria. The Russian government seemed to want to paper over the issue and carry on with its primary focus of defeating the militants/terrorists. But can it be papered over, or is it a snake in the grass waiting to strike at the right moment?
Yesterday the world witnessed the very public execution of Russia's Ambassador to Turkey on live TV. It struck me that the occasion was almost set up for such a purpose. The most obvious question of course is why was there no security for the Ambassador? That is the responsibility of the country in which an ambassador is located. There was none. The Turkish police officer was able to simply walk up behind the Ambassador, directly in the TV cameras eye, and wait like the executioner for his moment. It had all the callings of one of those grotesque ISIS execution videos. After he killed the Ambassador the assassin pounced around in front of the TV uttering calls to remember Aleppo and Syria. Bottom line is it was all too easy, and all too public to be anything other than state arranged. The Turkish government even began immediately blaming the Gulen movement - their sworn enemies outed in that Turkish coup. All too convenient. All to staged.
That brings us to the press conference today between the Foreign Ministers of Russia, Iran and Turkey. The Turkish Foreign Minister's condolences to the Russian people for the killing of its ambassador was so "business-like" that it chilled the blood. But that was just the beginning. After the obligatory comments of how they all agree on the need to defeat this, that, and the other thing, the press were allowed one question of each foreign minister. The Iranian journalist asked what the three countries had agreed to as measures to stop third parties supporting the militants/terrorists in Syria. It was all going fine until the Turkish Foreign Minister indignantly piped in that the freezing of support for militants/terrorists had to include Hezbollah. Of course Hezbollah is supported by Iran, and that may have been Turkey's way of defending itself for supporting Turkmen militants/terrorists in Northern Syria. Whatever the case, it became quickly crystal clear that the Turks were prepared to throw aside their "team work" at the very smallest of challenges.
In other words the Turks cannot be trusted. The Americans can't trust them and the Russians can't trust them. That's the way they want it. The strong defender of their neighborhood. Beholding to no body, and loyal to nobody. A regional super power that must be dealt with in the region as if it was militarily equal to the US or Russia. In a strange way though, Turkey may be right. Both Russia and the US are entangled all over the map and stretched thin combatting each other's various moves. With Turkey focusing its strength solely in the "neighborhood" perhaps they have achieved that goal of regional super power. Of course, if things go hot, and either Russia or the US decide to move into the area in force, Turkey will quickly find out its true position, but in the mean time there it is.
The question for Russia is how long does it plan to dance the dance of a thousand veils with Turkey? Is Turkey causing more problems than it is solving? Or perhaps more importantly, how long will you let Turkey embarrass you internationally? It's not many countries that could shoot down a super power's military aircraft, and kill its pilot, and then have their ambassador publicly executed on international television, and get away with it. The press conference today was quite clear, working with Turkey is like herding alley cats. Unfortunately for Russia, such behaviour by the Turks does nothing to enhance Russia's international reputation. Actually the reverse is true. Russia's image is being tarnished by its association, for whatever reasons, with Turkey. Is that purposeful on Turkey's part? Hard to say. One thing is true though, there are only so many coincidences in international politics, and Turkey is not immune from that rule. The Kremlin has made a grave mistake in throwing an arm of brotherhood over Turkey's shoulder. It is not a brother, but rather a poison chalice. It becomes clearer every day. If Russia is wise it will let that cup pass from its lip.
Tuesday, December 20, 2016
Wednesday, November 23, 2016
German U-boat Coverup in Canada
On May 9, 2016, I filed an access to information request with the federal government (specifically Transport Canada). The purpose of that request was to assist in research on the two U-boat wrecks discovered near Muskrat Falls in Labrador. It seemed straightforward enough. It's been 71 years since those u-boats made their way up the Churchill River. However, my first sign of trouble came when I received their first response. You can read it below:
The federal government wanted some serious time to prepare a fairly simple request. Well, I thought, perhaps they will do a very thorough job and we can get some answers to this deep mystery resting on the bottom of the Churchill River. Wrong again. On October 16, 2016, some six months later, I received a bunch of blacked out media emails, and generally just garbage. The release was of no value whatsoever - with one exception. Curiously it wasn't information that was released that caused any interest, but the official reasoning for not releasing the information I know they have that caught my attention. It reads like this:
"Mr. Cabana, you will note that certain information has been withheld from disclosure pursuant to:
15. (1) INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS AND DEFENCE
15. (1) The head of a government institution may refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to be injurious to the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities, including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, any such information."
Wow, that was a mouthful. So, in other words, the federal government cannot release any information on two sunken U-boats near Muskrat Falls, even after 71 years, because it could hurt our allies. That in itself is a huge red flag. Seriously, there are u-boats sunk all over the world. They are dived on, and in some cases they have been raised. So why are the two U-boats at Muskrat Falls so top secret?
My theory on this is quite simple. I cannot speak to the one U-boat because the diver has not shared any of his pictures or sonars of it, and the provincial government blacked out the images they had on their files of it. In other words, I can't confirm that wreck is a U-boat - although some of the provincial government emails indicated it was. However, the other U-boat I can guarantee is a "black boat" U-boat, either U-180 or U-851. I previously presented the evidence on that find in this post . If you haven't read it, then take a moment and give it a look. Furthermore, all available intelligence on these U-boats is their last missions both occurred toward early fall of 1944.
At that time, August of 1944 to be exact, Martin Bormann met with the major corporations of Nazi Germany, advised them the war was over, and instructed them to create international offshoots to hide money and resources before the Reich collapsed. Simultaneously, he was involved in secret talks with Allen Dulles, head of the US OSS (now CIA) which on it's face involves the recruitment of German scientists to the US after the war. However, and it's a big however, it seems they may have been discussing more than just post war employment for German scientists. My theory is the most pressing thing they were negotiating was uranium. Uranium the US did not have, and uranium the US needed to develop an atomic bomb before Japan and/or Russia did.
Bottom-line to my theory, and it is a theory, is the U-boats laying near Muskrat Falls secretly transported uranium to the US via its base in Goose Bay, Labrador. After delivering their load at the dock on the base they then proceeded up the Churchill River during the dark and scuttled their U-boats once there. There is really no other reason for a German U-boat to be that far inland. If the crew simply wanted to be out of the war, as folk lore has it, they would have scuttled their boat right on the Labrador coast where they could be sheltered by the Moravian communities, and where almost no allied presence to speak of was available. It would make no sense militarily to take the risk of crossing Lake Melville, and traversing the Churchill River, right next to the largest allied air transit base in North America during WW II. In fact, it would have been fool hardy.
My theory goes one step further. Why would the Germans be sending uranium to help the US build an atomic bomb while still fighting the Americans in Europe - albeit in Germany at that point? Logically they were striking a not so conditional surrender - secretly of course. The quid pro quo was uranium, technology and scientists for post war protection of German corporations assets and Nazi brass - including more than likely Hitler. A deal with the devil no question, but a deal that suited several purposes. The Americans got their nuclear and technology resources that place them well for after the war. The German elite got a promise of essentially exile in South America - free of foreign intelligence interference. In coming to this agreement they both became allies in one thing - fighting the Soviet Union. The Germans realized the Soviets were about to militarily dominate them, and the Americans didn't want post war competition in shaping the world. Getting the US to nuclear status first suited everyone's interests.
Both u-180 and u-851 were carrying secret cargos to Japan: in u-180's case it was uranium; and in U-851's case the payload remains unconfirmed as to whether it was uranium or mercury. Both U-boats are the only ones left in their class that remain unaccounted for. Both disappeared in late summer and early fall of 1944 in the Atlantic. U-180 maintained radio silence the moment it left its French base in mid August. U-234, the U-boat that deliberately surrendered to the US and not Canada at the war's end (also carrying uranium) maintained radio silence its entire voyage across the Atlantic. There is an excellent documentary on U-234 called "Hitler's Last U-boat" which is available on You Tube.
In any case, as with most mysteries, some questions can be answered by a process of elimination. The official records say U-180 left with three other U-boats - all destined to Japan with uranium and technology. The other two U-boats maintained contact with Germany. The escorts that took them all through the Bay of Biscay maintained the U-boats all made it through the mine fields as they were at the appropriate depth. There were no explosions from underwater mines detonating, nor any debris field from a stricken U-boat. The French government has never attempted to locate and raise or contain a U-boat wreck right off its shore that was full of uranium. Why not would be a good question. The Norwegian government had a similar situation with the sunken u-864 which had the dubious honour of being the only submarine sunk by another submarine in World War Two. It was also full of mercury. The story is here . Yet, no word of France looking for a similar situation off its coast... It's as if France knows U-180 is not sitting on the bottom of its coast leaching uranium into its waters.
Sometimes words say something. Sometimes the lack of words say something. It's for all of us to decide what is the truth that lays below the waves of the Churchill River near Muskrat Falls, and the secret role they played that altered the course of World war II and the post war era.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Trump - Back to the Future
The year was 1987, and then US President Reagan put the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement before the US Congress for ratification - almost 30 years ago now. It was an agreement that didn't involve Mexico and the ramifications for the US were minimal at best. If anything, it would be and was the Canadian economy that had to rationalize itself to the mightier economy down south. However, on Jan 1, 1994 the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, or as Donald Trump would say: "the worst trade agreement in the history of the world." Truth is that NAFTA was only the worst trade agreement for the US, because it involved a more "productive" economy in Mexico. The US then found itself rationalizing its economy to Mexico's. Specifically, the auto industry fled to Mexico along with its jobs. China added to the misery with its mass importation of goods to the US, which made the corporate masters at the New York stock exchange happy, but further crucified the US internal economy.
Fast forward to today, and Trump has just been elected by the ghosts of NAFTA - the people who were "rationalized" out of a way of life they had bragged to the world about, but could no longer enjoy. While the "globalists" were continuing their march toward the TPP and other trade agreements, the American people in the "rust belt" were waiting for their moment of revenge. The globalists didn't see it coming, because the American people held it close to their chests until the time was right. The old "Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes" cry from the US's War of 1812 with Britain. When they did fire Trump won over 300 seats in the US Electoral College which makes him now President-Elect. The big question is whether or not he can keep his agenda, or, frankly, whether he ever intended to.
Trump's big boast was an election win for him was "Brexit plus, plus, plus". The first foreign politician to visit him after his election was Nigel Farage who was the leader of the Brexit movement, and who actually stumped for Trump during the campaign. The truth is that of all the promises made by Trump, renegotiating NAFTA is his easiest politically. Americans are notorious for being inward looking - even when their survival dictates they shouldn't be. However, times have changed and so has the US. In the global sense, the US has had its economy completely rationalized to the international economy. It is no longer the industrialized country it was when Reagan became President. Its role in the world now is the consumer economy, and not the producer economy. Essentially, Trump's plan is to turn back the clock, and recreate the producer economy the US once was.
However, that time has come and gone to be honest. The reason the US entered all these trade agreements was to gain unfettered access to the rest of the world so it could grow its economy. If you recall, the US was going through recessions and inflationary pressures even before Reagan became President in 1980. Factories in the US were already closing. Unemployment was much higher than it is today. The globalists saw the necessity to increase trade to create growth and they did. Now the world's finance system, including stock markets and central banks, have all recreated themselves to foster that growth with massive debts and minimal if not negative interest rates. Of course that involved printing money without anything to back that value other than economic performance, so the cycle just kept repeating itself. In the process China, India, and places like Mexico took over the industrial needs of the world.
