After ISIS.

As the Syrian army, with support from Hezbollah and Russia crushes ISIS in Aleppo,  and as the Iraqi Army with support from Shite Militias and the US squeezes ISIS in Mosul, the next step becomes the big question. Will the US respect the wishes of the Syrian government and leave the Syria battle to its government and the Russian military, or will the US ignore the sovereign rights of the Syrian government and push to install a Kurdistan from North Eastern Syria and North Western Iraq? That is really the $1 million question. Will things escalate between Russia and the US on this battlefield or will there be a recognition of traditional spheres of influence.

Traditionally and historically, Turkey has done everything within its power to thwart a Kurdish state. Whether it be decades long intelligence/military operations against the Kurds within Turkey itself, or whether it be actual uninvited military incursions into Syria and/or Iraq to attack Kurdish fighting elements, the Turkish position has always been against the development of any Kurdish state. Given that the Kurds are claiming a good portion of South Eastern Turkey as part of the new Kurdistan one can somewhat understand the Turkish policy toward the Kurds. However, the result has been ongoing turmoil within the region for decades.

As it stands now the main force of the Syrian army, and allies, are focused around the Aleppo area in a time consuming fight in that city. The Turkish army has invaded and driven south toward the Al Raqqa area, although not to the city itself. Instead the Turks have pivoted east to take on the Kurds and drive them to at least behind the Euphrates River that runs through central Syria. At first the US had agreed to the Kurds withdrawing, but that seems to have changed and the Kurds are standing their ground. Meantime, the bulk of Iraqi forces are surrounding Mosul from three sides, but thus far leaving the western side of the city relatively open - which could allow the ISIS elements and others in the city to retreat westward to Syria. Curiously, a large contingent of Shite militia are attempting to cut off that exit by flanking Mosul, however Turkey has since warned them not to take the strategic city between Mosul and Al Raqqa that would cut off the ISIS retreat. All very complicated.

Bottom line is that within three months both Mosul and Aleppo will be liberated from ISIS and other Islamic forces. The race will then be on to take ISIS's capital Raqqa. Currently the Kurds, with their American allies, are closer than anyone else - other than the Turks. And that brings the Turkish role to the forefront. First point: Turkey is only in Syria because Russia allowed it to be so. Shortly after Turkey reconciled with Russia that country's army militarily intervened from the north, and secured its border with Syria. That effectively sealed any chance ISIS could resupply or sell oil to the north without Turkey's approval, and if Turkey approved such an action its relationship with Russia would be over before it started. So Russia's plan for Turkey was to seal the border first. Mission accomplished. In return, Turkey got the green light to go after the Kurds from Russia, but not the US.

Phase two, which hasn't happened just yet, will be Turkey sweeping into Raqqa before the Kurds and the US can. The Syrian army is out of position to move on Raqqa before anyone else does, because they are still fighting to the south along the Lebanon border. They must also retake Dayr az Zawr located strategically south of Raqqa and on the wrong side of the Euphrates River for anything other than a cross river assault - which would involve massive casualties and every chance of a serious defeat. So bank on it that Russia has already got Turkey to take on Raqqa. It suits both of their purposes.

Once that battle takes place, and the remnants of ISIS are trapped on the Syrian-Iraqi border, the focus turns to restoring the territorial integrity of not just Syria, but also Iraq. The area is rich in oil reserves - a wealth that both countries will need to rebuild their war-torn countries. However, American oil companies have strong ties and contracts with the Kurds in northern Iraq,  and are likely expecting the same kind of concessions in north eastern Syria. It is at this point in the conflict when push will come to shove. Russia will have no choice to back the Syrian military in recovering all their territory, and that means driving the Kurds from all of Syria. That will also involve driving all the Americans out of Syria to. Considering the US has opened an air force base in north east Syria, in Kurdish controlled territory, it is easy to see how this battle will escalate. Likely, the only factor that could stop an actual military confrontation between the US and Russia in eastern Syria would be the election of Donald Trump. He has pledged to work with Russia on destroying ISIS and my analysis of him is that he's a deal maker that would seed Syria because the it is Russia's sphere of influence. That is the only action that could stop a direct escalation between Russia and the US.

