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. 

UPDATED - The Killing of Don Dunphy

Make no mistake about the killing of Don Dunphy - he was wrongly killed. We don't have all the evidence yet, but we will. What we do know points to a state sponsored killing of one of its own citizens. A citizen that was an active critic of the government on social media. The evidence we do have points solely to that interpretation.

What we do know:

1.  Don Dunphy fired off a set of 5 tweets (forming one statement) to former Premier Paul Davis and Minister Sandy Collins. The tweets criticized the two for enjoying a nice drive on a sunny day while people with work place related injuries suffered without the proper financial and/or medical care;

2.  Someone from the Premier's Office, likely someone who was responsible for monitoring his Twitter account, informed the Premier's body guard of the tweets. That part is not in question - Paul Davis admitted as much here . (OF NOTE - the 12 minute taped interview of Davis on this story is unplayable now...)

3.  In the same CBC story, Paul Davis claims that he was concerned by the tweets of Don Dunphy, and took them as a threat - he even showed concern for his Grandmother. This is after he spoke personally with Sgt Joe Smyth, and offered him his personal best wishes in the matter. There is absolutely no question that Davis, and his political staff, took Don Dunph's tweet as a threat - or at least that is what they said to the provincial media at the time.

Smyth, for his part, issued an email to his colleagues that was leaked to the media shortly after the shooting. The full text of the email is found here . In the email, Smyth refers to "proactive policing":

"Protective policing - is predicated on intelligence led investigations. Most will inherently view police work as something that is reactive. ie. Somebody is threatened and we respond accordingly. Intelligence based policing is proactive, and in the case of protective services, attempts to identify potential concerns and disconcerting behavior, and through a risk analysis endeavors to assign threat levels and implement corrective measures before an act of targeted violence occurs."

That's an interesting concept, and a mouthful for sure, but has no basis in the Act that governs the RNC ( see the Act here ). The only thing that comes close to justifying that course of thinking and acting are the parts that refer to "keeping the peace" and "preventing crimes and offences". Just one problem with that: there was no crime about to be committed. Despite the fact that Davis told the media that a member of his staff identified a threat from Dunphy's tweet, and despite the fact that Davis told the public the tweet was a threat to him and his family, the officer who pulled the trigger said he never took the tweet as a threat. In the most shocking revelation about Don's death Smyth admits he never took any threat from Dunphy's tweet:

"At no point did I or members of the RNC interpret any of Mr. Dunphy's social media commentary as threats - as has been indicated time and time again by both traditional and social media platforms"

First off, it was then Premier Davis himself who divulged that he and his political staff took the tweets as a threat to the Premier and his family - that's where social and regular media got the story from. Secondly, and far more importantly, Smyth admits that he never considered the tweets, and by association Don Dunphy, as threats. So that begs the question why did he go to Don Dunphy's home? Retired Justice Riche, charged with independent oversight of the investigation, had a similar thought in a CBC interview:

"I find it hard to understand how this happened. ... Then I said to myself, 'Well maybe it shouldn't have happened at all." (read full story here )

Smyth then went on to explain why, as an officer on duty, he attended Dunphy's home at all on that Easter Sunday:

" The goal of the meeting was to build a rapport with Dunphy, and to identify if there was a reasonable solution to his grievance."

This by far is the most bizarre statement of the entire Dunphy tragedy. At this point it's worth noting another one of Justice Riche's observations on the matter:

"There's a lot of contradictions. Like in front of Dunphy's house, there were signs, 'No government people, nobody allowed in', and that kind of stuff. And yet Smyth says he came to the door."

So, despite the fact that Don Dunphy had posted signs outside his home stating he didn't want government people in his home, Smyth decided to enter the home to build a "rapport" with him. There is nothing in the RNC Act that authorizes police forces to enter on private property to build "rapports" with people. There is also nothing in the RNC Act authorizing an officer to "identify if there is a reasonable solution to the grievance." In fact, Don Dunphy's grievance was clearly with the Worker's Compensation Board, a board of government, a board dealing with governmental policy on injured workers, and therefore a political body. Dunphy's "grievance" was purely political in nature. A grievance of this type is statutorily the responsibility of politicians to investigate, and to develop a rapport if necessary to resolve. As such, Smyth is definitely in violation of the RNC Act:

" Restrictions

      15. (1) A police officer shall not engage in political activity, except as the regulations permit."

By Smyth's own damning admission, he was acting as a political fixer, at the behest of the Premier's Office (which has already been admitted). A very serious violation of his duties, and one that, in my opinion, should result in him being charged for Criminal Negligence Causing Death as outlined in the Criminal Code of Canada:

" 219.  Criminal negligence
           (1) Every one is criminally negligent who
                (a)  in doing anything

           shows wanton or reckless disregard for the lives or safety of other persons.
          Definition of "duty"
          (2) For the purposes of this section, "duty" means a duty imposed by law."

In my opinion, Smyth is at least guilty of this offence. He acted to resolve a political matter at the behest of the Premier's Office. That is strictly banned under the RNC Act. He understood by his own words that there was no threat, and therefore no offence for him to investigate. He ignored an offer from the RCMP for backup, and he chose to ignore signs posted clearly on Dunphy's premises banning government people. In other words, he showed wanton and reckless disregard for the situation - which resulted in the death of Don Dunphy. These are the facts admitted to by Smyth - not made up on social media as he is fond of saying.

4.  We now know, thanks solely to the interviews with Justice Riche that:

   (i)  Smyth intended to kill Don Dunphy;

   (ii) Smyth fired the fatal shots from no further than 3 to 4 feet from Dunphy;

  (iii) Smyth fired 4 shots into Dunphy (one to the head) while none were fired by Dunphy; and

  (iv) The rifle found next to Dunphy's body was not placed in a way that would be consistent with someone shot in the way Dunphy was.

Justice Riche also stated that a Holyrood RCMP officer offered to accompany Smyth to the Dunphy residence, but was turned down by Smyth, and that Smyth had a history of being "aggressive". You can listen to the interviews with Justice Riche here . There is no question my mind, after watching the interviews, that Justice Riche doubts Smyth - to put it mildly.

As a former military officer myself, and having dealt with all types of weapons from pistols to as large as anti-tank weapons, that Smyth's story doesn't hold water. First of all there are the wounds. Three to the upper chest, and then the last to the right side of Dunphy's head. The last wound is the most damning, and you could see it impacted Justice Riche as well. A side shot to the head indicates Dunphy was starting to spin to the side after being struck by three bullets to the chest. That is finishing off a kill, or as Justice Riche said: "an intention to kill". There is no question about that. It also shows excessive force given the man was already spinning away from the three shots and no longer a threat.

However, and I've always found this to be totally unbelievable from my training and experience, there is no way that Dunphy could have pointed a rifle at Smyth first and Smyth just responded. First of all, and importantly, Smyth's pistol would have been holstered, uncocked, and perhaps not even having a bullet in the chamber. It takes time to unholster, cock, and aim a weapon. If Dunphy had a rifle pointed at Smyth before Smyth reacted, well Smyth would have no chance. Instead, we are left to believe that Smyth simply reacted. That is almost impossible. Especially considering not one round was fired off by Dunphy first. The timing of this draw for weapons makes absolutely no sense, and really belongs in some kind of western movie. It's not reality.