Trump now plans to put an end to that system. His plan is to return the US to a protected economy status and rebuild its industrial base. He argues the resulting growth created within the US by returning to protected status will create massive employment and tax revenues and that will allow him to cut everyone's taxes. A very simplistic, and fairly naïve concept.
Firstly, the US is a debtor country now, where in 1980 it wasn't. The Chinese for example hold enough US debt and currency to bring down the American economy by themselves if they chose to. Nobody was in that position in 1980. The US gross debt is expected to reach the magic $20 trillion mark this year, so it is country that has mortgaged itself to maintain its way of life - somewhat maintain it that is. Secondly, and relatively speaking, Russia and other arch enemies of the US are not in the terrible financial position they were in during the 1980's and 90's. Thirdly, and most importantly, the BRICS and Eurasia have the potential to shut off access to their markets now as well, and they are currently on that path - whether they choose to admit that or not at this time.
Furthermore, if Trump were to "renegotiate" NAFTA and other agreements he would be destroying the financial plans of almost every American multi-national corporation in the world today. All these companies have built their revenues, and more importantly debt, based on certain economic models. Those models are going to be thrown out by Trump, because the countries that are being "renegotiated" with will also be protecting their economies in kind. The bottom line is Trump's plan requires that he teleport the US back to 1980 when the US's commitments, including debts, are firmly in the 21rst century - meaning it is no longer possible without a complete breakdown the world economy, including stock markets and currencies.
Frankly, the US, or at least half of it, has collectively entered the Twilight Zone with Mr. Trump. I liked the anti-establishment message Trump put out there during the campaign, but
there are ominous signs that he may not be the true anti-establishment guy he painted himself to be.
The role of his family is becoming particularly troubling. The fact he cannot clearly see that allowing his children to sit on his transition team is not a statesman-like move is bewildering. His children will be having a direct voice on appointments and at the same time will be running his companies. The innuendo is that such a situation allows for an exchange of favours and IOU's. That why it's called a "perceived conflict of interest". In a private company it may not be applicable, but when dealing with the public purse it most definitely is. This alone raises some serious judgement issues.
There are other signs as well that Trump may not be as big of an anti-establishment guy as he lets on. So far the biggest hint are the people he is rumored to be thinking about for posts. They are all Wall Street-type folks, and all very much "establishment" - without question. Another curious thing was the comment that Trump made during his celebration speech that he intended to be around as president "for, two, or three or four years, maybe even eight." I found the comment strange, because the thought he may not be in for a full four year term is on his mind before he's even sworn in. Curious to say the least. One final thing. Trump needs to ditch the whole family thing. The American people voted him in - not The Apprentice. The interview he conducted in the opulent surroundings of his home, gilded in gold as it is, and surrounds by every member of his immediate family gives the feeling of some kind of team effort. That or the feeling of some kind of American royal family. Either way it's bizarre and almost offensive. It wreaks of the same kind of arrogance that he roundly, and justly criticized the establishment of.
Fast forward to today, and Trump has just been elected by the ghosts of NAFTA - the people who were "rationalized" out of a way of life they had bragged to the world about, but could no longer enjoy. While the "globalists" were continuing their march toward the TPP and other trade agreements, the American people in the "rust belt" were waiting for their moment of revenge. The globalists didn't see it coming, because the American people held it close to their chests until the time was right. The old "Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes" cry from the US's War of 1812 with Britain. When they did fire Trump won over 300 seats in the US Electoral College which makes him now President-Elect. The big question is whether or not he can keep his agenda, or, frankly, whether he ever intended to.
Trump's big boast was an election win for him was "Brexit plus, plus, plus". The first foreign politician to visit him after his election was Nigel Farage who was the leader of the Brexit movement, and who actually stumped for Trump during the campaign. The truth is that of all the promises made by Trump, renegotiating NAFTA is his easiest politically. Americans are notorious for being inward looking - even when their survival dictates they shouldn't be. However, times have changed and so has the US. In the global sense, the US has had its economy completely rationalized to the international economy. It is no longer the industrialized country it was when Reagan became President. Its role in the world now is the consumer economy, and not the producer economy. Essentially, Trump's plan is to turn back the clock, and recreate the producer economy the US once was.
However, that time has come and gone to be honest. The reason the US entered all these trade agreements was to gain unfettered access to the rest of the world so it could grow its economy. If you recall, the US was going through recessions and inflationary pressures even before Reagan became President in 1980. Factories in the US were already closing. Unemployment was much higher than it is today. The globalists saw the necessity to increase trade to create growth and they did. Now the world's finance system, including stock markets and central banks, have all recreated themselves to foster that growth with massive debts and minimal if not negative interest rates. Of course that involved printing money without anything to back that value other than economic performance, so the cycle just kept repeating itself. In the process China, India, and places like Mexico took over the industrial needs of the world.
Trump now plans to put an end to that system. His plan is to return the US to a protected economy status and rebuild its industrial base. He argues the resulting growth created within the US by returning to protected status will create massive employment and tax revenues and that will allow him to cut everyone's taxes. A very simplistic, and fairly naïve concept.
Firstly, the US is a debtor country now, where in 1980 it wasn't. The Chinese for example hold enough US debt and currency to bring down the American economy by themselves if they chose to. Nobody was in that position in 1980. The US gross debt is expected to reach the magic $20 trillion mark this year, so it is country that has mortgaged itself to maintain its way of life - somewhat maintain it that is. Secondly, and relatively speaking, Russia and other arch enemies of the US are not in the terrible financial position they were in during the 1980's and 90's. Thirdly, and most importantly, the BRICS and Eurasia have the potential to shut off access to their markets now as well, and they are currently on that path - whether they choose to admit that or not at this time.
Furthermore, if Trump were to "renegotiate" NAFTA and other agreements he would be destroying the financial plans of almost every American multi-national corporation in the world today. All these companies have built their revenues, and more importantly debt, based on certain economic models. Those models are going to be thrown out by Trump, because the countries that are being "renegotiated" with will also be protecting their economies in kind. The bottom line is Trump's plan requires that he teleport the US back to 1980 when the US's commitments, including debts, are firmly in the 21rst century - meaning it is no longer possible without a complete breakdown the world economy, including stock markets and currencies.
Frankly, the US, or at least half of it, has collectively entered the Twilight Zone with Mr. Trump. I liked the anti-establishment message Trump put out there during the campaign, but
there are ominous signs that he may not be the true anti-establishment guy he painted himself to be.
The role of his family is becoming particularly troubling. The fact he cannot clearly see that allowing his children to sit on his transition team is not a statesman-like move is bewildering. His children will be having a direct voice on appointments and at the same time will be running his companies. The innuendo is that such a situation allows for an exchange of favours and IOU's. That why it's called a "perceived conflict of interest". In a private company it may not be applicable, but when dealing with the public purse it most definitely is. This alone raises some serious judgement issues.
There are other signs as well that Trump may not be as big of an anti-establishment guy as he lets on. So far the biggest hint are the people he is rumored to be thinking about for posts. They are all Wall Street-type folks, and all very much "establishment" - without question. Another curious thing was the comment that Trump made during his celebration speech that he intended to be around as president "for, two, or three or four years, maybe even eight." I found the comment strange, because the thought he may not be in for a full four year term is on his mind before he's even sworn in. Curious to say the least. One final thing. Trump needs to ditch the whole family thing. The American people voted him in - not The Apprentice. The interview he conducted in the opulent surroundings of his home, gilded in gold as it is, and surrounds by every member of his immediate family gives the feeling of some kind of team effort. That or the feeling of some kind of American royal family. Either way it's bizarre and almost offensive. It wreaks of the same kind of arrogance that he roundly, and justly criticized the establishment of.
Trump - Back to the Future
The year was 1987, and then US President Reagan put the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement before the US Congress for ratification - almost 30 years ago now. It was an agreement that didn't involve Mexico and the ramifications for the US were minimal at best. If anything, it would be and was the Canadian economy that had to rationalize itself to the mightier economy down south. However, on Jan 1, 1994 the North American Trade Agreement (NAFTA) came into effect, or as Donald Trump would say: "the worst trade agreement in the history of the world." Truth is that NAFTA was only the worst trade agreement for the US, because it involved a more "productive" economy in Mexico. The US then found itself rationalizing its economy to Mexico's. Specifically, the auto industry fled to Mexico along with its jobs. China added to the misery with its mass importation of goods to the US, which made the corporate masters at the New York stock exchange happy, but further crucified the US internal economy.
Fast forward to today, and Trump has just been elected by the ghosts of NAFTA - the people who were "rationalized" out of a way of life they had bragged to the world about, but could no longer enjoy. While the "globalists" were continuing their march toward the TPP and other trade agreements, the American people in the "rust belt" were waiting for their moment of revenge. The globalists didn't see it coming, because the American people held it close to their chests until the time was right. The old "Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes" cry from the US's War of 1812 with Britain. When they did fire Trump won over 300 seats in the US Electoral College which makes him now President-Elect. The big question is whether or not he can keep his agenda, or, frankly, whether he ever intended to.
Trump's big boast was an election win for him was "Brexit plus, plus, plus". The first foreign politician to visit him after his election was Nigel Farage who was the leader of the Brexit movement, and who actually stumped for Trump during the campaign. The truth is that of all the promises made by Trump, renegotiating NAFTA is his easiest politically. Americans are notorious for being inward looking - even when their survival dictates they shouldn't be. However, times have changed and so has the US. In the global sense, the US has had its economy completely rationalized to the international economy. It is no longer the industrialized country it was when Reagan became President. Its role in the world now is the consumer economy, and not the producer economy. Essentially, Trump's plan is to turn back the clock, and recreate the producer economy the US once was.
However, that time has come and gone to be honest. The reason the US entered all these trade agreements was to gain unfettered access to the rest of the world so it could grow its economy. If you recall, the US was going through recessions and inflationary pressures even before Reagan became President in 1980. Factories in the US were already closing. Unemployment was much higher than it is today. The globalists saw the necessity to increase trade to create growth and they did. Now the world's fiancé system, including stock markets and central banks, have all recreated themselves to foster that growth with massive debts and minimal if not negative interest rates. Of course that involved printing money without anything to back that value other than economic performance, so the cycle just kept repeating itself. In the process China, India, and places like Mexico took over the industrial needs of the world.
Now, in main stream, Trump's plan is to put an end to that system. His plan is to return the US to a protected economy status and rebuild its industrial base. He argues the resulting growth created within the US by returning to protected status will create massive employment and tax revenues and that will allow him to cut everyone's taxes. A very simplistic, and fairly naïve concept.
Firstly, the US is a debtor country now, where in 1980 it wasn't. The Chinese for example hold enough US debt and currency to bring down the American economy by themselves if they chose to. Nobody was in that position in 1980. The US gross debt is expected to reach the magic $20 trillion mark this year, so it is country that has mortgaged itself to maintain its way of life - somewhat maintain it that is. Secondly, and relatively speaking, Russia and other arch enemies of the US are not in the terrible financial position they were in during the 1980's and 90's. Thirdly, and most importantly, the BRICS and Eurasia have the potential to shut off access to their markets now as well, and they are currently on that path - whether they choose to admit that or not at this time.
Furthermore, if Trump were to "renegotiate" NAFTA and other agreements he would be destroying the financial plans of almost every American multi-national corporation in the world today. All these companies have built their revenues, and more importantly debt, based on certain economic models. Those models are going to be thrown out by Trump, because the countries that are being "renegotiated" with will also be protecting their economies in kind. The bottom line is Trump's plan requires that he teleport the US back to 1980 when the US's commitments, including debts, are firmly in the 21rst century - meaning it is no longer possible without a complete breakdown the world economy, including stock markets and currencies.