In case you haven't heard, Russia has mobilized its sole aircraft carrier, along with warships and submarines to the coast of Syria. It is also expanding the facilities of its Syrian air base. The Chinese have also declared they are prepared to intervene militarily on Syria's side. What we are witnessing right now is not the Russians preparing for immanent action in Syria. They are instead prepositioning resources for a much larger battle with the US and its allies. The Americans are doing the same thing by position naval forces off the coast near Syria, and massively reinforcing the air base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean. If Trump does not win the US Presidential election, and reverse the show down in Syria, then these prepositioned forces will engage each other. That's why they're there. They're not there to take on rebels, or ISIS or Hezbollah, or Kurds or the Syrian army.

It has to be said that a lot rides on the result of that politicians gone wild election to the south of our country. On the one hand a deal maker who is not opposed to pulling the US back from the "policeman of the world" self-appointed status it has generally abused for the last two decades. He may be a chauvinistic you know what, but he may not be a blood thirsty imperialist - so that's ok by me if the choice comes down to it. Hillary Clinton on the other hand has been shown to be an instrument of the big corporations that are driving America's foreign policy, and also driving it to placing it and the rest of us in the world in mortal danger. So, my fingers and toes are crossed that the egotistical chauvinist isolationist wins in a few days from now, and not the corrupt insider doing the bidding of those that not only do not respect humanity, but in fact see it as a mere inconvenience in a quest to have the world as they see it.

Labrador Down

I've never been to Labrador before, yet I've fought to stop Muskrat Falls in the courts and outside them for five years. It seemed the right time, and many people there encouraged me to come (see Facebook) so my wife and I set out ready to support the "land protectors" with everything we had. One ominous message on Facebook suggested something different though:

"...he is a politician trying to get attention." That came from Charlotte Wolfrey, Status of Women Coordinator, Nunatsiavut Government.

An interesting statement to be sure. While some may remember my foray into Newfoundland politics back in early 2011 and 2012, I have primarily been focused on defeating Muskrat Falls during and since that time. So I found Ms. Wolfrey's statement a little strange. That being said we arrived in Goose Bay Sunday to lend a hand. Literally within 30 minutes of arriving and chatting with some trappers and other folks at the Muskrat Falls gate an irate lady started tearing into me that she did not want me there. After a fair bit of prodding I was able to find out she also worked for the Nunatsiavut government. I tried to calm her, but she wouldn't leave me alone and followed me throughout the demonstration site day and evening. Shortly after that incident a man named Roy Blake began yelling my name and came after me publicly for sending messages to my friend who was with the land protectors inside Muskrat Falls. He too ended up being an elected member of the Nunatsiavut Government. (he subsequently apologized to me several times which was honourable). However, a certain trend was beginning to stick in my mind.

Perhaps these attacks on me were coming from my opposition to Universal Helicopter ferrying in workers to the Muskrat Falls site while the protesters laboured below to stop workers coming in? That's initially what I thought, but then some other conversations on the side started to point in a different direction. Truthfully, I don't view myself as a person with a high profile. I approach people in that way. People were telling me though that the Nunatsiavut government considered my profile a threat (to their control of the protest apparently). I only relay this story because it points to the rest of the story - the betrayal of Labrador at the hands of its Aboriginal leadership.

You see, the story of Labrador's betrayal lies in control. Control of the many by the few. I spoke to many of the people at the main protest camp and gate and got a good feel for their position. They were worried about their way of life. Period. Hunting, fishing, living off the land. That was their concern. That is why they were there and that is what they were fighting for. However, in the background scurrying amongst the protesters were what I would call "organizers". These organizers were the ones that came after me. Their job, evidently, was to shepherd the crowd about, keep tabs on what was being said and feed information about. In other words, they were controlling it. At least most of it - the Innu seemed quite independent and doing their own thing. Some people complained that Todd Russell was nowhere to be found unless a camera was there, and others were upset that the Grand Innu Chief said Nunatsiavut was simply looking for money by way of an Impacts and Benefits Agreement for the methylmercury poisoning. Mark me down as agreeing with her position on that one.

There is no question that the Nunatsiavut Government used the methylmercury issue, at the last moment, to try and strong arm the government for money (or an IBA as the Grand Chief of the Innu said). They tried to control every aspect of the protest, including criticizing the hunger strikers methods of protesting - which given its effectiveness and popularity was somewhat suspect. Their organizers on the ground shunned the idea of people camping in the flood zone which would have been a much more effective way to protest and stop flooding. A group of Innu finally took it upon themselves to do just that by setting up tents on the North Spur on Monday. Furthermore, the leader of the group of land protectors inside the Muskrat Falls camp was an Innu - David Nuke. From my perspective on the ground the Innu were the least boisterous, but most serious of the aboriginal groups in their opposition. It was evident.