Then there is the issue of the shots coming from 3 to 4 feet from Dunphy. An average .22 caliber rifle is about 3 feet long, perhaps longer. That means that Smyth would have had to shoot Dunphy at almost the exact same distance the rifle would be pointed at him. In other words muzzle to muzzle. That means there wouldn't be three separate wounds all over Dunphy's upper chest, but more than likely three wounds grouped closely together in one spot on his chest. If Dunphy was aiming the weapon, as is alleged, only the side of his body would be exposed - not his entire chest. See Justice Riche's video and note where he shows Don Dunphy was hit.

All in all, the Smyth account of what happened quite frankly can't be true. It is as if he made the story up from some western or cop movie. You can quite easily see that Justice Riche doesn't believe it either. It is because it is not believable by anyone that either has the courtroom experience to know it, or the professional (military/police) experience to know it. What this new evidence does do is lay out the grounds for criminal charges against Smyth. In an ironic twist, Smyth's own words that there was never a perceived threat are the most damning to him of all.

Quebec Owned Newfoundland

"Owned" in the sense of being utterly defeated by one's enemies. Quebec owned Newfoundland, and now all of Labrador is up for grabs. That was recently thrown out there in a rather arrogant and disrespectful way by former Hydro-Quebec big shot F. Pierre Gingras. A short version of his commentary in La Presse: "Give us "back" Labrador and we'll throw 1000 MW of power to you." The proverbial "crumbs to the vanquished". Words that were meant to send a message to Newfoundland's elite. Or, in simpler terms: "you are done like dinner".

This is no great surprise to me. Rather, it's simply a sad confirmation of the warning I've given over and over to the Newfoundland back room types that have paraded to my door in Hickman's Harbour "for coffee". Yes, believe it or not, the same people that have ridiculed me for half a decade really want to know what I think - just not publicly. I suppose to do otherwise would be having to admit they don't know what the hell they're doing, and need help from the guy they decided to publicly humiliate here. Oh well, the wheel turns. A big thank-you to my wife who barely holds her contempt for them while they sip their Tim Hortons in the living room.

I've always been a Newfoundland patriot. I moved here to be that person. To rediscover my Newfoundland roots, and to offer what I could to the place. I suppose that's what most people do when they move somewhere. For me it was personal though. My Grandmother was a Newfoundlander, and I loved and respected her dearly. However, my Grandfather was a Quebecer, who I never knew as he died before my birth. My father was a by product of both - an Irish home where English was all that was spoken, immersed in a culture of French vs. English politics. I grew up with an understanding of the Newfoundland fighting spirit and the French strategic thinking. Obviously, like any child born in a "mixed marriage", I chose a side that was closest to my heart, and moved to Newfoundland.

That being said, the very first thing I became aware of was the complete lack of strategic thinking in Newfoundland. Essentially all fight and no thinking was the over arching theme I found here. I saw the pied pipers leading the people here down the garden path and right into devastation. Not just financial devastation, but also territorial devastation. The complete abyss. that is the real reason I ran for the PC leadership back in 2011. The uppity come from away who thought he knew better than the Newfoundlanders already in place. It's the same reason I ran for the Liberal leadership a short time later - albeit with more invites to run there than within the PC crew. The bottom line is I was desperately trying to stop what is now taking place today - essentially throwing myself under the bus for the place. That sounds soppy, but the truth is the truth. There will be those that say "Oh Cabana's getting on with his Messiah complex", but I say to them: Who was right and who was wrong. Giving everything means you care enough to.

Now, with the recent decision in Quebec Superior Court (which was predicted and totally predictable), Quebec has its hands at our throats. Williams and Dunderdale always spewed that they had to "break the stranglehold" of Quebec over the development of Labrador, but the reality is they simply handed Quebec our throats. With our Water Management Agreement now utterly useless, and the project still being built, Quebec can hardly believe that Newfoundland's elite has been frankly that stupid. They are rubbing their hands in glee, and mocking Newfoundland now: "Here, we'll throw you that 1000 MW of power you always wanted, now get out of our Labrador". Literally, they are laughing at us, but who wouldn't. Our political elite gave it to them.

Williams recently appeared in the media screaming about Hydro-Quebec visiting the Muskrat Falls site, and warning of a cave in to Quebec. It reminded me of PC leader Paul Davis's warnings during the election that the Liberals would lay off civil servants and cut programs, when in reality he knew full well he left them few options but to. Williams defiant comments that we are " not roadkill" and should not be "on our knees" to Quebec strike the highest note of irony considering it was his "strategic" moves that placed us in that exact position. All totally foreseeable, except for those who refused to see - which was almost everyone in the province.

So now the piper must be paid, and the big question is how. How to recuse a white elephant that may cost $15 billion, and can only produce about 150 MW without that Water Management Agreement that we just lost out on in Court - although the b'ys here still don't have the courage to admit that to the people of the Province. Stan Marshall simply lied in a teleconference about it, and when chased by reporters with specific questions the line for the teleconference suddenly went dead. Dwight Ball hasn't spoken on it once to the media. The greatest court loss in the province's history and no comment. Instead, Williams is right on this one thing, our brain trust are on their knees over at Hydro-Quebec's office in Montreal, and the Prime Minister's office in Ottawa. They're trying to pull the old "come on b'ys, we're loveable, give us a break here, there must be something we can do to make all this go away". The answer came from Gingras: "give us Labrador". We hold all the cards. We own the Prime Minister.

Now all the people of Newfoundland hear is deathly silence. Nalcor says boldly: "we will appeal that decision", and in somewhat more hushed tones "but we will abide by the decision in the mean time". Like they had a choice. The elite in Quebec have set Newfoundland up, and they aren't about to play boy scout and let Newfoundland out of the trap. Harper's gift of a federal loan guarantee was always, and obviously, a poisoned chalice. The man hated Newfoundland. That just wasn't that difficult to see. They handed this province a rope and we hung ourselves - or perhaps more accurately our "elite" hung us for the riches they would receive. The truth is there are now no longer any good options. There are only bad, and really bad options. Surrender Labrador of bankrupt all of Newfoundland and Labrador - then Quebec will come in and pick it up for a cent on the dollar. Surrender the Upper Churchill and Quebec will control Labrador in every way but name. Etc.

There is of course the independence movement in Labrador that is being fanned covertly by Quebec. Most people don't realize that Quebec has its own "intelligence service". It is in every location where Quebec has strategic financial interests - including places like China where Hydro-Quebec is deeply involved. Its service targets the decision makers and influencers in these strategic markets to further its overall goals. One of those very important goals is Labrador. In case you didn't realize it, after the French language, the territorial goals of a "greater" Quebec rank a close second. In other words, Quebec will stop at nothing to take Labrador. To think otherwise is to seriously underestimate the enemy. There is already a great deal of evidence on the ground that Quebec's "intelligence service" is fully engaged, under the radar, promoting Labrador separatism. By the way, check out the recent court decision in Quebec for a hint of where Quebec is at with Labrador. The deciding judge refers to the "Government of Newfoundland" through out his decision. There is no "and Labrador" attached to the title...