Frankly, the US, or at least half of it, has collectively entered the Twilight Zone with Mr. Trump. I liked the anti-establishment message Trump put out there during the campaign, but
there are ominous signs that he may not be the true anti-establishment guy he painted himself to be.
The role of his family is becoming particularly troubling. The fact he cannot clearly see that allowing his children to sit on his transition team is not a statesman-like move is bewildering. His children will be having a direct voice on appointments and at the same time will be running his companies. The innuendo is that such a situation allows for an exchange of favours and IOU's. That why it's called a "perceived conflict of interest". In a private company it may not be applicable, but when dealing with the public purse it most definitely is. This alone raises some serious judgement issues.
There are other signs as well that Trump may not be as big of an anti-establishment guy as he lets on. So far the biggest hint are the people he is rumored to be thinking about for posts. They are all Wall Street-type folks, and all very much "establishment" - without question. Another curious thing was the comment that Trump made during his celebration speech that he intended to be around as president "for, two, or three or four years, maybe even eight." I found the comment strange, because the thought he may not be in for a full four year term is on his mind before he's even sworn in. Curious to say the least. One final thing. Trump needs to ditch the whole family thing. The American people voted him in - not The Apprentice. The interview he conducted in the opulent surroundings of his home, gilded in gold as it is, and surrounds by every member of his immediate family gives the feeling of some kind of team effort. That or the feeling of some kind of American royal family. Either way it's bizarre and almost offensive. It wreaks of the same kind of arrogance that he roundly, and justly criticized the establishment of.
Fast forward to today, and Trump has just been elected by the ghosts of NAFTA - the people who were "rationalized" out of a way of life they had bragged to the world about, but could no longer enjoy. While the "globalists" were continuing their march toward the TPP and other trade agreements, the American people in the "rust belt" were waiting for their moment of revenge. The globalists didn't see it coming, because the American people held it close to their chests until the time was right. The old "Don't fire til you see the whites of their eyes" cry from the US's War of 1812 with Britain. When they did fire Trump won over 300 seats in the US Electoral College which makes him now President-Elect. The big question is whether or not he can keep his agenda, or, frankly, whether he ever intended to.
Trump's big boast was an election win for him was "Brexit plus, plus, plus". The first foreign politician to visit him after his election was Nigel Farage who was the leader of the Brexit movement, and who actually stumped for Trump during the campaign. The truth is that of all the promises made by Trump, renegotiating NAFTA is his easiest politically. Americans are notorious for being inward looking - even when their survival dictates they shouldn't be. However, times have changed and so has the US. In the global sense, the US has had its economy completely rationalized to the international economy. It is no longer the industrialized country it was when Reagan became President. Its role in the world now is the consumer economy, and not the producer economy. Essentially, Trump's plan is to turn back the clock, and recreate the producer economy the US once was.
However, that time has come and gone to be honest. The reason the US entered all these trade agreements was to gain unfettered access to the rest of the world so it could grow its economy. If you recall, the US was going through recessions and inflationary pressures even before Reagan became President in 1980. Factories in the US were already closing. Unemployment was much higher than it is today. The globalists saw the necessity to increase trade to create growth and they did. Now the world's fiancé system, including stock markets and central banks, have all recreated themselves to foster that growth with massive debts and minimal if not negative interest rates. Of course that involved printing money without anything to back that value other than economic performance, so the cycle just kept repeating itself. In the process China, India, and places like Mexico took over the industrial needs of the world.
Now, in main stream, Trump's plan is to put an end to that system. His plan is to return the US to a protected economy status and rebuild its industrial base. He argues the resulting growth created within the US by returning to protected status will create massive employment and tax revenues and that will allow him to cut everyone's taxes. A very simplistic, and fairly naïve concept.
Firstly, the US is a debtor country now, where in 1980 it wasn't. The Chinese for example hold enough US debt and currency to bring down the American economy by themselves if they chose to. Nobody was in that position in 1980. The US gross debt is expected to reach the magic $20 trillion mark this year, so it is country that has mortgaged itself to maintain its way of life - somewhat maintain it that is. Secondly, and relatively speaking, Russia and other arch enemies of the US are not in the terrible financial position they were in during the 1980's and 90's. Thirdly, and most importantly, the BRICS and Eurasia have the potential to shut off access to their markets now as well, and they are currently on that path - whether they choose to admit that or not at this time.
Furthermore, if Trump were to "renegotiate" NAFTA and other agreements he would be destroying the financial plans of almost every American multi-national corporation in the world today. All these companies have built their revenues, and more importantly debt, based on certain economic models. Those models are going to be thrown out by Trump, because the countries that are being "renegotiated" with will also be protecting their economies in kind. The bottom line is Trump's plan requires that he teleport the US back to 1980 when the US's commitments, including debts, are firmly in the 21rst century - meaning it is no longer possible without a complete breakdown the world economy, including stock markets and currencies.
Frankly, the US, or at least half of it, has collectively entered the Twilight Zone with Mr. Trump. I liked the anti-establishment message Trump put out there during the campaign, but
there are ominous signs that he may not be the true anti-establishment guy he painted himself to be.
The role of his family is becoming particularly troubling. The fact he cannot clearly see that allowing his children to sit on his transition team is not a statesman-like move is bewildering. His children will be having a direct voice on appointments and at the same time will be running his companies. The innuendo is that such a situation allows for an exchange of favours and IOU's. That why it's called a "perceived conflict of interest". In a private company it may not be applicable, but when dealing with the public purse it most definitely is. This alone raises some serious judgement issues.
There are other signs as well that Trump may not be as big of an anti-establishment guy as he lets on. So far the biggest hint are the people he is rumored to be thinking about for posts. They are all Wall Street-type folks, and all very much "establishment" - without question. Another curious thing was the comment that Trump made during his celebration speech that he intended to be around as president "for, two, or three or four years, maybe even eight." I found the comment strange, because the thought he may not be in for a full four year term is on his mind before he's even sworn in. Curious to say the least. One final thing. Trump needs to ditch the whole family thing. The American people voted him in - not The Apprentice. The interview he conducted in the opulent surroundings of his home, gilded in gold as it is, and surrounds by every member of his immediate family gives the feeling of some kind of team effort. That or the feeling of some kind of American royal family. Either way it's bizarre and almost offensive. It wreaks of the same kind of arrogance that he roundly, and justly criticized the establishment of.
Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Danger Close For Trump
Donald Trump won the US election handily early this morning. He rode a wave that he didn't create, but was wise enough to see - the disaffected. The people in the US that feel their country was lost due to trade agreements, and foreign trade to Asia, that effectively stripped the United States of its industrial might - and the jobs that went with it. The people who have become war weary after 13 years of straight war in never ending guerilla wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. The constant state of war that George Orwell noted in his book 1984.
The US people rejected their establishment. Both the political and to some extent the financial establishment. They are deeply angered as they watch their country slip from a model to the world (in their eyes) to a wreck on the way to the bottom. In other words they acted out. They lashed out. They made a statement. Contrary to some of the ludicrous mass media analysis that framed the vote as racist (white men acting racist) and/or sexist, the Trump election was the result of his "movement" coming together to throw out the US political establishment - Republican and Democrat. It was an easily foreseeable result given the explosive tension in the US, the anti-establishment movement enveloping the Western world, and the establishment's "let them eat cake" approach to a twenty first century educated populace. The Clintons obvious ties to the odious and dark political "elite" made Hillary Clinton the wrong woman, at the wrong time, to become the first female President of the United States. Not rocket science.
That brings us to today, and the next six weeks or so before Trump is sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. If you believe that there is a political establishment that crosses party lines and looks after its own, then you must believe they aren't happy at the possibility of losing control of the country to a man they consider a "loose cannon". Of course, by loose cannon they mean they can't control him. For them that is a big problem, and that means the next six weeks may be dangerous for the world.
Trump on the face of it appears to be a pragmatic person looking for pragmatic results. It seems obvious to me that as a family man, with a large collection of kids and grandkids, that Trump's motivation for seeking the office of President at the age of 70 is his concern for the future those family members may face in the US. That's my own take, my gut feeling on him. He has made it clear he wants to mend fences with countries like Russia, although perhaps not so much for Iran (which is potentially dangerous in itself), and there has been a concerted effort by powerful elements within the US establishment and government to promote hostilities with Russia and China. The question is this: Will those forces attempt to use Obama's last six weeks in office to start a conflict that Trump will have no choice but to continue when he is sworn in?
A conflict that derails his agenda for a pragmatic world peace. An amicable agreement on spheres of influence, etc. For example, an American strike on Syrian forces that sees the Russian military shoot down one or more US fighter aircraft. Of course there are many other such scenarios that could green light an American conflict and leave Trump powerless to produce peaceful pragmatism. Furthermore, such a conflict would derail Trump's plans for cancelling trade agreements as the US and those same countries would be allies in any large conflict, and the feasibility of cutting off a fighting ally would be almost nil.
My point is that the next six weeks are "danger close". They are vulnerable to manipulation of international events to maintain a global agenda of successive free trade agreements that marginalize the sovereignty of nations and lay the path for continuing the New World Order of the Bush era. They won't sit back idly while Trump undoes their work, and they won't be able to realistically attack him directly right now as his "movement" has the political capital of a big agenda in the making. Some people believe that Mike Pence somehow represents a modern day Lyndon Johnson scenario. I doubt that as the public is not the relatively naïve public of the 60's.
The US people rejected their establishment. Both the political and to some extent the financial establishment. They are deeply angered as they watch their country slip from a model to the world (in their eyes) to a wreck on the way to the bottom. In other words they acted out. They lashed out. They made a statement. Contrary to some of the ludicrous mass media analysis that framed the vote as racist (white men acting racist) and/or sexist, the Trump election was the result of his "movement" coming together to throw out the US political establishment - Republican and Democrat. It was an easily foreseeable result given the explosive tension in the US, the anti-establishment movement enveloping the Western world, and the establishment's "let them eat cake" approach to a twenty first century educated populace. The Clintons obvious ties to the odious and dark political "elite" made Hillary Clinton the wrong woman, at the wrong time, to become the first female President of the United States. Not rocket science.
That brings us to today, and the next six weeks or so before Trump is sworn in as the 45th President of the United States. If you believe that there is a political establishment that crosses party lines and looks after its own, then you must believe they aren't happy at the possibility of losing control of the country to a man they consider a "loose cannon". Of course, by loose cannon they mean they can't control him. For them that is a big problem, and that means the next six weeks may be dangerous for the world.
Trump on the face of it appears to be a pragmatic person looking for pragmatic results. It seems obvious to me that as a family man, with a large collection of kids and grandkids, that Trump's motivation for seeking the office of President at the age of 70 is his concern for the future those family members may face in the US. That's my own take, my gut feeling on him. He has made it clear he wants to mend fences with countries like Russia, although perhaps not so much for Iran (which is potentially dangerous in itself), and there has been a concerted effort by powerful elements within the US establishment and government to promote hostilities with Russia and China. The question is this: Will those forces attempt to use Obama's last six weeks in office to start a conflict that Trump will have no choice but to continue when he is sworn in?
A conflict that derails his agenda for a pragmatic world peace. An amicable agreement on spheres of influence, etc. For example, an American strike on Syrian forces that sees the Russian military shoot down one or more US fighter aircraft. Of course there are many other such scenarios that could green light an American conflict and leave Trump powerless to produce peaceful pragmatism. Furthermore, such a conflict would derail Trump's plans for cancelling trade agreements as the US and those same countries would be allies in any large conflict, and the feasibility of cutting off a fighting ally would be almost nil.
