Russia and the US are Wrong in Syria

The United States is wrong in Syria, and the Middle East in general. Wrapping naked ambition in the cloak of national interest only serves to accentuate the gross abuse of power it wields there. There is no recognizable high ground, or moral imperative, that the US can trot out to justify its flagrant disregard for the rules of international law and state craft. It has to be said, and it must be said by people of good conscience, that the US is behaving like a barbaric, unrestrained colonial empire from the pages of our world's darkest history.

Having covertly, but obviously, supported the Islamic State in its attempt to overthrow the Assad government in Syria, the US now finds itself in the position of "Plan B". Plan B means upping its support for the Kurds to split Syria in half while green lighting Saudi Arabia and its allies into a coalition directly opposing Iran. In other words, having failed to overthrow Assad, the US is now aiming to make the new battlefield Iran itself. The newly named Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia said as much when he stated the upcoming battlefield would be in Iran and not in Saudi Arabia. In effect, the US has established Saudi Arabia as the attack dog of the Middle East.

Saudi has been very aggressive in its war of regional influence with Iran over the last year. It invaded Yemen after to counter an Iranian-friendly Houthi uprising deposed the Saudi-friendly president of the country. It led an "Arab NATO" exercise of 350,000 troops aimed directly at invading Syria. It has just recently led an economic and geographic blockade of the Iranian-friendly Qatar. On and on it goes. Essentially, the US is now employing Saudi directly in the region, which means Iran will become even more involved in the region, and so it goes. Bottom-line is this, the US is escalating the world's path to war in the Middle East like a child playing with matches in the fire works factory.

This is not a case of Iranian aggressive action against its neighbors. Nor is it the case that Russia is attempting to physically extend its influence or power in the region. The battle ground in Syria is an excellent case in point. The US and its allies were not invited by the Syrian government to militarily intervene in the conflict there. Prior to the Islamic State's armed insurrection in Syria the country was firmly in the grip of Russian and Iranian influence. That was the status quo, and has been for decades. There was no attempt by Syria to expand its influence. In fact, years before, Syria completely withdrew its military from Lebanon. In other words, there were no grounds for any country becoming involved militarily on Syrian soil.

Israel, which has up to recently been fairly prepared to remain on the sidelines while its enemies killed each other, has become more and more involved in the regional fight. Its air force has conducted numerous attacks on the Syrian army in the last year with apparent impunity. Furthermore, and in a sign of things to come, its ministers have made comments insinuating a coming invasion of Lebanon to take on Hezbollah - another Iranian ally in the region. Hezbollah has not been conducting any military assaults on Israel, but it has been an invited military ally of Assad in the current conflict.

It is a fair conclusion that prior to Russia's direct military intervention in Syria, with Iran and Hezbollah in tow, that the US, Israel, and Saudi were prepared sit back and covertly support the various Islamic militant groups that were tearing Syria apart. However, after the Russian led alliance stopped, and then reversed, theses groups battle field successes, all bets were off. It is all a matter of record now. No imputation of fact or speculation is required.

While the US has grossly abused its power and position to drive the world to the brink of war, the Russians are not without fault - just for the opposite reason. The Russians have been far too uncommitted for a country that purports to lead the bloc which seeks a multi-polar world. Russia is failing both Syria and its vision of a multi-polar world by not forcefully coming to the aid of an ally in crisis. By the way, China could also be included in that criticism. Both Russia and China have very large militaries, and both have the capacity to employ those forces far from home. Before now, well before now, the Russians should have deployed forces on a divisional level to assist in the destruction of militant groups in Syria.

Unfortunately, for regional and world stability, the Russians have decided to give Syria piece meal assistance rather than decisive support. Instead of a division or two of Russian troops rolling over the militant groups, and ending the war there swiftly and decisively, the Russians committed some air force support, but left control of the ground to Syria's army and Hezbollah. A minimal risk scenario for Russia, but not the actions of a world power intent on creating a multi-polar world. In effect, a timid response. That has left the door open to the US on the ground in Syria, and the US has taken advantage of that.