For me, I suppose, it was a fight worth having, but you can't help those who won't help themselves. I recall being labelled a "dangerous zealot" by a certain radio host here over my fight to stop what's happening now. When you're labelled that way by those you consider dear, and fellow patriots, it's hard to take anything more from the conversation. I sacrificed financially, and my family sacrificed much more, in the fight to stop this. Now all that is left to do is watch the surrender of our province - which is a hard pill to swallow.

Turkey Changes Sides.

They say that a week in politics is a long time, but for Turkey it was just a few short hours. First, scattered reports of soldiers blocking bridges. Then tanks at the Parliament. Fighter jets and helicopters appearing over the capital. Suddenly all hell was breaking loose on the streets - all covered by social media with main stream media playing catch up. Deathly silence from the US government for several hours. Ditto for Turkey's NATO allies. And then it all failed. Erdogan wasn't killed, and his call to supporters filled the streets. The mutineers were overwhelmed and the world went into damage control.

It was immediately evident to me, at least, that the attempted coup was a result of Erdogan's attempt at reconciliation with Moscow over Syria, and the role it had played there - including shooting down a Russian bomber. It was also clear to me that Erdogan was making such moves, because his allies in the West were supporting the Kurds wholeheartedly in Syria. Essentially the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and for Turkey there is no bigger national security threat than the Kurds as they attempt to form a Kurdistan partially out of southern Turkey.

It must have become evident to Erdogan that US special forces embedded with the Kurds, and a US air base being constructed in Kurdish controlled areas of northern Syria was as big a signal as you will ever need - the US was an ally of the Kurds. You would have to be completely blind not to see that, and apparently the Turkish President is not blind. So, after giving an ultimatum to his Western allies of "the Kurds or us". Erdogan made good and shuffled toward Russia - the one country that could still turn the tide against the Kurds. I wrote about this eventuality last year here .

As ISIS is destroyed in Iraq and Syria the focus becomes the end game. The Kurds already controlled the northern region of Iraq as an "autonomous Kurdish area". ISIS put a large dent in that with its capture of Mosul, but the Iraqi army is positioning itself to assault ISIS in Mosul, and it's only a matter of time before it recaptures it - months even. So Turkey has positioned itself now, with Syria and Russia, to turn on the Kurds even before the war with ISIS is finished. In fact, this week saw the first major clashes between the Syrian army and the Kurds. It also witnessed the US scramble fighter jets against Syrian bombers hitting the Kurds. This is a foreboding of things to come.

The Americans are in northern Syria for good. Their construction of an airbase there is a signal of that. By doing so, the US has signalled not just to Syria, but to Iraq and Turkey, that they intend to assist the Kurds in the creation of a Kurdistan that takes territory from all three countries. This naturally concerns countries like Russia and Iran that are allies of Syria, and becoming very close allies of Iraq. Now Turkey is leaving the American club and heading over to the Russian club to take care of its own interests. Hence the often repeated word Erdogan uttered during his speech to the Turkish nation after the failed coup: " independence". Turkey is not saying that it is leaving NATO yet, but in effect it has "quit and stayed on". It is negotiating to allow Russia to use the massive air force base currently used by the US just 65 miles from the Syrian border - an unprecedented move for a NATO ally, which spurred the US to remove its nuclear weapons from the base this week.

It is becoming ever apparent that the West has really blown its own strategic legs off in the Middle east over the last two decades. Russia, and Eurasia in general, are simply filling the spot left in many ways. The US did the heavy lifting for them by its policies in Iraq, Iran, Syria, and now Turkey. Speaking of Eurasia, China announced this week it will be massively upping its commitment to the Syrian conflict with "advisers", and supplies (read weapons, ammunition, etc). Rather than isolating Russia, and by ricochet Eurasia, in the Middle East, the US is now isolated in a land locked spot in between three countries - a hopeless position. The coup-de-grace is that it is also severely alienating itself from all these extremely important and strategically desirable nations.

As Turkey gravitates now toward Eurasia, slow at first but then very quickly, the West will only have itself to blame. It's hard to see it any other way. The fact that it is in northern Syria without the consent of the Syrian government would normally be considered in international law as an act of war. The fact that it is directly assisting the Kurds to overthrow the elected Syrian government is a blatant violation of internal law. You can't claim to be the world's superpower rooted in democracy and the rule of law, and then blatantly toss those principles to the side for expediency whenever the notion suits. It's that very attitude, that very "real polik" that has been the undoing of US foreign policy and influence over the last 20 or so years. Yet, it appears to be a hard habit to break.

In any case, Turkey is on the verge of becoming a new Iran. An Islamic state that asserts its independence through a distinctly national defence industry and close ties to powerful friends to its north and east. A realignment that will be all consuming. Gone will be the German political and economic influence in Turkey. A relationship that is being tested by Turkey as I write this post. It's the "you're either with us or against us moment" or, as Erdogan put it:

"The PYD (Kurds) has been getting closer with both the United States and Russia of late. We view the PYD as a terrorist group and we want all countries to consider the consequences of their cooperation."

Apparently the ever wise Putin did, and the ever self-righteous US administration did not. This monumental shift in geo-politics is far greater than most people on this side of the world are giving it credit for. Turkey isn't just " another hot-headed country in the Middle East" as our media seems to paint it. It has one of the largest standing armies in the world, but far more importantly than that, Turkey is the southern flank of Russia and the bridge between Europe and the Middle East. That should signal something to western governments. What has been lost, and what has been gained? A sobering thought indeed.

Nalcor's Stan Marshall is Lying

Stan Marshall, the newly appointed CEO of Nalcor Energy is lying to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. He is deliberately misleading the people of the province about the ramifications the Quebec Superior Court decision has on the Muskrat Falls dam. It's as plain and simple as that, and it needs to be exposed. Our provincial media have attempted to get unfettered interviews with both Marshall and Premier Dwight Ball on the matter, but have been completely rebuffed. The only commentary made by Marshall was made during his quarterly report to shareholders (us) via teleconference, and he only answered certain questions before the live feed of the teleconference suddenly discontinued leaving media and citizens alike shaking their collective heads. However, what he did say is simply not true.

"That court case will have no major impact on Muskrat Falls whatsoever" Stan Marshall.

That is just a blatant lie to the people of the province. A deliberate attempt to mislead. Here's why:

The Quebec Court:

[1151] The Court declares that the rights granted to Hydro-Quebec under section 4.1.1. of the renewed contract, including its right to programming and planning of power and energy, are in no way limited, circumscribed or restricted, on a monthly basis, for the purchase of blocks of power subject to a ceiling the amount would be established on the basis of the concept of 'Continuous Energy' laid down in the renewed contract, and they can be exercised in relation to any of the available power and all the energy produced at the plant, excluding power and energy associated with the block of 300 MW and the Twinco block."