My point is that the next six weeks are "danger close". They are vulnerable to manipulation of international events to maintain a global agenda of successive free trade agreements that marginalize the sovereignty of nations and lay the path for continuing the New World Order of the Bush era. They won't sit back idly while Trump undoes their work, and they won't be able to realistically attack him directly right now as his "movement" has the political capital of a big agenda in the making. Some people believe that Mike Pence somehow represents a modern day Lyndon Johnson scenario. I doubt that as the public is not the relatively naïve public of the 60's.
No, what Trump and his people need to be watchful for is suddenly aggressive escalation of American military actions in either the Middle East, Ukraine or China. Personally, if such a move is made to derail Trump's agenda before he hits office, I believe that Syria holds that distinct potential. It's a place where American and Russian military hardware is operational in close proximity. It's also a place where the US has already painted Russia as the bogeyman in the siege of Aleppo. That despite attempting to do the almost identical thing with their Iraqi allies in Mosul, Iraq. My point is this: Things are dangerous right now in the political vacuum of the exchange of power in the US. There are very powerful forces that don't want to see any peace with Russia or China. My estimate is they will act to make sure that doesn't happen, and they only have six precious weeks to instigate against it. That's why things are danger close for President-Elect Trump right now.
Sunday, November 6, 2016
Newfoundland and Labrador is Irredeemable
"There's a reason our people left there". That strange little thought crept into my mind as the family and I traversed the Rocky Mountains on the way to a new life in Newfoundland and Labrador. That was March, 2010. Returning to the home of my Grandmother (or Nan as they say here). We were excited, but yet that little thought, perhaps little message, always stuck with me.
It wasn't long after we arrived that I engaged with the local PC's as I had been with the Conservatives since 1991. Danny Williams was premier, and the place was unabashedly nationalistic (which I could've done without). However, he suddenly resigned as soon as he'd pushed through Muskrat Falls, and the party was calling for contenders - although in reality it was fulfilling a backroom deal to put Kathy Dunderdale in place (not so affectionately referred to as "Danny Williams' flack jacket - meaning she was to take all the "bullets" from his actions). I put my name up to run because I was convinced Williams' Lower Churchill scheme was the financial death nail for the province. For my trouble I was roundly accused of being an uppity "come from away" and/or "mainlander". And still am.
I realized quickly that corruption was rampant throughout the PC party, and tried to warn people. They would not listen. In fact, Paddy Daley, a local radio "shock-jock" host even stated that Ministers demanding pay back donations was "just the way it is". The same host would later refer to me as "a dangerous zealot" for opposing the Muskrat Falls development. Curiously, he now advocates for donation free politics and puts across many of my views from our discussions on Muskrat Falls without much acknowledgement they were never his. In any case, the point is that the political culture of the province was so rampant with corruption that people never took it as such. It was just "the way it's always been".
Once the people of the province started getting the idea that they shouldn't go along with corruption, and they became concerned about Muskrat Falls, they turfed the PCs out and elected the Liberals. The Liberals promised the moon and the stars to people, and the people ate it up. Less the half a year later the province was in open revolt because the Liberals broke every promise they made - blaming the PCs for ruining the province and that the provinces economic position was something "nobody could have seen coming". This a typical saying here. Nobody could see it coming. The reality is anyone with half a brain could see it coming from a thousand miles away let alone one. It was that obvious right from the very beginning, but people just refused to see it. They refused to educate themselves on it. They said we trust the government. We trust the "experts" the government paid and paraded. It was so obvious what was happening yet apparently too difficult to believe by most.
Then, while the fight over finances and the Muskrat Falls project raged, the government, media, and people in general went after the "known Critics" (as the government labelled those of us in opposition to their plans). It got personal. It became an effort to debase those that stood in their place for the truth, and the actual real issues of the direction the province was headed in were tossed to the wind. The best way I can describe it is from a scene in a children's movie called Ice Age. It's the part where the small group of animals desperately try and stop the DoDo birds from going "lemming mode" until they are all extinct. It's this part:
And a week before that statement the Nunatsiavut President said this: (you can find the press release here
"The concerns over methylmercury contamination is rea, and to proceed with flooding without fully clearing will clearly violate of human and indigenous rights. This project has to be stopped now before it's too late."
After meeting with the Premier for eight hours or so, the Nunatsiavut Government position became:
"As part of their response to the review of the engineering reports, the three leaders reiterated the principles that were committed to during the October 25 meeting, namely: that the protection of human health and well-being would be paramount in decision-making related to the Muskrat Falls project; and – with respect to first-phase impoundment – water levels would be raised to the minimum acceptable level if such impoundment was deemed necessary, and drawn back down to normal levels as soon as the risk of ice damage had passed...
The leaders also insisted that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador actively communicate with them on Nalcor’s management of this issue, including regular and timely information on all facets of initial flooding, to demonstrate that concrete actions are being taken to minimize impacts to human health." (you can read it here)
As you can see, the Aboriginal leaders completely capitulated, even at the risk of their own people being poisoned further with methylmercury. The claim that the government would "actively communicate" with them prior to flooding was proven totally laughable when the news release was put out after flooding of the reservoir was actually taking place. By the time the release was published flooding of the reservoir had already caused water levels to increase by 7 feet. It's just another example of the hundreds of examples I've witnessed here in the last six years of this province's political establishment, including Aboriginal, selling people a bill of goods that is so obviously flawed that they can't even keep a short term story straight.
What does all this lead to. Well, there is the issue of the province's finances. The death nail if you will. The collective gross debt of the government, including Nalcor's debt, is in the $29 billion range. The governing Liberals came out yesterday and said the province would be back to surplus by 2023-24. What that means is they will be borrowing for another six or seven years, and that is if you take them at their word - which hasn't turned out well in the past. Nevertheless, an additional 6 years of borrowing to fund the government's operations and its capital budget will see about another $12 billion added to the province's gross debt for a grand total of $41 billion dollars - not including any further cost over runs with Muskrat Falls.
As astounding as that number is for 510,000 souls to carry it doesn't end there. You will find on this blog any number of posts that refer to this province's "demographic time bomb". The truth is that not only does the province have the highest gas prices in the western hemisphere (North and South America), but it has the fast aging population in the Western World. As it is today, only 30% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians make enough money each year that they must pay taxes. The cumulative effect of all these different factors means that this province financially is a "dead man walking". There is no way out. There is no plan. There is only accountability for a lost decade of spending left, and that accountability will rest on a very small percentage of the province's population. In other words, anyone with half a brain that earns a decent income, and can transfer that expertise outside the province will.
So, bottom line, this province is politically and economically irredeemable. In other words, it can not be fixed. Politically the people refuse to do more than complain incessantly. They do not rise up in a way that would force the political establishment to reform itself. They seek simply to get whatever crumbs they can out of it. It is that simple. That sums up the political culture here, and that is why people of actual integrity are viewed with suspicion and tagged with innuendo. Ditto financially. The various boards of trade swooned over the previous governments, and the current one, to get their hands on that oil money that flowed freely from the government's coffers. They rewarded first the Pc and now Liberal party with generous donations to get their feet in the door. They set up and financed PR campaigns to promote the Muskrat Falls project and marginalize those that wisely opposed it. And now? Now they are crying so loudly it is almost laughable. Cut civil servants, and spending on programs and what ever you can they scream, but don't cut our little bit of the gravy...ok? This is Newfoundland and Labrador in the nut shell.
No doubt, and I can hear it now: "You are so negative"; "If you don't like it get out"; and "Mainlanders trying to tell us what to do." That's the culture of unaccountability that pervades society here. Whether it's something as large as Muskrat Falls or something as small as blaming a neighbor for all your troubles. It is everywhere here. And that is the great undoing of this place. The refusal to learn from past mistakes. The refusal to be held accountable for past mistakes. The refusal to be responsible. It is inescapable, and it is everywhere in this province. It is the fatal flaw of Shakespearean lore. The province eagerly awaits its next pied piper. It's next saviour. That is what truly makes Newfoundland and Labrador irredeemable. This will be my last post on Newfoundland and Labrador politics, economics, or anything of the sort. It is futile to waste the energy God gave you in a lost cause.
It wasn't long after we arrived that I engaged with the local PC's as I had been with the Conservatives since 1991. Danny Williams was premier, and the place was unabashedly nationalistic (which I could've done without). However, he suddenly resigned as soon as he'd pushed through Muskrat Falls, and the party was calling for contenders - although in reality it was fulfilling a backroom deal to put Kathy Dunderdale in place (not so affectionately referred to as "Danny Williams' flack jacket - meaning she was to take all the "bullets" from his actions). I put my name up to run because I was convinced Williams' Lower Churchill scheme was the financial death nail for the province. For my trouble I was roundly accused of being an uppity "come from away" and/or "mainlander". And still am.
I realized quickly that corruption was rampant throughout the PC party, and tried to warn people. They would not listen. In fact, Paddy Daley, a local radio "shock-jock" host even stated that Ministers demanding pay back donations was "just the way it is". The same host would later refer to me as "a dangerous zealot" for opposing the Muskrat Falls development. Curiously, he now advocates for donation free politics and puts across many of my views from our discussions on Muskrat Falls without much acknowledgement they were never his. In any case, the point is that the political culture of the province was so rampant with corruption that people never took it as such. It was just "the way it's always been".
Once the people of the province started getting the idea that they shouldn't go along with corruption, and they became concerned about Muskrat Falls, they turfed the PCs out and elected the Liberals. The Liberals promised the moon and the stars to people, and the people ate it up. Less the half a year later the province was in open revolt because the Liberals broke every promise they made - blaming the PCs for ruining the province and that the provinces economic position was something "nobody could have seen coming". This a typical saying here. Nobody could see it coming. The reality is anyone with half a brain could see it coming from a thousand miles away let alone one. It was that obvious right from the very beginning, but people just refused to see it. They refused to educate themselves on it. They said we trust the government. We trust the "experts" the government paid and paraded. It was so obvious what was happening yet apparently too difficult to believe by most.
Then, while the fight over finances and the Muskrat Falls project raged, the government, media, and people in general went after the "known Critics" (as the government labelled those of us in opposition to their plans). It got personal. It became an effort to debase those that stood in their place for the truth, and the actual real issues of the direction the province was headed in were tossed to the wind. The best way I can describe it is from a scene in a children's movie called Ice Age. It's the part where the small group of animals desperately try and stop the DoDo birds from going "lemming mode" until they are all extinct. It's this part:
It may not be the most serious way to put it, but you get the point. A small group of people who could clearly see what the government was doing, and the peoples complicit agreement with it, were ignored and marginalized as everyone around them took a flying leap.
You would think that eventually people would catch on - preferably before it's too late, however, that never happened. In fact it is still going on. The most recent case of the protests in Labrador. Just days before the Aboriginal leaders met with the new Liberal government to "try and stop" the flooding of the reservoir, and thereby avoid methylmercury poisoning of their people, the Nunatsiavut Government (Inuit) President said this:
"Unless all vegetation and soil is removed the threat to our health, culture and way of life remains. Nalcor should also be directed to delay plans to begin initial flooding...to allow for the removal of trees, vegetation and topsoil. Initial flooding is expected to take place within days, and once you flood the land the damage has been done. There is no turning back".