Less than a year ago there were essentially no US forces on the ground in Syria. Today the US has established at least one base, if not more, in Kurdish held Eastern Syria. Ditto for the southern border of Iraq and Syria, where the US has now established a base with missile artillery that has an effective range of 300 km. Now, instead of the Russians having to simply rid Syria of militant ground forces, they must engage American forces directly to free Syria from uninvited guests. The prospect of having to engage US forces that have invited themselves onto Syrian territory raises the spectre of a Russian-American direct conflict.

Make no mistake, the current crisis in Syria and now the Middle East in general, is as much a fault of Russian inaction as it is of US intervention. This cannot be overstated. The Americans no longer take Russian threats over Syria seriously, because Russia has failed to adequately respond to US and Israeli strikes against the Syrian armed forces. The US and Israel have been able to impose military action upon a key Russian ally with no consequences whatsoever. This is where the blame for Syria's destruction and the danger for our world meet. A habitually aggressive superpower vs a habitually over cautious superpower creates an imbalance that leads to conflict on a global scale. Russia by its lack of serious military commitment in Syria is for all intense and purposes appeasing the US, and in doing so emboldening the US to go ever further with its plans for the Middle East - and the world in general.

The only solution for the crisis of balance we face in the world is for the Russian and Chinese governments to become resolute in their responsibilities as world powers. That doesn't mean Russia and China should become overly aggressive with their militaries,  but a minimum requirement of a super power is to safeguard its weaker allies against the aggressions of another state - particularly another super power state. If Russia and China fail to take decisive action in Syria, and force the Americans out by facts on the ground, it won't be long before we will have the following wars: an Israeli invasion of Lebanon; a Saudi led war on Iran; and God knows what from there. The Russians and Chinese have a responsibility to act so this does not occur - for the world's sake. Balance in world affairs, in line with the rule of international law, must be restored to this place we call home, or the natural consequence may be that none of us have a home anymore. 

Expose Alderon Iron Ore Corp - Part 1

Alderon Iron Ore Corp came to everyones attention in the province when former premier Danny Williams was named Special Advisor to the Chairman in 2012. A little known company that was suddenly the next Thompson Consolidated mine. It has been in the press advocating its need for Muskrat Falls power yet we know nothing about it. This series will attempt to answer some of those questions.

It all began with the incorporation of the name Comanche Resources Inc, under the Company Act (British Columbia), March 21, 1978. A little less than a year later, February 28,1979, its name was changed once more to Shawnee Oil Corporation. While it was difficult getting any information on these two names, both reappeared in the United States in later years - now defunct and registered as inactive foreign for - profit corporations. On June 11, 1981 the company changed its name yet again - this time to Enfield Resources Inc. Again, not much information was available, and again the same name reappeared in the United States. Enfield Resources Inc was formed in Delaware, May 20, 1986 and appeared in US bankruptcy court on March 10, 1989. Whether or not there is a reason behind this U.S link or it is simple coincidence is anyone's guess.

The story really starts to take life on June 30, 1989 when the company name is changed one more time - Pacific Summa Capital Corp. The records show one Dennis Kozak President and Director, with an office at Suite 411-850 Hastings Street, Vancouver, BC. It appears for the first time as a publicly traded company on the Vancouver Stock Exchange under the symbol PSU.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange (VSE) was essentially the wild, wild west of stock trading in North America. Wikipedia describes it well during the period:
" In 1991, it listed some 2300 stocks. Some local figures stated that the majority of these stocks were either total failures or frauds. A 1994 report by James Matkin (Vancouver Stock Exchange and Securities Regulation Commission) made reference to 'shams, swindles, and market manipulations' within the VSE. Regardless of the low opinion several held in it, it had roughly four billion dollars in annual trading in 1991."
To be clear, this in no way suggests the companies mentioned in this article were involved in such activities, but it gives you a sense of the backdrop to this story.