What does that mean?

Well this is what Section 4.1.1. of the Power Contract requires:

Operational flexibility the parties hereto acknowledge that it is desirable for Hydro-Quebec to have the benefit of operational flexibility of CFLCo's facilities in relation to the Hydro-Quebec system. Accordingly:

i)  Hydro-Quebec may request CFLCO to operate the Plant so as to supply Hydro-Quebec's         schedule of power requirements; and

ii)  Hydro-Quebec may require deliveries which have the effect of varying the amount of water to be carried in storage at any time, providing that, in so doing, sufficient water is left in storage so the Minimum Capacity can always be maintained.

Translation? Hydro-Quebec has the right to force CFLCO to run the Upper Churchill dam for its needs - free of any restriction (ie: Water Management Agreement) : " (Hydro-Quebec's) right to programming and planning of power and energy are in no way limited, circumscribed or restricted". It's very plain English.

Here is what the Water Management Agreement states is the purpose of the WMA:

"The objective of this Agreement shall be the coordination of the Power generation and Energy production in the aggregate for all Production Facilities on the Churchill River to satisfy the Delivery Requirements for all Suppliers, in a manner that provides for the maximization of the long term Energy - generating potential of the Churchill River, while ensuring that the provisions of any Prior Power Contracts are not adversely affected."

So the WMA "requires" the "coordination" of power and energy producers on the Churchill River for the "maximization" of the power potential for Muskrat Falls. Later on in the document the WMA requires that "all production facilities run at full capacity". In other words, Nalcor and the government are trying to take away the right Hydro-Quebec has to determine the production scheduling at the Upper Churchill so they can run enough water down river to keep Muskrat Falls producing power. Unfortunately for them, the Power Contract states that is NOT allowed, and the Quebec superior Court just found that as well as noted above. They didn't find like that because they are a "Quebec Court". They found that based on being able to read the English written in the Power Contract, which apparently Nalxcor and this government cannot.

A further illustration of that exact same point comes from the illustrious VP of Nalcor Gilbert Bennett (October 22, 2012):

“The water management agreement between Nalcor Energy and Churchill Falls defines how the two companies manage the flow of water on the upper and lower Churchill River to optimize and maximize output of the river,” said Gilbert Bennett, Vice President, Lower Churchill Project. “No agreement or consent by Hydro-Quebec is required to provide water management certainty for the lower Churchill developments.” The full press release is here .

Unfortunately for Nalcor, and this province, Quebec does have to give consent, because it just had that right reaffirmed in the latest court decision. The WMA also allows the government through its controlling interests in both Nalcor and CFLCO, to appoint a Water Management Committee, who then in turn appoint an "Independent Coordinator". Here is the duty of that so-called Independent Coordinator as per the WMA:

"The Independent Coordinator shall, based on the information provided by the Suppliers, and in the exercise of reasonable judgment, establish short and long term Production Schedules for all Production Facilities on the Churchill River, through the coordination of production scheduling of the Suppliers based upon the use of the aggregate generating Capability, storage and transmission facilities of any Supplier on the Churchill River, in accordance with the objectives set out at Section 3(1) of the Regulations and with this Agreement"

There you have it. The government of this province was trying to wrestle away control of the Upper Churchill from Hydro-Quebec by installing an "Independent Coordinator" to take over production scheduling - essentially from Hydro-Quebec. As you can see from the Court's declaration above, that in itself is a violation of the Power Contract.

So, the number one pillar of the Water Management Agreement has fallen. Hydro-Quebec, not the provincial government's "Independent Coordinator" has the absolute right to set its production requirements at the Upper Churchill. There never was a question about this if you had read the Power Contract (and its renewal). Now it's been reinforced in a Declaratory Order by the Quebec Superior Court. So it is enshrined in a court order. So to do otherwise would be too deliberately breach an order of the Court.



"What we were hoping for is we'd get more power for ourselves, and that will not be the case under this decision." Stan Marshall.

That's an understatement that frankly an attempt to mislead the public. In fact, if you recall Cathy Bennett's statement the there was a "a complex interweaving of multiple business cases" then you are closer to the truth. (Here's the story on that). Perhaps the best way to illustrate their plan was a conversation Gilbert Bennett had with John Samms back in 2012 when these arguments were flying about:

Bennett:  I agree with this – the GWAC is effective during the winter months. However, section 2.1 of the Renewed Power Contract entitles HQ to take the Continuous Energy in each month, including during the winter. Referring to Volume 1 of our application to the PUB for the water management hearing, the average production at CF is about 34 TWh. If we deduct the 2.36 TWh and 1.97 Twh for recall and Twin Co respectively, we’re left with approximately 29.7 TWh for HQ, or approximately 2.5 TWh per month. Interestingly enough, this means the plant will deliver on average just over 3470 MW for HQ + 525 for NLH/Twinco (or 3995 MW out of 5428 MW) over the course of a month, meaning that HQ can have “additional capacity”, they cannot have it all of the time, as they will exceed their energy allowance. This point ensures there will be lots of opportunities to withdraw stored energy from CF, even in the winter. (The math above is 2,500,000 MWh/mo [30 days/mo]/[24 hr/day] = 3472 MW

So, doing the math, Bennett was stating that Nalcor could take approximately 1500 MW of power/energy from the Upper Churchill, and that Hydro-Quebec would have no right to it, because the "Energy Allowance" imposed on Hydro-Quebec by the WMA would deny Hydro-Quebec the right to that power. Of course, that was an absolute farce from the get go. The Power Contract, and its renewal, clearly states Hydro-Quebec has the right to all power produced at the Upper Churchill - other than 300 MW recall and the Twinco Block. There was never any dream in hell that this province could get 1500 MW from the Upper Churchill.

In fact, here is what the recent Quebec Court decision stated:

" [1154] The Court declares that until August 31, 2041, CF{(L)Co will have no right to any amount of power and energy produced at the plant (Upper Churchill), with the exception of the power and energy associated with the block of 300 MW and the Twinco block."

Plain and simple, and exactly what the Supreme Court of Canada found in its 1984 decision in the Water Reversion Rights reference case. What don't they understand about only 300 MW of recall and the Twinco block? It was ruled on by the highest court in the land 36 years ago...

In any case what does it mean? Well, right off the top it means the people of the province were obviously manipulated right from the beginning. It is just so evident to be utterly, blatantly obvious. But, what does it mean for the Muskrat Falls dam? Well, it's the death nail.