That was October 20, 2016. You can read the release here
And a week before that statement the Nunatsiavut President said this: (you can find the press release here
"The concerns over methylmercury contamination is rea, and to proceed with flooding without fully clearing will clearly violate of human and indigenous rights. This project has to be stopped now before it's too late."
After meeting with the Premier for eight hours or so, the Nunatsiavut Government position became:
"As part of their response to the review of the engineering reports, the three leaders reiterated the principles that were committed to during the October 25 meeting, namely: that the protection of human health and well-being would be paramount in decision-making related to the Muskrat Falls project; and – with respect to first-phase impoundment – water levels would be raised to the minimum acceptable level if such impoundment was deemed necessary, and drawn back down to normal levels as soon as the risk of ice damage had passed...
The leaders also insisted that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador actively communicate with them on Nalcor’s management of this issue, including regular and timely information on all facets of initial flooding, to demonstrate that concrete actions are being taken to minimize impacts to human health." (you can read it here)
As you can see, the Aboriginal leaders completely capitulated, even at the risk of their own people being poisoned further with methylmercury. The claim that the government would "actively communicate" with them prior to flooding was proven totally laughable when the news release was put out after flooding of the reservoir was actually taking place. By the time the release was published flooding of the reservoir had already caused water levels to increase by 7 feet. It's just another example of the hundreds of examples I've witnessed here in the last six years of this province's political establishment, including Aboriginal, selling people a bill of goods that is so obviously flawed that they can't even keep a short term story straight.
What does all this lead to. Well, there is the issue of the province's finances. The death nail if you will. The collective gross debt of the government, including Nalcor's debt, is in the $29 billion range. The governing Liberals came out yesterday and said the province would be back to surplus by 2023-24. What that means is they will be borrowing for another six or seven years, and that is if you take them at their word - which hasn't turned out well in the past. Nevertheless, an additional 6 years of borrowing to fund the government's operations and its capital budget will see about another $12 billion added to the province's gross debt for a grand total of $41 billion dollars - not including any further cost over runs with Muskrat Falls.
As astounding as that number is for 510,000 souls to carry it doesn't end there. You will find on this blog any number of posts that refer to this province's "demographic time bomb". The truth is that not only does the province have the highest gas prices in the western hemisphere (North and South America), but it has the fast aging population in the Western World. As it is today, only 30% of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians make enough money each year that they must pay taxes. The cumulative effect of all these different factors means that this province financially is a "dead man walking". There is no way out. There is no plan. There is only accountability for a lost decade of spending left, and that accountability will rest on a very small percentage of the province's population. In other words, anyone with half a brain that earns a decent income, and can transfer that expertise outside the province will.
So, bottom line, this province is politically and economically irredeemable. In other words, it can not be fixed. Politically the people refuse to do more than complain incessantly. They do not rise up in a way that would force the political establishment to reform itself. They seek simply to get whatever crumbs they can out of it. It is that simple. That sums up the political culture here, and that is why people of actual integrity are viewed with suspicion and tagged with innuendo. Ditto financially. The various boards of trade swooned over the previous governments, and the current one, to get their hands on that oil money that flowed freely from the government's coffers. They rewarded first the Pc and now Liberal party with generous donations to get their feet in the door. They set up and financed PR campaigns to promote the Muskrat Falls project and marginalize those that wisely opposed it. And now? Now they are crying so loudly it is almost laughable. Cut civil servants, and spending on programs and what ever you can they scream, but don't cut our little bit of the gravy...ok? This is Newfoundland and Labrador in the nut shell.
No doubt, and I can hear it now: "You are so negative"; "If you don't like it get out"; and "Mainlanders trying to tell us what to do." That's the culture of unaccountability that pervades society here. Whether it's something as large as Muskrat Falls or something as small as blaming a neighbor for all your troubles. It is everywhere here. And that is the great undoing of this place. The refusal to learn from past mistakes. The refusal to be held accountable for past mistakes. The refusal to be responsible. It is inescapable, and it is everywhere in this province. It is the fatal flaw of Shakespearean lore. The province eagerly awaits its next pied piper. It's next saviour. That is what truly makes Newfoundland and Labrador irredeemable. This will be my last post on Newfoundland and Labrador politics, economics, or anything of the sort. It is futile to waste the energy God gave you in a lost cause.
Monday, October 31, 2016
After ISIS.
As the Syrian army, with support from Hezbollah and Russia crushes ISIS in Aleppo, and as the Iraqi Army with support from Shite Militias and the US squeezes ISIS in Mosul, the next step becomes the big question. Will the US respect the wishes of the Syrian government and leave the Syria battle to its government and the Russian military, or will the US ignore the sovereign rights of the Syrian government and push to install a Kurdistan from North Eastern Syria and North Western Iraq? That is really the $1 million question. Will things escalate between Russia and the US on this battlefield or will there be a recognition of traditional spheres of influence.
Traditionally and historically, Turkey has done everything within its power to thwart a Kurdish state. Whether it be decades long intelligence/military operations against the Kurds within Turkey itself, or whether it be actual uninvited military incursions into Syria and/or Iraq to attack Kurdish fighting elements, the Turkish position has always been against the development of any Kurdish state. Given that the Kurds are claiming a good portion of South Eastern Turkey as part of the new Kurdistan one can somewhat understand the Turkish policy toward the Kurds. However, the result has been ongoing turmoil within the region for decades.
As it stands now the main force of the Syrian army, and allies, are focused around the Aleppo area in a time consuming fight in that city. The Turkish army has invaded and driven south toward the Al Raqqa area, although not to the city itself. Instead the Turks have pivoted east to take on the Kurds and drive them to at least behind the Euphrates River that runs through central Syria. At first the US had agreed to the Kurds withdrawing, but that seems to have changed and the Kurds are standing their ground. Meantime, the bulk of Iraqi forces are surrounding Mosul from three sides, but thus far leaving the western side of the city relatively open - which could allow the ISIS elements and others in the city to retreat westward to Syria. Curiously, a large contingent of Shite militia are attempting to cut off that exit by flanking Mosul, however Turkey has since warned them not to take the strategic city between Mosul and Al Raqqa that would cut off the ISIS retreat. All very complicated.
Bottom line is that within three months both Mosul and Aleppo will be liberated from ISIS and other Islamic forces. The race will then be on to take ISIS's capital Raqqa. Currently the Kurds, with their American allies, are closer than anyone else - other than the Turks. And that brings the Turkish role to the forefront. First point: Turkey is only in Syria because Russia allowed it to be so. Shortly after Turkey reconciled with Russia that country's army militarily intervened from the north, and secured its border with Syria. That effectively sealed any chance ISIS could resupply or sell oil to the north without Turkey's approval, and if Turkey approved such an action its relationship with Russia would be over before it started. So Russia's plan for Turkey was to seal the border first. Mission accomplished. In return, Turkey got the green light to go after the Kurds from Russia, but not the US.
Phase two, which hasn't happened just yet, will be Turkey sweeping into Raqqa before the Kurds and the US can. The Syrian army is out of position to move on Raqqa before anyone else does, because they are still fighting to the south along the Lebanon border. They must also retake Dayr az Zawr located strategically south of Raqqa and on the wrong side of the Euphrates River for anything other than a cross river assault - which would involve massive casualties and every chance of a serious defeat. So bank on it that Russia has already got Turkey to take on Raqqa. It suits both of their purposes.
Once that battle takes place, and the remnants of ISIS are trapped on the Syrian-Iraqi border, the focus turns to restoring the territorial integrity of not just Syria, but also Iraq. The area is rich in oil reserves - a wealth that both countries will need to rebuild their war-torn countries. However, American oil companies have strong ties and contracts with the Kurds in northern Iraq, and are likely expecting the same kind of concessions in north eastern Syria. It is at this point in the conflict when push will come to shove. Russia will have no choice to back the Syrian military in recovering all their territory, and that means driving the Kurds from all of Syria. That will also involve driving all the Americans out of Syria to. Considering the US has opened an air force base in north east Syria, in Kurdish controlled territory, it is easy to see how this battle will escalate. Likely, the only factor that could stop an actual military confrontation between the US and Russia in eastern Syria would be the election of Donald Trump. He has pledged to work with Russia on destroying ISIS and my analysis of him is that he's a deal maker that would seed Syria because the it is Russia's sphere of influence. That is the only action that could stop a direct escalation between Russia and the US.
In case you haven't heard, Russia has mobilized its sole aircraft carrier, along with warships and submarines to the coast of Syria. It is also expanding the facilities of its Syrian air base. The Chinese have also declared they are prepared to intervene militarily on Syria's side. What we are witnessing right now is not the Russians preparing for immanent action in Syria. They are instead prepositioning resources for a much larger battle with the US and its allies. The Americans are doing the same thing by position naval forces off the coast near Syria, and massively reinforcing the air base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. If Trump does not win the US Presidential election, and reverse the show down in Syria, then these prepositioned forces will engage each other. That's why they're there. They're not there to take on rebels, or ISIS or Hezbollah, or Kurds or the Syrian army.
It has to be said that a lot rides on the result of that politicians gone wild election to the south of our country. On the one hand a deal maker who is not opposed to pulling the US back from the "policeman of the world" self-appointed status it has generally abused for the last two decades. He may be a chauvinistic you know what, but he may not be a blood thirsty imperialist - so that's ok by me if the choice comes down to it. Hillary Clinton on the other hand has been shown to be an instrument of the big corporations that are driving America's foreign policy, and also driving it to placing it and the rest of us in the world in mortal danger. So, my fingers and toes are crossed that the egotistical chauvinist isolationist wins in a few days from now, and not the corrupt insider doing the bidding of those that not only do not respect humanity, but in fact see it as a mere inconvenience in a quest to have the world as they see it.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Labrador Down
I've never been to Labrador before, yet I've fought to stop Muskrat Falls in the courts and outside them for five years. It seemed the right time, and many people there encouraged me to come (see Facebook) so my wife and I set out ready to support the "land protectors" with everything we had. One ominous message on Facebook suggested something different though:
"...he is a politician trying to get attention." That came from Charlotte Wolfrey, Status of Women Coordinator, Nunatsiavut Government.
An interesting statement to be sure. While some may remember my foray into Newfoundland politics back in early 2011 and 2012, I have primarily been focused on defeating Muskrat Falls during and since that time. So I found Ms. Wolfrey's statement a little strange. That being said we arrived in Goose Bay Sunday to lend a hand. Literally within 30 minutes of arriving and chatting with some trappers and other folks at the Muskrat Falls gate an irate lady started tearing into me that she did not want me there. After a fair bit of prodding I was able to find out she also worked for the Nunatsiavut government. I tried to calm her, but she wouldn't leave me alone and followed me throughout the demonstration site day and evening. Shortly after that incident a man named Roy Blake began yelling my name and came after me publicly for sending messages to my friend who was with the land protectors inside Muskrat Falls. He too ended up being an elected member of the Nunatsiavut Government. (he subsequently apologized to me several times which was honourable). However, a certain trend was beginning to stick in my mind.
Perhaps these attacks on me were coming from my opposition to Universal Helicopter ferrying in workers to the Muskrat Falls site while the protesters laboured below to stop workers coming in? That's initially what I thought, but then some other conversations on the side started to point in a different direction. Truthfully, I don't view myself as a person with a high profile. I approach people in that way. People were telling me though that the Nunatsiavut government considered my profile a threat (to their control of the protest apparently). I only relay this story because it points to the rest of the story - the betrayal of Labrador at the hands of its Aboriginal leadership.