On June 28, 1991 Pacific Summa Capital Corp changed its name to Pacific Summa Environmental Corp, and issued a share swap of one old for one new share. It signalled a change in the company's focus as it tried to market two products which it had US patents for: Enviro Hazmate (fire extinguisher); and Zeomix (material for toxic clean up). The company entered into an exclusive distribution deal for Zeomix which was subsequently cancelled. On June 16, 1997 the BC Securities Commission filed a Cease Trade Order against the company due to outstanding annual fees. On September 16, 1997, the Securities Commission banned Kovack from trading in the companies stock, because he failed to file insider's disclosure documents. Other members of the board at that time included Gerald Jardine, John Toljanich, and David Van Dyke. On March 10, 1998, Kovak resigned as President of the company. The company itself was suspended from the VSE on July 16, 1998. The Cease Trade Order was revoked on July, 27, 1998. Gerald Jardine took over as President and the company delisted from the VSE on November 26, 1999. Significantly, Mark Brown took over as CEO. On November 27, 1999 the company joined the TSX venture exchange. Its high value was on the VSE at $3.35 a share, and its low value was $.01 a share on the TSX when it delisted on August 8, 2000.

The next day, Pacific Summa Evironmental Corp was renamed as Traux Ventures Corp. The company by this time was carrying a deficit of $10 million dollars from its previous years, had failed to launch any successful projects, and left many disappointed investors in its wake. To launch Traux the Board of Directors initiated a 30 to 1 reverse share split. That freed them to launch yet another share offering to recapitalize the company. On April 30, 2001 Reza Mohammed took over from Mark Brown.

Reza Mohammed ran a large number of exploration companies from his tiny office in Vancouver. The companies all had the same fax and phone number, and board members - particularily one Anita Algie. Mohammed was a realtor in the Vancouver area, and earned a degree in the mid eighties. Some of the companies he ran included: Tellford Management; Cuda Capital Corp; Titus Capital Corp; Gold Key Capital Corp; etc. The one director that stands out on most of his companies was Peter Born. Born not only sat on Mohammed's boards, but he also sits on the Advisory Board of Forbes and Manhattan - a relationship that will become crucial to Alderon. Mohammed also sat on the Board of Directors of Castillian Resources Corp. Castillian was, and remains, a Forbes and Manhattan interest. It's at this stage of the company's life that Forbes and Manhattan becomes an influentual factor in the company.

Also joining Traux at this time was Senator Edward Lawson. A veteran of the Teamsters Union, Lawson was appointed as an indepedendant Senator by Pierre Trudeau and became a Liberal Senator when Paul Martin won the Liberal leadership. Senator Lawson was very involved in mineral exploration companies. Lawson's lawsuit against Sun media over a story outlining his relationships with stock fraudsters David Ward and Ed Carter created national headlines. Interestingly, the US department of Justice filed suit against the Teamsters executive (Lawson included) alledging the executive, and 26 mobsters, had conspired to hijack the union from its members. The issue was settled when the executive agreed in writing to reform the Teamsters. Lawson took over the role of Chairman of Traux.

Traux followed the path of its earlier incarnations. It achieved little. It traded alot of stock. Its overall deficit remained about $10.5 million. Its highest stock value was $.58 per share on November 17, 2003, and its lowest was $.115 on June 3, 2004. It delisted from the TSX on August 31, 2004.

On September 1, 2004, the company's name changed again - this time to Aries Resource Corp. As had become the norm the Board authorized a reverse share split of 4 old for 1 new share. Members of the Board at this time included Reza Mohammed, Senator Lawson, John Kowalchuck, Anita Algie, and John Harper. Notably, all the original Pacific Summa directors were gone at this point. A significant entry into the company was a 2 million share purchase by Doctor's Investment Group, a Bahamian registered company, owned by Michael W Taylor. Aires made an application at this time to transition into the Business Corporations Act (BC), and on the same day shareholders passed a special resolution to change its authorized capital to an unlimited number of common shares without par value. The next four years proved to be generally fruitless for the company. Its accumlated deficit increased to over $11 million. Thomas Tough, a director of Desert Sun Mining Corp, a Forbes and Manhattan interest, joined the Board. At the annual general and special meeting of September 4, 2008, shareholders passed a motion for a 10 to 1 share reverse and a name change to Alderon Resources Corp.Nineteen days later the stock completely collapsed. Reza Mohammed resigned as president on August 12, 2008. The saviours of the company were to be Emprise Capital Corp who invested in the company, appointed its Jeff Durno as president, and Robert Chisholm as director. In the words of Emprise: " Complete restructure and reorganization (of Alderon)".