Finally of course there were the "settlers", which basically encompasses anyone living in Labrador that isn't Aboriginal. They didn't get a voice at the table when Ball met with the Aboriginal leaders, yet some of them were the people that originally started the protest. By way of example, David Nuke was asked to give an inspirational speech to the original few protesters by a "settler". That one speech ended up getting him inspired enough to join and in many ways lead the group that entered the Muskrat Falls camp. The bottom-line for most protesters I spoke to was stopping the flooding so their way of life would not be ended. Most were extremely sincere. A few, it was obvious. were cheer leading more than believing.

Then disaster struck. With the backing of the country, and even encouraging statements from the Prime Minister (finally) that science must prevail, the three Aboriginal leaders met with Premier Ball. The result? Catastrophe for the people of Labrador. The flooding will proceed of the initial 25% of the reservoir. The promise? To drain that 25% in the spring if science dictates it should be done. This would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic. It is a known scientific fact that the moment the water becomes trapped in the reservoir, and begins interacting with the soil, that mercury is released from the soil and is converted to methylmercury. That's the science. It's pretty basic. The agreement these leaders agreed to was to unleash methylmercury into the river, and then "possibly" drain that area after the fact and remove the soil and trees. As if somehow there would be no poisoning of the river by these actions. It is bizarre. Here is the demands of the Nunatsiavut President 5 days before the "negotiations" started:

“Unless all vegetation and soil is removed the threat to our health, culture and way of life remains,” he says. “Nalcor should also be directed to delay plans to begin initial flooding of the reservoir (which would see water levels rise from 18 to 25 metres) to allow for the removal of trees, vegetation and topsoil. Initial flooding is expected to take place within days, and once you flood the land the damage has been done. There’s no turning back then.”

"There is no turning back then" His words, not mine, even though it is blatantly obvious to anyone with grade 12 science. Here is the link . Yet, after 12 hours of negotiation he completely capitulated. He wasn't the only one. The Innu and Nunatukavut leader did the same. The promise they received was a spot on an "advisory committee". Having served on an advisory committee federally I know that these committees do nothing more than give advice in the end - which can be totally ignored. Ball said as much when he admitted to the press that the government doesn't give up the power of decision making to advisory groups. Translation: We flood the reservoir exactly as we wanted; we'll think about maybe emptying it in the spring to clear all the soil and trees; and we'll look at what your advisory committee suggests for the rest of reservoir, but no promises as we'll make the final decision. In other words, all the people that protested, went on hunger strikes and generally put themselves out there (including getting arrested) wasted every moment of their time and energy in doing so. They were betrayed at the last minute when they knew their position was strong and determined.

There are only a few ways this scenario can go after this: more compliance or more protest. The people that live along the river, and in the area, will see the end of their way of life unless they want to risk being poisoned. The Aboriginal leaders will have their little advisory committee and no doubt dollars to fund their own contributions to it. The settlers will be stuck in their usual position - afraid to raise objections for fear of being tagged as meddling at best or racist at the worse. Either way, this is the end of something beautiful that Labrador had to offer its people, and others from around world. This is Labrador down.

Why Trump Won

America is black and white - it's not red, white and blue. Unless you understand that very crucial foundation you will never understand what's happening there right now. In America, you are a winner or you're a loser. There is no soft, squishy middle ground. There is no "oh he came so close". You either win or you don't. Even if it's by one point, a win is a win. That is America. That is crucial to understanding why Trump has been winning and why he won the US Presidential debate last night.

Since Trump began his journey in politics he has been sniped by the US media incessantly. He has been probably the most character assassinated politician in US history - or at least recent history. When he ran for the Republican nomination he was singled out by the media and the Republican establishment. Almost every month, sometimes less, a "great white hope" would be thrown up as a sacrificial lamb to challenge him with the desperate hope that one could stop him from attaining the nomination. The media fed off it, and yes most certainly fanned it throughout. Yet, Trump won the nomination despite all of it.

Now he's onto the presidential race, and it's a bit of deja vu. Except, this time around, there is one not interchangeable opponent - although the establishment has been desperately arguing for Trump to be replaced. As each week, now day, that passes the political establishment of the US gets obviously desperate to stop Trump. That "establishment" crosses party lines by the way - in case you thought it didn't. A good example is the Republican Speaker of the House who has tried to knee cap Trump from within since day one. All very public of course. Then there are the representatives publicly pulling themselves away from supporting him. And then there is the Republican business types. And so it goes.