You see, the story of Labrador's betrayal lies in control. Control of the many by the few. I spoke to many of the people at the main protest camp and gate and got a good feel for their position. They were worried about their way of life. Period. Hunting, fishing, living off the land. That was their concern. That is why they were there and that is what they were fighting for. However, in the background scurrying amongst the protesters were what I would call "organizers". These organizers were the ones that came after me. Their job, evidently, was to shepherd the crowd about, keep tabs on what was being said and feed information about. In other words, they were controlling it. At least most of it - the Innu seemed quite independent and doing their own thing. Some people complained that Todd Russell was nowhere to be found unless a camera was there, and others were upset that the Grand Innu Chief said Nunatsiavut was simply looking for money by way of an Impacts and Benefits Agreement for the methylmercury poisoning. Mark me down as agreeing with her position on that one.
There is no question that the Nunatsiavut Government used the methylmercury issue, at the last moment, to try and strong arm the government for money (or an IBA as the Grand Chief of the Innu said). They tried to control every aspect of the protest, including criticizing the hunger strikers methods of protesting - which given its effectiveness and popularity was somewhat suspect. Their organizers on the ground shunned the idea of people camping in the flood zone which would have been a much more effective way to protest and stop flooding. A group of Innu finally took it upon themselves to do just that by setting up tents on the North Spur on Monday. Furthermore, the leader of the group of land protectors inside the Muskrat Falls camp was an Innu - David Nuke. From my perspective on the ground the Innu were the least boisterous, but most serious of the aboriginal groups in their opposition. It was evident.
Finally of course there were the "settlers", which basically encompasses anyone living in Labrador that isn't Aboriginal. They didn't get a voice at the table when Ball met with the Aboriginal leaders, yet some of them were the people that originally started the protest. By way of example, David Nuke was asked to give an inspirational speech to the original few protesters by a "settler". That one speech ended up getting him inspired enough to join and in many ways lead the group that entered the Muskrat Falls camp. The bottom-line for most protesters I spoke to was stopping the flooding so their way of life would not be ended. Most were extremely sincere. A few, it was obvious. were cheer leading more than believing.
Then disaster struck. With the backing of the country, and even encouraging statements from the Prime Minister (finally) that science must prevail, the three Aboriginal leaders met with Premier Ball. The result? Catastrophe for the people of Labrador. The flooding will proceed of the initial 25% of the reservoir. The promise? To drain that 25% in the spring if science dictates it should be done. This would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. It is a known scientific fact that the moment the water becomes trapped in the reservoir, and begins interacting with the soil, that mercury is released from the soil and is converted to methylmercury. That's the science. It's pretty basic. The agreement these leaders agreed to was to unleash methylmercury into the river, and then "possibly" drain that area after the fact and remove the soil and trees. As if somehow there would be no poisoning of the river by these actions. It is bizarre. Here is the demands of the Nunatsiavut President 5 days before the "negotiations" started:
“Unless all vegetation and soil is removed the threat to our health, culture and way of life remains,” he says. “Nalcor should also be directed to delay plans to begin initial flooding of the reservoir (which would see water levels rise from 18 to 25 metres) to allow for the removal of trees, vegetation and topsoil. Initial flooding is expected to take place within days, and once you flood the land the damage has been done. There’s no turning back then.”
"There is no turning back then" His words, not mine, even though it is blatantly obvious to anyone with grade 12 science. Here is the link . Yet, after 12 hours of negotiation he completely capitulated. He wasn't the only one. The Innu and Nunatukavut leader did the same. The promise they received was a spot on an "advisory committee". Having served on an advisory committee federally I know that these committees do nothing more than give advice in the end - which can be totally ignored. Ball said as much when he admitted to the press that the government doesn't give up the power of decision making to advisory groups. Translation: We flood the reservoir exactly as we wanted; we'll think about maybe emptying it in the spring to clear all the soil and trees; and we'll look at what your advisory committee suggests for the rest of reservoir, but no promises as we'll make the final decision. In other words, all the people that protested, went on hunger strikes and generally put themselves out there (including getting arrested) wasted every moment of their time and energy in doing so. They were betrayed at the last minute when they knew their position was strong and determined.
There are only a few ways this scenario can go after this: more compliance or more protest. The people that live along the river, and in the area, will see the end of their way of life unless they want to risk being poisoned. The Aboriginal leaders will have their little advisory committee and no doubt dollars to fund their own contributions to it. The settlers will be stuck in their usual position - afraid to raise objections for fear of being tagged as meddling at best or racist at the worse. Either way, this is the end of something beautiful that Labrador had to offer its people, and others from around world. This is Labrador down.
"...he is a politician trying to get attention." That came from Charlotte Wolfrey, Status of Women Coordinator, Nunatsiavut Government.
An interesting statement to be sure. While some may remember my foray into Newfoundland politics back in early 2011 and 2012, I have primarily been focused on defeating Muskrat Falls during and since that time. So I found Ms. Wolfrey's statement a little strange. That being said we arrived in Goose Bay Sunday to lend a hand. Literally within 30 minutes of arriving and chatting with some trappers and other folks at the Muskrat Falls gate an irate lady started tearing into me that she did not want me there. After a fair bit of prodding I was able to find out she also worked for the Nunatsiavut government. I tried to calm her, but she wouldn't leave me alone and followed me throughout the demonstration site day and evening. Shortly after that incident a man named Roy Blake began yelling my name and came after me publicly for sending messages to my friend who was with the land protectors inside Muskrat Falls. He too ended up being an elected member of the Nunatsiavut Government. (he subsequently apologized to me several times which was honourable). However, a certain trend was beginning to stick in my mind.
Perhaps these attacks on me were coming from my opposition to Universal Helicopter ferrying in workers to the Muskrat Falls site while the protesters laboured below to stop workers coming in? That's initially what I thought, but then some other conversations on the side started to point in a different direction. Truthfully, I don't view myself as a person with a high profile. I approach people in that way. People were telling me though that the Nunatsiavut government considered my profile a threat (to their control of the protest apparently). I only relay this story because it points to the rest of the story - the betrayal of Labrador at the hands of its Aboriginal leadership.
You see, the story of Labrador's betrayal lies in control. Control of the many by the few. I spoke to many of the people at the main protest camp and gate and got a good feel for their position. They were worried about their way of life. Period. Hunting, fishing, living off the land. That was their concern. That is why they were there and that is what they were fighting for. However, in the background scurrying amongst the protesters were what I would call "organizers". These organizers were the ones that came after me. Their job, evidently, was to shepherd the crowd about, keep tabs on what was being said and feed information about. In other words, they were controlling it. At least most of it - the Innu seemed quite independent and doing their own thing. Some people complained that Todd Russell was nowhere to be found unless a camera was there, and others were upset that the Grand Innu Chief said Nunatsiavut was simply looking for money by way of an Impacts and Benefits Agreement for the methylmercury poisoning. Mark me down as agreeing with her position on that one.
There is no question that the Nunatsiavut Government used the methylmercury issue, at the last moment, to try and strong arm the government for money (or an IBA as the Grand Chief of the Innu said). They tried to control every aspect of the protest, including criticizing the hunger strikers methods of protesting - which given its effectiveness and popularity was somewhat suspect. Their organizers on the ground shunned the idea of people camping in the flood zone which would have been a much more effective way to protest and stop flooding. A group of Innu finally took it upon themselves to do just that by setting up tents on the North Spur on Monday. Furthermore, the leader of the group of land protectors inside the Muskrat Falls camp was an Innu - David Nuke. From my perspective on the ground the Innu were the least boisterous, but most serious of the aboriginal groups in their opposition. It was evident.
Finally of course there were the "settlers", which basically encompasses anyone living in Labrador that isn't Aboriginal. They didn't get a voice at the table when Ball met with the Aboriginal leaders, yet some of them were the people that originally started the protest. By way of example, David Nuke was asked to give an inspirational speech to the original few protesters by a "settler". That one speech ended up getting him inspired enough to join and in many ways lead the group that entered the Muskrat Falls camp. The bottom-line for most protesters I spoke to was stopping the flooding so their way of life would not be ended. Most were extremely sincere. A few, it was obvious. were cheer leading more than believing.
Then disaster struck. With the backing of the country, and even encouraging statements from the Prime Minister (finally) that science must prevail, the three Aboriginal leaders met with Premier Ball. The result? Catastrophe for the people of Labrador. The flooding will proceed of the initial 25% of the reservoir. The promise? To drain that 25% in the spring if science dictates it should be done. This would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. It is a known scientific fact that the moment the water becomes trapped in the reservoir, and begins interacting with the soil, that mercury is released from the soil and is converted to methylmercury. That's the science. It's pretty basic. The agreement these leaders agreed to was to unleash methylmercury into the river, and then "possibly" drain that area after the fact and remove the soil and trees. As if somehow there would be no poisoning of the river by these actions. It is bizarre. Here is the demands of the Nunatsiavut President 5 days before the "negotiations" started:
“Unless all vegetation and soil is removed the threat to our health, culture and way of life remains,” he says. “Nalcor should also be directed to delay plans to begin initial flooding of the reservoir (which would see water levels rise from 18 to 25 metres) to allow for the removal of trees, vegetation and topsoil. Initial flooding is expected to take place within days, and once you flood the land the damage has been done. There’s no turning back then.”
"There is no turning back then" His words, not mine, even though it is blatantly obvious to anyone with grade 12 science. Here is the link . Yet, after 12 hours of negotiation he completely capitulated. He wasn't the only one. The Innu and Nunatukavut leader did the same. The promise they received was a spot on an "advisory committee". Having served on an advisory committee federally I know that these committees do nothing more than give advice in the end - which can be totally ignored. Ball said as much when he admitted to the press that the government doesn't give up the power of decision making to advisory groups. Translation: We flood the reservoir exactly as we wanted; we'll think about maybe emptying it in the spring to clear all the soil and trees; and we'll look at what your advisory committee suggests for the rest of reservoir, but no promises as we'll make the final decision. In other words, all the people that protested, went on hunger strikes and generally put themselves out there (including getting arrested) wasted every moment of their time and energy in doing so. They were betrayed at the last minute when they knew their position was strong and determined.
There are only a few ways this scenario can go after this: more compliance or more protest. The people that live along the river, and in the area, will see the end of their way of life unless they want to risk being poisoned. The Aboriginal leaders will have their little advisory committee and no doubt dollars to fund their own contributions to it. The settlers will be stuck in their usual position - afraid to raise objections for fear of being tagged as meddling at best or racist at the worse. Either way, this is the end of something beautiful that Labrador had to offer its people, and others from around world. This is Labrador down.
Monday, October 10, 2016
Why Trump Won
America is black and white - it's not red, white and blue. Unless you understand that very crucial foundation you will never understand what's happening there right now. In America, you are a winner or you're a loser. There is no soft, squishy middle ground. There is no "oh he came so close". You either win or you don't. Even if it's by one point, a win is a win. That is America. That is crucial to understanding why Trump has been winning and why he won the US Presidential debate last night.
Since Trump began his journey in politics he has been sniped by the US media incessantly. He has been probably the most character assassinated politician in US history - or at least recent history. When he ran for the Republican nomination he was singled out by the media and the Republican establishment. Almost every month, sometimes less, a "great white hope" would be thrown up as a sacrificial lamb to challenge him with the desperate hope that one could stop him from attaining the nomination. The media fed off it, and yes most certainly fanned it throughout. Yet, Trump won the nomination despite all of it.