The first few decades of the company's life saw it swing from one interest to another. It sold large amounts of shares, did numerous reverse share splits that crucified investors who were unlucky enough to invest, and fed numerous officers with handsome management fees. It went from oil exploration, to mining exploration,to capital fundraising, to environmental promoters, and back to mineral exploration. One thing it did not do was achieve any purposeful, positive return to its shareholders. It ended this era with a sorry $.01 per share worth. In the wild, wild west days of the VSE it behaved as most did. In its transformation to the TSX it did no better. By 2001 it was becoming infiltrated with people closely aligned to Forbes and Manhattan. The stage is now set for the Forbes and Manhattan remake - that is Part II.

Take a Look in the Mirror

We have rules for a reason. Our society has an order to it so that we can perpetuate ourselves in a relatively peaceful fashion. Without rules there is only anarchy. In a democratic nation those rules are normally enshrined in a Constitution - written or unwritten. We, in Canada, have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and our British parliamentary tradition. Those are the rules that govern our society, and those are the influences that shaped our order. Mr Harper, and his crew, have violated those rules in a manner that has become dangerous.

It is one thing to be creative within the rules to gain advantage over a political opponent. It is another thing to destroy the foundation for the rules in the process. Put simply, Mr Harper, and his government, have abused power in order to gain more. The question remains: "Aren't those that abuse power supposed to lose it?" That is the underlying principle of democratic systems of government since their inception, isn't it? Aren't there rules, even in the jungle, that allow for the species to go on? Isn't this the main one?

Mr. Harper orchestrated his own government's demise. On it's face that would seem fair enough. Expensive, but within the rules of a minority government. He did after all launch a two month advertising campaign against Mr Ignatieff prior to the election. Unless you believe he would waste a  massive amount of dollars on an advertising campaign to destroy Mr Ignatieff's character well before an election, then the obvious conclusion is that he did so with full knowledge there would be one. Considering the fact that the future of the government was essentially in his hands it is also logical to assume he intended for it to fall. This doesn't harm the democratic process in itself. Where the harm comes is did he profit from "insider trading"? Did he know that the Auditor General's report was scheduled to be tabled in Parliament? Did he know the Report on Afghan Detainees was due to be released by the committee investigating damaging documents? The answer is yes - on both counts.

Some would say that was a skilled political move by a savvy politician. Others would say it was an abuse of power that undermines the principles our order is based upon. I believe the latter. By manipulating events to avoid responsibility the government has diminished the value of responsible government. Each of us are taught that being responsible for our actions, or inactions, is a basic law of all interaction - whether it be in family life, interpersonal relationships, or business life.

Mr Harper stated that he supported the immediate release of the Auditor General's Report on the G20. What he doesn't say is that he knew full well the report had to be tabled in Parliament, and could not be released when that Parliament had been dissolved. So it was safe for him to play innocent when he knew it could not be called. Same goes for the Afghan Detainee Report. He knew it had to be tabled with the committee that was over seeing the investigation in Parliament, and that when Parliament dissolved so did that committee. Love to release it, but nobody to release it to - sorry. Just  last week Harper's team was in Federal Court to prevent the Military Police from completing it's report on the Afghan Detainee investigation
http://tinyurl.com/6eobmgl .

The cause of this is a catastrophic failure of leadership. Just like Somalia, where the senior leadership of the otherwise well respected Airbourne Regiment let the rules of war slide, and  paid with it's existence. Another case is the murder of a wounded Afghan on the battlefield by Captain Robert Semrau. Part of our instinct is to put something in pain, that has no hope for life, out of it's misery. However, the rules of warfare deem this action illegal. The reason there are rules of combat is to give a hellish action some guidelines so it doesn't spin out of control. It's a basic rule of survival of the species. Once one taboo is crossed then the next will follow and so on. The generations before us went through these experiences on a global scale, and designed the Geneva Convention to stop us from destroying ourselves. It became a part of the rules of our order.