First of all, Nalcor can no longer take "banked power" or "banked energy" from the Upper Churchill - a key component of the agreement. Essentially, the "banked" refers to Nalcor taking power from the Upper Churchill, and at some point down the road returning it so their would be "no adverse" affect on the Power Contract. One problem. Hydro-Quebec is and was, and will be until 2041 entitled to that power and energy period. That means that if Nalcor wants it, or needs it to make Muskrat Falls operational, then Nalcor will have to pay Hydro-Quebec for it. So instead of getting that "banked power" from the Upper Churchill at the same price Hydro-Quebec gets it at (.0020 of a cent a kwh) Nalcor will have to negotiate a market price for a power purchase agreement with Quebec - which could range from 5-10 cents a kwh. A massive cost increase to operate Muskrat Falls. Or worse case scenario, Hydro-Quebec may not agree to a power purchase agreement at all - which would mean Muskrat Falls could only operate at about 29% firm capacity (look at your bill tripling at a minimum if that happens).

So recall if you will the often made statements by the provincial government and Nalcor that Muskrat Falls would have profits of $500 million a year. Guess what. That was based on getting that free 1500 MW of power a year they planned on illegally taking from the Upper Churchill (see Gilbert Bennett's comments above). Now, they have zero free MW to sell, so the first and most obvious impact of the court decision is there will be no profit from Muskrat Falls, and no $500 million to create "revenue" for the provincial government or to subsidize your power bills (as they promised they would). The next big effect is that Nalcor's ability to pay for the project will be disastrously crippled with Muskrat Falls running at 20% capacity. In fact Nalcor admitted the planned Gull Island dam would be in the same straights. Here is an excerpt from their pre-filed evidence to the PUB when they sought the WMA in 2009:

" Under average conditions, the resulting production at Gull Island would be 1,519 MW for the first 20 days and 443 MW during the last 11 days of March. During a dry period, this scenario would require production levels of 1,471 MW during the first 20 days of March, and 395 MW during the last 11 days. Consequently, without a water management agreement, Nalcor would be limited to approximately 400 MW of continuous delivery in a power purchase agreement for Gull Island. Such an arbitrary constraint on lower Churchill delivery schedules is unnecessary and is incompatible with the concept of the efficient use of the resource."

In other words, the Power Contract is an arbitrary barrier to the Lower Churchill dams. Yet, that is what the Court's decision just found - the Power Contract guarantees Quebec that right.

The same Nalcor evidence stated:

"In the absence of a water management agreement, Nalcor would not even have advance knowledge of expected flows from the Churchill Falls facility to enable it to take steps to
mitigate spillage through advance drawdown of the lower Churchill reservoirs In the absence of a water management agreement, Nalcor would be required to utilize the  water as it became available.  Given the limited storage capacity in the Gull Island reservoir  (approximately three to four days of maximum flow from the upper Churchill facilities),

Nalcor would have to turbine the water and produce energy at the time that it was 

available; it would be required to “chase the flows” from the upper Churchill."  

There you go, Nalcor's own words as evidence. The court's decision makes it clear that Nalcor will now have to be "chasing the flows".

So without the ability to take over the operations of the Upper Churchill, Nalcor cannot control the flows of water or power. It also cannot control the reservoir levels at the Upper Churchill. It cannot take banked power or energy from the Upper Churchill to sell on the US market and then return that power back at some later time for free. It cannot take 1500 MW of power from the Upper Churchill and sell it to the US or any other market and make $500 million a year in additional profit. In fact it can't do one single thing the Water Management Agreement attempted to do. In fact, the Water Management Agreement itself breaches the Power Contract as it was obviously, and admittedly created to manage the Upper Churchill and Lower Churchill as if it ever had the right to do so with the Upper Churchill. It never did after 1969, and we knew that back in 1984.

So is Stan Marshall lying and misleading the public about the effect of the Quebec Court decision on the Muskrat Falls dam? Yes he is. No different than the man that preceded him with the exception he was trotted out as being the "straight shooter". Does the Quebec court decision kill the Water Management Agreement? In enforceability yes. The government can leave it on the books, cover its ears, and continue with the dam construction if it wants, but that doesn't change the inevitable. When the dam is ready it won't be able to operate past 20% capacity - except in a month or two around spring runoff. When the bills come through, and there is no way to pay them, that reality will be there for all to see. Apparently it takes that hear before people act to save their own hides. In any case, yes Stan Marshall, you are lying and misleading the people of this province on what that Quebec Court decision really means for Muskrat Falls - and of course that's all of us.

The Russian Ace - Khibiny

As the world seems to bounce from one disaster to another, all of our own making, one can't help but wonder where it will all end. Certainly there are signs that point toward a world conflict of "world war" scale. There is no question of that. Eurasia is slowly, but surely forming itself into a formidable trading bloc, and likely military alliance as well. Historically, the two have gone hand in hand, and the signs these days point to that same direction. Coproduction agreements, and arms development/sales deals are growing rapidly between China, Russia, Iran, India, and so on. Trends in international affairs, which this author has predicted for over a decade now, are grudgingly poking their collective heads up.

The recent coup attempt in Turkey has the potential to escalate the trend line very rapidly - destabilizing the geo-political balance so much that the reverberations will be felt intensely and world-wide. In a real sense, Turkey is the southern flank of the Eurasian project. Its very geography makes it key to accessing Russia's south (remember Gallipoli in WWI?) and the Middle East in general. Lately, Turkish President Erdogan had been moving Turkey toward a more friendly relationship with Russia. His government apologized to Russia for the downing of a Russian jet, and followed that with a statement suggesting peace with Syrian President Assad.

In fact, Erdogan was scheduled to meet in Moscow with Russian President Putin just two days before the coup. However, all that came to a sudden end when Erdogan was spirited out of his vacation home just prior to an attempt on his life by a platoon of Turkish special forces. Somehow he had gotten wind of it, boarded his jet, and jettisoned off toward Turkey's capital. While enroute to the capital his plane was "locked onto" by two Turkish F-16's. Despite locking onto Erdogan's jet the Turkish fighter pilots could not fire and bring it down - for whatever reason. The bottom line is that al the evidence points toward a very important Russian intervention in the coup - to stop it that is. It appears that Russian intelligence intercepted the coup plotter's communications and plans, alerted Erdogan in advance, and saving his life in the process. It likely also proved very clearly to Erdogan who his friends were, and who they were not. In any case, the mysterious escape from the lethal missiles of those two Turkish F-16s is really what this article is about.

Funny enough, Erdogan's saving grace seems to be a part of another trend that has raised its head for at least the last few years. Simply put, the Russians have developed technology that renders all missile systems, nuclear or conventional, useless. In November, 2014 the first high profile incident occurred when a Russian SU-24 fighter bomber shut down all systems on the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea. The only armament the plane carried was a small basket - an important little basket known as "Khibiny" - perhaps named after the Russian mountain of the same name. In any case, the entire state-of-the-art destroyer was rendered unable to defend itself while the SU-24 flew eleven simulated bombing runs over it before flying off. The Cook's Aegis system (most modern US defence system) was shut down completely.

Then, just three weeks ago a military drone entered Israeli airspace from Syria. The Israeli military fired two Patriot missiles at the drone, but the deadly accurate missiles could not hit the slow and plodding drone. Then an Israeli fighter pilot fired an air-to-air missile at the drone, but the missile would not strike it. It appears quite obvious that the Russian drone had on board a system similar to the Khibiny electronic warfare device that shut down the Cook. However, this system appears to not jam the firing systems, but just the missiles themselves. That would be a variant of the system and essentially render anti-aircraft systems and fighter jets obsolete. It seems clear the Russians used the air-tight "Iron Dome" Israeli anti-missile system as a test for this technology. Not a bad choice considering Israel's small land mass and therefore concentrated air defence systems. Or, in other words, no better place to test it in the world.