Now he's onto the presidential race, and it's a bit of deja vu. Except, this time around, there is one not interchangeable opponent - although the establishment has been desperately arguing for Trump to be replaced. As each week, now day, that passes the political establishment of the US gets obviously desperate to stop Trump. That "establishment" crosses party lines by the way - in case you thought it didn't. A good example is the Republican Speaker of the House who has tried to knee cap Trump from within since day one. All very public of course. Then there are the representatives publicly pulling themselves away from supporting him. And then there is the Republican business types. And so it goes.
What the establishment seems to be missing in the whole equation is that throughout this two year long, historically unprecedented character assassination of the man, his polling numbers have stayed firm. As it stands now, depending on which poll you believe, Trump is within five percent of Clinton. That is really quite extraordinary considering the massive media and political resources that have gone into degrading the man publicly. It is that extraordinary result that speaks to a deeper, darker truth about America today - the country is at war with itself.
More specifically, the majority of Americans are turning on their political and business establishment - sometimes referred to as the "1%". The last decade has seen the fall of confidence in almost everything considered "American" by the US public. The fall, manipulation and dishonesty of the stock markets. The massive growth of the US debt. The housing bubble that destroyed so many lives. Wars in the Middle East that have killed and maimed thousands of Americans, and show no sign of relenting despite being hopeless. Viewed through the black and white glasses of the average American their system is falling in upon itself - which it is.
The big question in their minds becomes: "who is to blame". The answer has become the establishment. The 1% if you will. The people who lined their own pockets for all it was worth, broke every rule to do it, and then sailed away without penalty. The people who over saw their friends doing it and either assisted them, or turned a blind eye faking ignorance when caught out. This has become America. Americans see it to. They know Snowden was telling them the truth now about mass surveillance. They know Assange was giving them the truth as his organization leaked email after email of the "establishment looking after the establishment". And now the age of social media has changed where people get their information from. They've seen how the CNN's of the world have fed them spoon after spoon of spin, so now they've turned in big numbers to the internet to educate themselves.
Not only is the US establishment losing control on its grip of power, but the US media is rapidly losing its power to influence. All a result of breaking the simple rule: "Use power, but abuse it and lose it." It's a simple truth that still holds all to true. That's where Trump comes in. Now Trump is no angel - far from it. For starters he needs to drop the whole "Mussolini face" that he constantly projects on TV (ditto for his sons). Mussolini was strung up on a lamp pole by the masses, so if he wants to be the man of the masses he needs to hold his chin and gaze level. But I'm getting side tracked.
Trump has become the Captain of the anti-establishment movement in the US. He was never really a Republican (whatever that is) in the first place. He smartly realized that as an independent he had no hope of success in an election, so that brand was needed to get him in the race, and it did. Now he has the brand, and it can't be pulled away, he can be the independent he always was. It is that "independent" position that will endear him to, guess who - independents. That's the swing vote that wins you a US election. As America reals against its establishment Trump floats with it. "Just words folks. Just words" is the famous line. Or at least it should be, because each time he says it the American people remember how many times they've been given "just words" just to see it come to nothing. Here's three words that should jog your memory: "Yes we can!". And so it goes.
George Bush used to say: "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining". That's exactly where the American people are today. All Trump is doing is telling them they're right to feel that way. The more the Democrats, and their establishment buddies in the Republicans or in business hit at Trump they are really hitting at those Americans that think exactly the way he does.
I've seen this movie before, just on a smaller scale. I've been in breakfast meetings with senior Conservative backroom boys (and girls) when they would go on and on how they simply could not understand why Brian Mulroney was hated so much by the people as Prime Minister. It didn't matter how much you tried to enlighten them, which really shouldn't have been necessary, they just couldn't see it. I suppose there are none so blind as those that refuse to see. The ones that utter: "let them eat cake", or the ones that ignore four sexually abused women sitting right in front of them. Indeed, that is why Trump won the debate, and that's why he will win the November election.
Since Trump began his journey in politics he has been sniped by the US media incessantly. He has been probably the most character assassinated politician in US history - or at least recent history. When he ran for the Republican nomination he was singled out by the media and the Republican establishment. Almost every month, sometimes less, a "great white hope" would be thrown up as a sacrificial lamb to challenge him with the desperate hope that one could stop him from attaining the nomination. The media fed off it, and yes most certainly fanned it throughout. Yet, Trump won the nomination despite all of it.
Now he's onto the presidential race, and it's a bit of deja vu. Except, this time around, there is one not interchangeable opponent - although the establishment has been desperately arguing for Trump to be replaced. As each week, now day, that passes the political establishment of the US gets obviously desperate to stop Trump. That "establishment" crosses party lines by the way - in case you thought it didn't. A good example is the Republican Speaker of the House who has tried to knee cap Trump from within since day one. All very public of course. Then there are the representatives publicly pulling themselves away from supporting him. And then there is the Republican business types. And so it goes.
What the establishment seems to be missing in the whole equation is that throughout this two year long, historically unprecedented character assassination of the man, his polling numbers have stayed firm. As it stands now, depending on which poll you believe, Trump is within five percent of Clinton. That is really quite extraordinary considering the massive media and political resources that have gone into degrading the man publicly. It is that extraordinary result that speaks to a deeper, darker truth about America today - the country is at war with itself.
More specifically, the majority of Americans are turning on their political and business establishment - sometimes referred to as the "1%". The last decade has seen the fall of confidence in almost everything considered "American" by the US public. The fall, manipulation and dishonesty of the stock markets. The massive growth of the US debt. The housing bubble that destroyed so many lives. Wars in the Middle East that have killed and maimed thousands of Americans, and show no sign of relenting despite being hopeless. Viewed through the black and white glasses of the average American their system is falling in upon itself - which it is.
The big question in their minds becomes: "who is to blame". The answer has become the establishment. The 1% if you will. The people who lined their own pockets for all it was worth, broke every rule to do it, and then sailed away without penalty. The people who over saw their friends doing it and either assisted them, or turned a blind eye faking ignorance when caught out. This has become America. Americans see it to. They know Snowden was telling them the truth now about mass surveillance. They know Assange was giving them the truth as his organization leaked email after email of the "establishment looking after the establishment". And now the age of social media has changed where people get their information from. They've seen how the CNN's of the world have fed them spoon after spoon of spin, so now they've turned in big numbers to the internet to educate themselves.
Not only is the US establishment losing control on its grip of power, but the US media is rapidly losing its power to influence. All a result of breaking the simple rule: "Use power, but abuse it and lose it." It's a simple truth that still holds all to true. That's where Trump comes in. Now Trump is no angel - far from it. For starters he needs to drop the whole "Mussolini face" that he constantly projects on TV (ditto for his sons). Mussolini was strung up on a lamp pole by the masses, so if he wants to be the man of the masses he needs to hold his chin and gaze level. But I'm getting side tracked.
Trump has become the Captain of the anti-establishment movement in the US. He was never really a Republican (whatever that is) in the first place. He smartly realized that as an independent he had no hope of success in an election, so that brand was needed to get him in the race, and it did. Now he has the brand, and it can't be pulled away, he can be the independent he always was. It is that "independent" position that will endear him to, guess who - independents. That's the swing vote that wins you a US election. As America reals against its establishment Trump floats with it. "Just words folks. Just words" is the famous line. Or at least it should be, because each time he says it the American people remember how many times they've been given "just words" just to see it come to nothing. Here's three words that should jog your memory: "Yes we can!". And so it goes.
George Bush used to say: "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining". That's exactly where the American people are today. All Trump is doing is telling them they're right to feel that way. The more the Democrats, and their establishment buddies in the Republicans or in business hit at Trump they are really hitting at those Americans that think exactly the way he does.
I've seen this movie before, just on a smaller scale. I've been in breakfast meetings with senior Conservative backroom boys (and girls) when they would go on and on how they simply could not understand why Brian Mulroney was hated so much by the people as Prime Minister. It didn't matter how much you tried to enlighten them, which really shouldn't have been necessary, they just couldn't see it. I suppose there are none so blind as those that refuse to see. The ones that utter: "let them eat cake", or the ones that ignore four sexually abused women sitting right in front of them. Indeed, that is why Trump won the debate, and that's why he will win the November election.
Friday, September 30, 2016
BREAKING: Don Dunphy Public Inquiry Terms of Reference
HERE is the Terms of Reference for the public inquiry into the killing of Don Dunphy at the hands of Sgt. Joe Smyth of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary - acting as the Premiers personal security. My opinion is the terms of reference appear to be excellent and do not restrict a thorough investigation of all aspects of this tragedy - which the government should be commended for:
NLIS
10
Justice
and Public Safety
September
30, 2016
The
following is being distributed at the request of the
Commission of Inquiry Respecting
the Death of Donald Dunphy:
Co-Counsel
Appointed for Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald
Dunphy
Sandra.
R. Chaytor, QC, and Kate
O’Brien have been appointed as co-counsel for the Commission of Inquiry
Respecting
the Death of Donald Dunphy, the Honourable Justice Leo Barry, Commissioner of
the Inquiry, announced today.
Ms.
Chaytor was admitted to the Bar of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1989 having
completed a Bachelor of Arts degree at Memorial University in 1985 and having
obtained her LL.B from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1988. She was appointed
Queen’s Counsel in 2007, the
same year she was appointed co-counsel to the Commission of Inquiry on Hormone
Receptor Testing, an inquiry in Newfoundland and Labrador which investigated
errors in breast cancer testing. In 2010, she was appointed a Master and Taxing
Officer of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms.
Chaytor is Deputy Managing partner of the St. John’s office of Cox & Palmer
where her primary area of practice is litigation. She has presented cases at all
levels of court within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the
Supreme Court of Canada.
Ms.
O’Brien was admitted to the Bar of Ontario in 2003 and the Bar of Newfoundland
and Labrador in 2004 having obtained her LL.B. from the University of British
Columbia in 2002. She completed a Bachelors of Engineering from Memorial
University in 1996. Ms. O’Brien is a partner at the law firm of O’Brien White
where she provides a range of legal services to individuals and businesses. She
is an experienced litigator and has appeared at all levels of court in
Newfoundland and Labrador.
The
Commission
of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald Dunphy was established by the
Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on September 23, 2016, in accordance
with Part 1 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2006. The Terms of Reference for
the inquiry are as follows:
-
The commission of inquiry shall
(a) inquire into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Donald Dunphy,
including
(i) the date, time and place of his death,
(ii) the cause of his death, and
(iii) the manner of his death;
(b) inquire into the reason why a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer
attended upon Mr. Dunphy on the day of his death, including whether or not the
officer was directed to do so, and if so directed, by whom and for what
objective;
(c) ascertain what information provided the basis for the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary officer's attendance upon Mr. Dunphy on the day of his death, and
the reliability, interpretation, evaluation, transmission and dissemination of
that information;
(d) inquire into why the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer who attended
upon Mr. Dunphy on the day of his death did so in an area of Royal Canadian
Mounted Police jurisdiction, the criteria applied in reaching the decision to do
so and the objective for the decision;
(e) inquire into the facts surrounding the command, control and implementation
of any relevant police operation on the day of Mr. Dunphy's death, the actions
of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer during the operation and the
actions of any other Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or Royal Canadian Mounted
Police officers involved both before and after Mr. Dunphy's death;
(f) inquire into the circumstances under which the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary officer who fired the fatal shot or shots on the day of Mr.