The problem is expediency. The solution is the rules. Mr Harper is taking the path of expediency. His arbitrary and obvious flouting of our democratic principles place our democracy in peril. If our democracy is made a mockery then our foundation of problem resolution is destroyed. If our ability to resolve problems is compromised then our ability to function, economically or socially, is undermined. In other words we are left with democracy of expediency - anarchy. Anything goes as long as you can get away with it.

Consider then the near future. The province of Quebec is set to elect a separatist government. In 2013 the equalization agreement must be renegotiated. If Mr Harper wins the election he will be in charge and responsible for creating a fair redistribution of wealth within Confederation. The separatists will have learned from the example Mr Harper set that anything goes - nothing is sacred. There are no rules or responsibilities. There are no obligations to maintain peace, the country, or it's economy. All that matters is the goal - in their case a separate country. They will be able to break all the rules to achieve that end, because the Prime Minister himself did the same in the actions, and inactions of his government. Mr Harper will not be able to appeal to the higher ground, because there won't be one left. That is what happens when power is abused. That is why those that abuse it are supposed to lose it. It's called the proper exercise of power and self-preservation. They go hand in hand. The father can not abuse his wife and then lecture his son on hitting girls. It is that simple. Leadership starts at the top and the rest of us are expected to follow. Be careful of your example, and be prepared to accept the consequences.

It is time to end the breaking of the rules. It is time to win by the rules, and lose by the rules. It is time to return to honour and be seen as honourable. It is time for those that abuse power to lose it. Mr Harper take a good long look in the mirror.

Dundergate - Where is the accountability?

Democracy, Censorship, and Spin

The one thing that can be said of the provincial PC Party in Newfoundland and Labrador is they love their spin. They are incredibly bad at it, but when it's the only game you have you go with it. In this Province it is the only game they have. The truth be damned should it in any way interfere with the game. Certainly these words must be hanging on a Confederation Building wall next to the "To hell with the rest of the country" sign. A really inspiring set of motto's to run a provincial government by.

We just finished up a darling of a by-election in Humber West. A west coast seat vacated by former Premier Danny Williams. The PC candidate won the seat with a healthy 63% of the popular vote (39% overall turn out). Low turnout always favours the incumbent government, and this was no different. There were some interesting facts that surfaced though. Most interesting I suppose was the no show by Ms Dunderdale on the night before polls closed. Every other party leader was out there -  not her. In her place was one retired Danny Williams. While you can't blame the PC's for trotting out the ex premier, and using him for his popularity, it does beg the question: Is Ms Dunderdale that big of a liability? It sort of fits with the use of her decade old picture on all governmental and party advertising. A Premier who is so illegitimate that her presence seems to emphasize the fact on it's own.

Another interesting result of the by-election was the drop in the PC Party's popular vote by almost 25%. Interesting in that it reflects a drift away from the PC's in a seat that is essentially safe for the governing party. If Danny William's old seat, tried and true, could lose 25% support what about the rest? Could it be the PCs have lost 25-30% support across the Province? Would that put them at say between 40-45% or less provincially? While Ms Dunderdale is harking on about their perfect plan to win Humber West is she really casting a weary eye to the Province as a whole? How much lower can it go? How large is the undecided?

Then we have the case of the Roger's family, and their tragic loss of their children. Despite massive media coverage of the issue the provincial government continues to deny these people access to their children. Bad enough to be sure. Now, believe it or not, the PC government is going to Court Thursday to have a media ban placed on the whole issue. In case you don't know, this issue has been in the media for at least 6 weeks, and now they want a ban. Of course the usual talk of protecting the children has been thrown out there, but this has been in the media for over a month. Can you say spin? What good could a media ban do now? There is only one possible answer to that - shut the media down. The government, in another blatant abuse of power, is trying to shut down our freedom of expression in the Courts. The reasoning is for the purely political death of this issue. Censorship of the media and the issues they discuss - pure and simple. Another line crossed - not many left.