There is no question that with the development of Khibiny , and its apparent variants, that Russia (and therefore Eurasia) has assumed a massive strategic advantage over NATO and other western military forces. How that will affect world balance of forces is yet to be seen, but there is no question it has the potential to be devastating for Russia's enemies on the battlefield and in world politics. Erdogan may be the first, and very public, example of how this new technology can shift the balance of power in the world. Russia has taken technological creativity to the next level - potentially rendering nuclear weapons obsolete (which would be great for the world). Russia now has its ace in the hole, and the only question that remains is how this new technology will change our world.

The Muskrat Falls U-boat cover up - emails

The best way to start an article like this is to just come out with it: we have been mislead. After numerous appeals by a "third party" my access to information request for any maps, drawings, pictures or communications regarding a German U-boat wreck at or near Muskrat Falls from the provincial Department of Natural Resources has been granted. What it discloses, despite the government not being fully forthcoming in its disclosure, is a web of secrecy and deceit regarding the U-boat wrecks at Muskrat Falls.

That's right I said "wrecks" as in plural. Government emails disclose their are actually two U-boat wreck sites at Muskrat Falls. One site, directly at the foot of the falls, being explored by Ray Tremblay of "Bomb Hunters" fame, and the other about 900 meters from it (the one I previously wrote on and that was first pictured in sonar image by Mr. Corbin). In an email from Natural Resources Assistant Deputy Minister Paul Scott in July, 2012, the provincial government acknowledges there may be two U-boat wrecks at Muskrat Falls and nearby. However, and perhaps even more importantly, the email proves Nalcor new of the one U-boat wreck as early as 2012, and had its exact location on a map.

Then in later 2012, provincial archeologist Martha Drake fired off an email to Mr. Tremblay which questioned whether he was focusing on the u-boat wreck or "... on the reported bunker site on land." That was a first for me. A bunker site on land? A German bunker site? This just keeps getting stranger and stranger. And all of it is well known by our provincial government. Here's that email:

However, the big bomb comes when, in July, 2012, Nalcor's Senior Communications Advisor Karen O'Neill sends an email to Paul Scott, copying in Nalcor's senior management team, which admits to the U-boat wreck and its exact location. The government wouldn't release the sonar scans or maps but gave a big "redacted" square instead. In the email O'Neill states:

" Attached is the side-scan of the submarine and the exact coordinates of the wreck."

Here is the complete email:

Ray Tremblay indeed sent a picture of the U-boat wreck to the provincial government in August of 2012. However, the provincial government blackened out the picture for my ATTIPA request:

What seems quite strange is that an email from Diana Quinton, Director of Communications at Tourism, Culture and Recreation which details written responses to the provincial CBC for a request on details of the U-boat. In the response Quinton clearly states:

" It has come to our attention that two groups have reported the discovery of wrecks near Muskrat Falls in the Churchill River. One group made their discovery in 2010 (and reported it to Transport Canada's Receiver of Wreck this week), while the other group made their discovery in June, 2012. The coordinates for the two wrecks are different. Therefore, we assume there could possibly be two wrecks involved."

No such mention of two wrecks was ever reported by the CBC or any other media outlet. The question remains why not? They were clearly informed of two possible U-boat wrecks in 2012. The one they reported on is about 900 meters from the Falls. The one they didn't report on was Ray Tremblay's discovery right at the foot of the Falls. That is clearly a question the CBC must answer. Given the Muskrat Falls construction very nearby the wreck it would seem logical that it might be the bigger story then the other wreck they did cover. Here's the email:

The email records, particularly between Mr. Tremblay and the provincial government departments, show that Tremblay has been doing scientific scanning and diving on the wreck site every year since 2012 to the present. For those that aren't familiar with Mr. Tremblay he is a retired Canadian Forces combat engineer - an expert in demolitions. His company is featured on History Channel's "Bomb Hunters", and he has access to a wealth of all modern scientific technology for scanning below the waters surface. In an interview with me today he detailed a number of scientific, but classified methods he and his team have used over the last three years on the U-boat wreck. They'll stay confidential here, but suffice it to say he is very well qualified in what he and his team do. During his exploration he has been in constant contact with both the Canadian (more on that later) and the German governments giving them updates as detailed in this August, 2014 email:

Later in 2014, Mr. Tremblay conducted actual dives on the wreck site, but encountered wild currents and conditions (being that the site is at the foot of the Falls). He and his team did manage to film 60 hours of video though. This email gives a good description of their work in October, 2014:

In the lead up to the October, 2014 dives Mr. Tremblay requested a member of the provincial government's archeology team dive with his team given the province's interest in the matter and its historical significance. The province declined the initiation given the government had forbid Tremblay's team from removing any dirt or objects from the site, or even the touching of them:

In May, 2015, things really start moving along - especially in the email department. It's here when Mr. Tremblay first notes that the federal government is quite quietly involved with the u-boat wreck. In fact, Mr. Tremblay actually met with the Prime Ministers Office and the Department of Canadian Heritage in Ottawa. Furthermore, Mr. Tremblay states the Prime Minister (Harper) is personally interested in the wreck site. Also, at this time the German Embassy are involved with the project. In the same email though the dark side of the U-boat wrecks is revealed. Divers are highly zealous in keeping U-boat wrecks secret until they have established their name to the discovery. Of course with that established name comes lucrative contracts from media like the History Channel. To be fair though, discovering a wreck is expensive business and all out of pocket for the diving company. The email details spying by one group on the other group during exploration. In any case, here's the 2015 email detailing the PMO's involvement, and the rest:

A June 29, 2015 email from Mr. Tremblay details further contacts he has had with the federal government and advises the provincial government on his plans for a mid August, 2015 confirmation dive as well as press conference to announce the confirmation of the U-boat wreck to the world. According to the email, Tremblay states the Canadian War Museum wants to raise the wreck and place it in the museum in Ottawa:

On that same day June 29, 2015, Nalcor Senior Communications Manager fires off a rather panicked and confused email to Martha Drake stating she thought the U-boat would be left an undisturbed wreck. The more interesting response is Ms. Drake's:

"... In the meantime, the vessel belongs to the German government".