Dunphy's death came to discharge his weapon;
(g) inquire into whether the relevant use of force protocols were properly
adhered to in the circumstance of Mr. Dunphy's death;
(h) inquire into the relevant policies, protocols or manuals in force at the
material time in either the Office of the Premier or the Royal Newfoundland
Constabulary, including particularly any policies, protocols or manuals relating
to
(i) the security of the Premier and Cabinet Ministers,
(ii) the monitoring of and response to social media, and
(iii) with respect to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, policies, protocols
or manuals governing communications by members with the public or the media
following serious incidents and during active investigations;
-
inquire whether Mr. Dunphy's use of social media had any role in the circumstances of his death;
(j) ascertain whether there were any material deficiencies in the investigation into Mr. Dunphy's death; and
(k) in accordance with section 4, make recommendations that the commission of inquiry considers necessary and advisable relating directly to the matters of public concern referred to in this section.
-
The commission of inquiry, in carrying out the terms of reference referred to in subsection (1), shall consider the following:
(a) the need to maintain public confidence in law and order;
(b) the need to protect fundamental rights of citizens;
(c) the powers, duties and responsibilities of police; and
(d) the need to ensure the safety of police officers in the execution of their
duties.
The
commission of inquiry shall not express any conclusion or recommendation
regarding the civil or criminal responsibility of any person or
organization.
The
commission of inquiry shall terminate its work and deliver the final report to
the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, who shall be the minister responsible
for the commission of inquiry, before July 1, 2017.
Further
details will be provided in the coming weeks in relation to the commission
office, as well as a Notice of Hearings for Standing and
Funding.
- 30
-
Media
contact:
Diane
Blackmore
Chief
Administrative Officer
709-729-0403
(as of October 4, 2016)
709-738-7800
(c/o Cox & Palmer)
2016
09 30 3:40 p.m.
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
Trumped
The US presidential debate last night, the first in a series leading to the November Presidential election, was an ugly affair. Ugly because it revealed the base flaws of both candidates. Ugly because it revealed the deep, stark divisions within American society that have dogged it for decades now. However, it was interesting in some senses as well.
Much has been made of Hillary Clinton's health as of late. Numerous on line videos show her in a near trance-like state. Last night was not much different. While she spoke Clinton seemed on point, but it was the points in time she didn't speak that were quite frankly unsettling. She gazed off into what appeared to be her "happy place". A bizarre, vacant looking smile and stare came over her. It was almost as if she was in a drug induced state of bliss. Her performance, when not occupied with actually speaking, gave the impression that whatever medical condition she suffers from is clearly still very present.
Trump, however, also lived up to to the billing of arrogance and meanness that the establishment has been painting him with. While he cruised through the first third of the debate, scoring body blow after body blow on Clinton, the latter half was dominated by his ego peeking its head out. There were moments when I had flash backs of the contestants on his show the Apprentice. Often they would attempt to sell their performances, or lack of performances in a similar fashion as Trump attempted to thwart relatively minor blows from Clinton. Some critics of the debate suggested he "couldn't help himself", and in many ways that is how it came across. That being said, Trump wasn't going to win any favours from the American press - as he noted during the debate. The problem with that is he carried the point too far, and dwelled on it too much, which is why he spiralled into a "me" and "I" tirade that made him look somewhat immature.
The personalities aside, which in either case haven't been endearing to the American public, or the world at large, some stronger themes emerged that will shape the race far more than moments of debate. America is a divided society. It has been for decades now, and each US Presidential election has clearly shown it. The last number of Presidents has won by the slimmest of margins against their opponent, yet each winning side hails itself as a fundamental shift. The reality is the American people haven't got the fundamental shift many were/are hoping for. Recall Obama's "Yes We Can" by way of example. He was the big change candidate, and his wars in the Middle East and disconnect with Eurasia show his slogan should have been "No I Won't".
As Trump very successfully pointed out during the debate, Clinton presided over the last 8 years of war in the Middle East that has the nerves of the entire world on edge. What he failed to do was carry the point one crucial step further: he failed to state to Clinton, when she contemptuously bragged about preparing for the job of President, that he didn't realize that part of the preparation to be US President was turning the Middle east into a disaster for the US and the World. He could have driven home the point by connecting her claim of readiness to the disasters in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. He failed to drive home the point that setting the world on fire hardly qualifies one for leadership, and that would have come across statesmanlike.
Being statesmanlike, and presidential isn't about having your jaw in the air and peering down on people, or making childish facial expressions at your opponents jibes while on camera in front of a world-wide office. It's about being in control of yourself, your emotions, and the moment. And while Clinton hammered away at Trump's taxes he could well have pointed out the "Clinton Foundations" special status and role in the Clinton's tax status. Or he could have pointed to the massive speaking fees that the Clinton's have charged while taking advantage of her husband's post office connections. Instead, he tried to make himself look good by saying not paying taxes would make him "smart". Again, the ego overruling the brain and mouth.
Trump's major saving grace in the debate, and in the election campaign as well is the painting of Clinton as the establishment candidate. He could have, and should have gone much further with that point. He could have named all the people who conducted the war on Iraq who now endorse Clinton, despite being Republicans. If people are judged by the company they keep, then that would likely be a very clear illustration for the American people. George Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz come to immediate mind. Actions speak louder than words, and Clinton can say she is the "grandma" candidate, but not many "grandmas" wrap their arms around people that are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and a wildly unpopular war.
That being said, Trump is "somewhat associated" with being the anti-establishment candidate, and he did get that message across in the debate. I thought his best shots were when he came back at Clinton with "Those are just words", because that is exactly what many Americans believe. in that way he is linking himself with them, and that is important. The world-wide movement against the "establishment", or the "1%" as they have become known, has become a mass movement. Trump should be pointing to those within his own party, that are widely seen as "establishment" that are backing Clinton and not him. He can wear that as a badge of conviction. As he would say: "That's a winner".
My own feeling on the election as a whole is that Trump stands a very good chance of taking it. What many in the world-wide media, and that most definitely includes the US media, fail to understand about the US is a simple term known as "brand". The US is really the home of "brand". It comes from the American fixation with free market, capitalistic economy - in theory at least... when it suits. So, if America is the "Land of Brand", which of the two candidate has the biggest grand? Clearly, Trump has spent his entire life organizing his last name as a brand in itself. To a large extent he has been successful in that regard. Clinton, however, has not focused on branding other than in the political sense. Unfortunately for her, Clinton's political brand has accumulated more baggage than JFK International airport. Everything from shady real-estate deals to mass deleted emails - many containing classified information which is a serious crime in the US. In fact, the FBI is still going through them while the US election stumbles along. The Clinton brand is the political establishment brand, and that's a huge anchor around her neck. Americans aren't very proud of their political establishment, but they still have a healthy respect for successful people in business. The champions of their American Dream. Trump has it in spades, BUT his egotistical rubbing it in is tarnishing his successful branding. There is no need to brag when the entire world knows the story. Therein lies the keys to Caesar's room.
Much has been made of Hillary Clinton's health as of late. Numerous on line videos show her in a near trance-like state. Last night was not much different. While she spoke Clinton seemed on point, but it was the points in time she didn't speak that were quite frankly unsettling. She gazed off into what appeared to be her "happy place". A bizarre, vacant looking smile and stare came over her. It was almost as if she was in a drug induced state of bliss. Her performance, when not occupied with actually speaking, gave the impression that whatever medical condition she suffers from is clearly still very present.
Trump, however, also lived up to to the billing of arrogance and meanness that the establishment has been painting him with. While he cruised through the first third of the debate, scoring body blow after body blow on Clinton, the latter half was dominated by his ego peeking its head out. There were moments when I had flash backs of the contestants on his show the Apprentice. Often they would attempt to sell their performances, or lack of performances in a similar fashion as Trump attempted to thwart relatively minor blows from Clinton. Some critics of the debate suggested he "couldn't help himself", and in many ways that is how it came across. That being said, Trump wasn't going to win any favours from the American press - as he noted during the debate. The problem with that is he carried the point too far, and dwelled on it too much, which is why he spiralled into a "me" and "I" tirade that made him look somewhat immature.
The personalities aside, which in either case haven't been endearing to the American public, or the world at large, some stronger themes emerged that will shape the race far more than moments of debate. America is a divided society. It has been for decades now, and each US Presidential election has clearly shown it. The last number of Presidents has won by the slimmest of margins against their opponent, yet each winning side hails itself as a fundamental shift. The reality is the American people haven't got the fundamental shift many were/are hoping for. Recall Obama's "Yes We Can" by way of example. He was the big change candidate, and his wars in the Middle East and disconnect with Eurasia show his slogan should have been "No I Won't".
As Trump very successfully pointed out during the debate, Clinton presided over the last 8 years of war in the Middle East that has the nerves of the entire world on edge. What he failed to do was carry the point one crucial step further: he failed to state to Clinton, when she contemptuously bragged about preparing for the job of President, that he didn't realize that part of the preparation to be US President was turning the Middle east into a disaster for the US and the World. He could have driven home the point by connecting her claim of readiness to the disasters in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on. He failed to drive home the point that setting the world on fire hardly qualifies one for leadership, and that would have come across statesmanlike.
Being statesmanlike, and presidential isn't about having your jaw in the air and peering down on people, or making childish facial expressions at your opponents jibes while on camera in front of a world-wide office. It's about being in control of yourself, your emotions, and the moment. And while Clinton hammered away at Trump's taxes he could well have pointed out the "Clinton Foundations" special status and role in the Clinton's tax status. Or he could have pointed to the massive speaking fees that the Clinton's have charged while taking advantage of her husband's post office connections. Instead, he tried to make himself look good by saying not paying taxes would make him "smart". Again, the ego overruling the brain and mouth.
Trump's major saving grace in the debate, and in the election campaign as well is the painting of Clinton as the establishment candidate. He could have, and should have gone much further with that point. He could have named all the people who conducted the war on Iraq who now endorse Clinton, despite being Republicans. If people are judged by the company they keep, then that would likely be a very clear illustration for the American people. George Bush, and Paul Wolfowitz come to immediate mind. Actions speak louder than words, and Clinton can say she is the "grandma" candidate, but not many "grandmas" wrap their arms around people that are responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and a wildly unpopular war.
That being said, Trump is "somewhat associated" with being the anti-establishment candidate, and he did get that message across in the debate. I thought his best shots were when he came back at Clinton with "Those are just words", because that is exactly what many Americans believe. in that way he is linking himself with them, and that is important. The world-wide movement against the "establishment", or the "1%" as they have become known, has become a mass movement. Trump should be pointing to those within his own party, that are widely seen as "establishment" that are backing Clinton and not him. He can wear that as a badge of conviction. As he would say: "That's a winner".
My own feeling on the election as a whole is that Trump stands a very good chance of taking it. What many in the world-wide media, and that most definitely includes the US media, fail to understand about the US is a simple term known as "brand". The US is really the home of "brand". It comes from the American fixation with free market, capitalistic economy - in theory at least... when it suits. So, if America is the "Land of Brand", which of the two candidate has the biggest grand? Clearly, Trump has spent his entire life organizing his last name as a brand in itself. To a large extent he has been successful in that regard. Clinton, however, has not focused on branding other than in the political sense. Unfortunately for her, Clinton's political brand has accumulated more baggage than JFK International airport. Everything from shady real-estate deals to mass deleted emails - many containing classified information which is a serious crime in the US. In fact, the FBI is still going through them while the US election stumbles along. The Clinton brand is the political establishment brand, and that's a huge anchor around her neck. Americans aren't very proud of their political establishment, but they still have a healthy respect for successful people in business. The champions of their American Dream. Trump has it in spades, BUT his egotistical rubbing it in is tarnishing his successful branding. There is no need to brag when the entire world knows the story. Therein lies the keys to Caesar's room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)