George W Bush probably said it best: " Don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining." The PC government in this Province has insulted the intelligence of all with it's ridiculous spins. Whether it is peekaboo Premiers, phantom principles, democracy of convenience, you name it they have done it. It's as if they think the people here live under rocks and are blind and stunned. It's as if they believe our collective backbone is measured in government payoffs and not in principle. I believe they are wrong. I believe in this place and it's people. I believe in our future together - spin that.

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

“The provincial government has retained the services of local law firm Roebothan McKay Marshall …”
The last line of Tuesday's press release regarding our province's lawsuit against "Big Tobacco". Not a shock in itself. This firm after all is purportedly Newfoundland and Labrador's preeminent personal injury law firm. I suppose you could consider tobacco use as a personal injury. All in the name of redress against the great sins of the producers of the evil weed. Not those that sanction it's sale of course - that would be our government. Try to look past that one for now. Let's look at the pure and unadulterated greed behind it.

For those not in the know Roebothan McKay Marshall used to have another name in front of it - Williams. Yes, that's right, Williams as in former Premier Danny Williams. The same Williams that just left Office in this province leaving behind a leaderless and unprincipled crowd to rule. A crowd that owed their existence to him. A crowd that treats rules and regulations like steeples rather than road blocks. Certainly the recent Auditor General's Report is a classic example of this. Then there is my own experience with the shameless disregard by the Party of the Party's own constitution during the recent leadership non-race - I digress. The point is, as stated in my letter of resignation, this Party and Government has lost it's moral compass. It has abused power and, by the rules of the jungle, it must now lose power.

The conflict of interest in choosing this law firm is obvious. Danny Williams, with several other lawyers, founded this firm. He may or may not still have an interest in this firm - that is an unknown. What is incredibly obvious is that the government is in a gross violation of every common sense rule that applies to politics. Here's one: Justice must not just be done - it must be seen to be done (my version). The arrogance of this decision is apparent just on these grounds. However, it doesn't end there.

Further investigation by Russell Wangersky finds that it was not tendered. A lawsuit that has garnered hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions, in other jurisdictions is not tendered. We could measure the possible value of such a contract if we new the fee, or more likely percentage, of this contract to William's old firm, except the government won't disclose it. Will not disclose it. It is not unheard of law firms taking on cases for 25 to 30 percent of awards - especially if they know it's a guaranteed win. If that were to be the case here we could lose hundreds of millions to this one law firm. Theoretical of course as the terms aren't being made public.

I often wondered about previous decisions by this government to make futile legal challenges on issues such as the Upper Churchill agreement. It seemed that the only possible winners could be the law firms that did the work. I suppose that is another issue - or is it?

Just to summarize, and wrap my mind around this scandal, a law firm founded by the former premier is awarded a contract of massive proportions less than two months after the former premier departs. The contract is awarded without tender. The government refuses to disclose how much the firm will benefit. All  because they are the best personal injury law firm in the Province...except for one thing: 
"They will be working closely with foreign legal consultants Humphrey, Farrington and McClain of Missouri who have expertise in dealing with tobacco companies.”Okay. So the American law firm are the experts in dealing with Tobacco companies, but we must still have "the best personal injury" firm in the Province involved. Apparently, this US firm was previously contracted for a 30 percent share in any suit against the tobacco companies by the previous Grimes administration. So what's changed? It sounds a lot like Mr Williams old practise of getting a cut on energy deals before allowing them to proceed with their business. Is it the case here that somebody wants a percentage of any deal - other than the American firm of course? Will the St. John's firm get a cut of the American's pie, or is that a further cut of what the people in the Province will receive? Right now we don't know for certain, because the boys and girls in Confederation Building feel we are not worthy of information about our own government.

Another first class reason to have an open and essentially unrestricted access to information law. Our press folks have been calling this government out on it, and it's easy to see why. After all, they are the ones who educate us - thank God somebody is. Frankly, the stench of dictatorship gone bad is wafting throughout the Province, and the antics would be laughable if it were not so painful.

Note to the provincial PC Party: I apologize.You never "lost your moral compass" - you destroyed it.