That is a big statement. It acknowledges the provincial government knows the wreck is that of a U-boat and that as such the wreck "belongs" to the "German government". Otherwise, the German government would have no claim on the wreck at  Muskrat Falls, let alone have the province's archeologist admit that Germany has ownership over it. Here's the email exchange:

On August 11, 2015 Mr. Tremblay notified provincial and federal officials of the plan for the dive (blackened out) and the date he expected to conduct his big press announcement - August 28, 2015:

In a somewhat panicked tone, Martha Drake informs other involved officials that: "..there is something in the river. I expect we can all agree on that..." She goes on to state she will craft a letter to prohibit any touching of the wreck by Mr. Tremblay's team and that she will inform Foreign Affairs of the situation:

And here is the hastily prepared letter Ms. Drake sent to Mr. Tremblay regarding the dive. It is interesting to note her cautioning of underwater unexploded munitions that may be on the site from the U-boat - especially given Mr. Tremblay's world class experience in unexploded munitions... She is very emphatic that: " ... the wreck and debris field shall not be disturbed, touched on manipulated ..." I find that a very curious instruction for a team of divers attempting to identify a U-boat. Here's why: I know of no U-boat dive that didn't require divers to touch, move and surface with articles in order to identify a German U-boat wreck. It's standard practise. Of course removing human remains is strictly forbidden (if there are any), but articles such as knives, breathing apparatus, etc are routinely removed from U-boat wrecks to identify them. For instance, in many cases U-boat numbers are on the backs of china used on the boat, or names are placed on individual escape breathing apparatus. Boat numbers are also found on torpedo doors or the ship's batteries. Most of which have to be extensively cleaned to remove decades of sea growth before they give up their information. Whether Ms. Drake's instructions are from a point of ignorance, or otherwise, they doomed the identification of the boat before the operation started.

Ms. Drake then sends an email to Nalcor and government senior staff letting them know that her letter to Mr. Tremblay was sent to Foreign Affairs. Odd that she should make that distinction if the touching of the U-boats debris field etc was for safety reasons. it is hard to see what interest Foreign Affairs might have in such a topic. It seems as though a number of people were quite determined to tie Mr. Tremblay's hands in actually identifying the U-boat, or perhaps its cargo, and that included the federal and German governments. Indeed, Reneta Lambreva, Senior Policy Advisor at Foreign Affairs responded to one Dan Mackenzie, federal government, Inter-governmental Affairs Secretariat:

"... To prepare the ground on our side, I have notified the desk for Germany as a heads up for the potential announcement involving a foreign vessel that might come out by August 28th. Keeping the desk informed will speed up things in case an action needs to be taken. "

Mr. Mackenzie then disseminates the details of the wreck that Foreign Affairs has supplied (which aren't included in the ATTIPPA release). He emphasizes the need for a coordinated approach:

Then on August 22, 2015 Mr. Tremblay fires off an excited email to Ms. Drake that confirmation diving will start on the wreck the next day. He states that the team saw a propeller with an underwater camera the day before:

Then, like a balloon that burst, a final email from Mr. Tremblay on August 31, 2015 to Ms. Drake:

" No announcement this time again..."

Given the big buildup to the dive in August, 2015, which included 10 divers, I was left somewhat dumfounded at the sudden end of email exchanges and the pronouncement of "no announcement this time again". Clearly it was a message of frustration (understandably) by Mr. Tremblay, but the reasons weren't detailed in an email. They came by way of a phone conversation he had with Ms. Drake. I contacted Mr. Tremblay to clarify what happened. His response was the sand had completely covered the wreck. Given the restrictive measures placed on him by the provincial government (my words not his) there was never any hope for identifying the U-boat number, but not being able to remove sand to expose the wreck now meant the announcement to the world had to be postponed for yet another year. Mr. Tremblay states that when the Muskrat Falls River is diverted (hopefully it won't be) his team will be able to work much better in the environment around the wreck as the currents and volumes of water will be dramatically reduced.

It's hard to visualize the U-boat wreck Mr. Tremblay has discovered as neither he nor the government will allow any pictures of it to be released. He told me the wreck is approximately 68 meters long and he believes it to be an intact type VII German U-boat. He remains completely committed and determined to be the one that exposes it once and for all, and given his work and financing of the project that should never be denied to him. that being said, as a point of history, the government and or Mr. Tremblay should release the images of the U-boat wreck so that the people of the province, and Germany, can see it once and for all. In addition, those of us with experience in identifying these sort of things may well be able to identify the boat's type by its distinctive structures. I don't believe that would in any way take away from Mr. Tremblay's exclusive claim to having discovered the wreck - it would simply share the images of it with the rest of us. For history's sake.

Of course, the other side of this story is that Nalcor, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada  and the Government of Germany have kept total silence on the ongoing explorations and discoveries since the initial sonar picture of the other wreck hit the media in 2012. They have left those of us trying to expose the truth, for history's sake, on the sidelines like a bunch of crazed conspiracy theorists. Now the truth is coming out, and these emails (there are more I haven't published) prove that the U-boat wrecks at Muskrat Falls are not ghosts of the fanciful, but very real hulks of history. The question remains why? Why are these governments and Nalcor trying to cover them up?

The War Lust in the West

War lust. Blood lust. The fever for world-wide conflict has grown to epidemic proportions in the West, and it is very disturbing. The phrase "Lest We Forget" or "Never Again" is honoured every November 11 to mark the madness of war and the victims - generations of soldiers and civilians slaughtered. However, November 11, or Remembrance Day, now serves as some sort of show of support for our current troops rather than the mournful reminder it was meant to be. A reminder of loss - senseless loss.

What makes the current march to war even more difficult to watch is the inescapable fact that we are on the wrong side of the very values we claim to uphold. In Canada our government is supplying a massive amount of arms to Saudi Arabia, a country so draconian in its beliefs that it beheads people publicly for crimes as simple as believing in Christianity. Its dark and evil intentions only surpassed by the black coverings it insists the women of the country wear at all times.

Now our federal government, lead by the most immature and self-loving Prime Minister in recent memory, has decided we should sell arms to and train soldiers of Ukraine. A country that openly supports neo-Nazis and has several organized battalions of them serving on the front lines of a conflict with its own citizens in the republics of Donetsk and Lugansk (formerly Eastern Ukraine). The Ukrainian government has committed mass war crimes in Donetsk and Lugansk against its own citizens. It has shelled schools, hospitals and power stations. It has slaughtered thousands of civilians in cold blood - many elderly, women, and children. It has destroyed villages, towns, and shelled cities. The crime of Donetsk and Lugansk? They want autonomy. Their penalty? Death and destruction at the hands of their own government. Our indignant response? Give the Ukrainian government arms and troops.

In the most recent act of futile war lust, Canada is sending ships, troops and fighter aircraft to Latvia to deter "Russian Aggression". There is a serious problem with that reasoning though. Russia is not being aggressive militarily with its neighbors. If it were being aggressive its neighbors would have already ceased to exist. The Russian military is within its own borders. It is not massing on its border to invade any other country. The exact opposite can be said for us. We are massing troops and equipment on the Russian border as I write this post. We are committing the kind of provocations that have not been seen since Hitler massed forces on the Soviet Unions border in 1941. The point is we are, as hard as it is to admit, becoming the same animal that invaded the Soviet Union so many years ago. An invasion that cost the lives of 25,000,000 Soviet citizens, and which destroyed the entire country in a war of previously unknown horror. This is what now passes as civilized policy in a nation of "peace loving" citizenry.

As yet Canada has not become too active in the similar push happening with China, but the trend seems to show that will happen sooner than later. It may be true that China has pushed its claim to the South China Sea too aggressively considering its geography, but is that a reason to cause a thermal nuclear war, or any other kind of war?

The truth is quite obvious. The US is almost begging for a war with Russia and China. Its economy, and that of its western allies, has been in stagnation for years and now is turning negative as evidenced by the negative returns on government bonds and central bank interest rates. Russia, China, and allies in the BRICS are turning toward an insular Eurasian economy which will deny the US and its allies markets to export to. Even more importantly, these nations won't be trading in US dollars, but rather their own currencies backed by gold. The western countries essentially faced a decision: allow China to take over the lead of the world economic order or have a war to try and prevent it. It has become quite obvious they have chosen war. A war over economics. How fitting considering all the values we claim to hold true have really been supplanted by the dollars in our bank accounts. Canada selling arms to Saudi is a good example, but there are any others. The western countries have ceased to be entities based on this or that ideal, or language, or political system, or what have you. They are now nothing more than branches of the US government serving the interests of money. It is blatantly obvious, and unfortunately a dark stain on the memories and souls of those who served and died so selflessly in the name of their country in the two previous world wars.

You reap what you sow, and for the West that is going to be the kind of death and destruction that we haven't seen on our shores. Frankly, that is part of the problem. The Americas have not had the hell of total war unleashed on their populations and lands. It's lead to a type of arrogance and false sense of security when it comes to war and the spilling of an entire generation's blood. The kind of disassociation that comes with not seeing 75% of your country lying in rubble. The curse of the arrogant? The curse of the ignorant? They are doomed to bring that horror to their own shores, as well as others. They are sentenced to repeat history. It sickens me to watch events around the world unfold and the lustful march to war and all it entails. It sickens me to watch the stupidly macho prancing of our Prime Minister beating the drums of war while wearing the mask of "deterrence". If and when a war ever broke out with Russia, that Canadian "deterrent" would be slaughtered with in hours - as would the remainder of the NATO "deterrent" on Russia's border. A mere speed bump. Mere sacrificial lambs.

The warmongers never get enough blood. The question is whether we will offer it up to them. "Lest we Forget" the sacrifice of so many others before us. The biggest breach of faith with our war dead is to allow a new generation to be added to their ranks. It is unforgiveable.  

Veterans Stabbed in the Back by Liberals

I was 22 years old when, as an infantry 2nd Lieutenant, my neck and back were fractured serving my country. I didn't know then that the rest of my life would be severely altered by those very same injuries. I persevered in my service for 4 more years, finally retiring as a Captain. Even then the damage done by my injuries hadn't shaken my life. Now things are different - very different. I can't get into all the details publicly at this time as they are evidence in an ongoing legal action against the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, but suffice it to say that my injuries began taking a serious toll on me by my early thirties. Today at 51 my injuries rate me a 101% disability rating on the odd scales used by Veterans Affairs. I am one of those soldiers, veterans, who by virtue of the New Veterans Charter that took effect in 2006.

I spent 5 years in the Veterans Affairs machinery, being chewed up and spit out at various levels along the way. The same amount of time my father fought the Nazis in World War II. Veterans Affairs initially rated my injuries and disabilities at 5%, or $14,000 for a ruined spine (cervical and lumbar). It was devastating. Not just on a personal care level, dealing with the effects of my injuries, but at a professional level as well. The military is an honour based institution. You are honoured with a salute. You are honoured to give a salute. You consider it an act of honour to look after the welfare of your men, and to complete a mission with them. Your Regimental battle honours (flag) are just that - honours earned by men and women before you. The sense of dishonour and betrayal imparted on you from the bureaucracy and political masters of Veterans Affairs can destroy you if you don't have the support to take it on. I was lucky, because I had that support from my family. Many are not, and many end their lives is sheer frustration at a system that denies them their honour and desperately needed help.

That brings me to the Liberal government, Justin Trudeau and Kent Hehr. During the last election the Liberals promised to recognize the "sacred obligations" Canada has to its veterans - especially its injured and disabled veterans. Trudeau himself made statements about it several times on the campaign trail and as Prime Minister:

"For 10 years, Stephen Harper draped himself in the Canadian flag, then betrayed the men and women who fought for it."

"There are a lot of court cases across this country that this government has taken on to deprive veterans of their benefits, to go after individuals for unreasonable reasons... we would actually cease (them) if this government changes on October 19."

Then after being elected, and as Prime Minister, Trudeau pledged:

"We are also committed to ensuring that new and significant investments are made to meet the scared obligation that we have to our veterans."

All that changed this week. The federal government ended the year long truce with six veterans who sued in the British Columbia courts to have the sacred obligation of the federal government to its injured troops upheld, and the treatment of those veterans to reflect that principle. The Harper government went to the BC Court of Appeal to have the lower courts decision overturned that the six veterans had the right to file such a class action lawsuit. However, with the installation of Erin O'Toole as Veterans Affairs Minister, the appeal by the government was put on hold for a year to negotiate an honourable result. This week the federal government notified the court it intended to continue the appeal of the veterans' right to launch the class action suit.

The documents submitted to the court by the Liberals painfully, and humiliatingly, denounce any obligation whatsoever to injured and disabled veterans:

" the submissions made by [former Conservative attorney-general Rob Nicholson] on the hearing of the appeal, and as set out in the factum filed by him, accurately reflect the current position of the federal government...

The House of Commons motion referenced by the plaintiffs (6 veterans), while it records the opinions of the then members of Parliament on the matters referred to in the motion, does not have the force of law and cannot bind the federal government."

There is nothing that cuts so deep as a betrayal of trust. There is nothing that is more important to the dignity of the individual soldier than the honour of his service. Trudeau, and his Liberal government managed to destroy it all by this one court action. His minister Kent Hehr appeared on CTV's Power Play show with host Mercedes Stephenson yesterday and several times reiterated "Canada's sacred obligation to its veterans". He did so while trying to wiggle out of the straight forward questioning of the host on the government's court actions. His words range hollow. His own government's position is his words mean nothing and are simply the "opinions of the then members of Parliament... (which) does not have the force of law".

The Liberal Party has made a very serious mistake in stabbing the veterans of this country in the back. It took decades for veterans, and military people in general, to look past previous Liberal governments and their treatment of the military. That leap of faith has now been dashed. The lingering wound of betrayal is festering in all veterans as we seek not only to have our own wounds looked after, but those that inevitably come after us. It is a brotherhood ( and that includes our fellow female soldiers). The brotherhood now knows how easily, and without a bit of shame, a Liberal government can leave the bitter taste of betrayal in their mouths. It means we now have to fight another battle together against another government, but for the Liberals it means that whatever bond they had hoped to hold with the vast veteran community, and military community at large, is as broken as any betrayed bond can be. Anything other than a complete reversal of the Liberals "new" position, and anything other than a new minister, will bury the Liberal Party of Canada and leave it dead in the eyes of veterans, and military men and women, across this country who honourably served it.