What the establishment seems to be missing in the whole equation is that throughout this two year long, historically unprecedented character assassination of the man, his polling numbers have stayed firm. As it stands now, depending on which poll you believe, Trump is within five percent of Clinton. That is really quite extraordinary considering the massive media and political resources that have gone into degrading the man publicly. It is that extraordinary result that speaks to a deeper, darker truth about America today - the country is at war with itself.

More specifically, the majority of Americans are turning on their political and business establishment - sometimes referred to as the "1%". The last decade has seen the fall of confidence in almost everything considered "American" by the US public. The fall, manipulation and dishonesty of the stock markets. The massive growth of the US debt. The housing bubble that destroyed so many lives. Wars in the Middle East that have killed and maimed thousands of Americans, and show no sign of relenting despite being hopeless. Viewed through the black and white glasses of the average American their system is falling in upon itself - which it is.

The big question in their minds becomes: "who is to blame". The answer has become the establishment. The 1% if you will. The people who lined their own pockets for all it was worth, broke every rule to do it, and then sailed away without penalty. The people who over saw their friends doing it and either assisted them, or turned a blind eye faking ignorance when caught out. This has become America. Americans see it to. They know Snowden was telling them the truth now about mass surveillance. They know Assange was giving them the truth as his organization leaked email after email of the "establishment looking after the establishment". And now the age of social media has changed where people get their information from. They've seen how the CNN's of the world have fed them spoon after spoon of spin, so now they've turned in big numbers to the internet to educate themselves.

Not only is the US establishment losing control on its grip of power, but the US media is rapidly losing its power to influence. All a result of breaking the simple rule: "Use power, but abuse it and lose it." It's a simple truth that still holds all to true. That's where Trump comes in. Now Trump is no angel - far from it. For starters he needs to drop the whole "Mussolini face" that he constantly projects on TV (ditto for his sons). Mussolini was strung up on a lamp pole by the masses, so if he wants to be the man of the masses he needs to hold his chin and gaze level. But I'm getting side tracked.

Trump has become the Captain of the anti-establishment movement in the US. He was never really a Republican (whatever that is) in the first place. He smartly realized that as an independent he had no hope of success in an election, so that brand was needed to get him in the race, and it did. Now he has the brand, and it can't be pulled away, he can be the independent he always was. It is that "independent" position that will endear him to, guess who - independents. That's the swing vote that wins you a US election. As America reals against its establishment Trump floats with it. "Just words folks. Just words" is the famous line. Or at least it should be, because each time he says it the American people remember how many times they've been given "just words" just to see it come to nothing. Here's three words that should jog your memory: "Yes we can!". And so it goes.

George Bush used to say: "don't piss on my boots and tell me it's raining". That's exactly where the American people are today. All Trump is doing is telling them they're right to feel that way. The more the Democrats, and their establishment buddies in the Republicans or in business hit at Trump they are really hitting at those Americans that think exactly the way he does.


I've seen this movie before, just on a smaller scale. I've been in breakfast meetings with senior Conservative backroom boys (and girls) when they would go on and on how they simply could not understand why Brian Mulroney was hated so much by the people as Prime Minister. It didn't matter how much you tried to enlighten them, which really shouldn't have been necessary, they just couldn't see it. I suppose there are none so blind as those that refuse to see. The ones that utter: "let them eat cake", or the ones that ignore four sexually abused women sitting right in front of them. Indeed, that is why Trump won the debate, and that's why he will win the November election.

BREAKING: Don Dunphy Public Inquiry Terms of Reference

HERE is the Terms of Reference for the public inquiry into the killing of Don Dunphy at the hands of Sgt. Joe Smyth of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary - acting as the Premiers personal security. My opinion is the terms of reference appear to be excellent and do not restrict a thorough investigation of all aspects of this tragedy - which the government should be commended for:

NLIS 10

Justice and Public Safety

September 30, 2016

The following is being distributed at the request of the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald Dunphy:

Co-Counsel Appointed for Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald Dunphy

Sandra. R. Chaytor, QC, and Kate O’Brien have been appointed as co-counsel for the Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald Dunphy, the Honourable Justice Leo Barry, Commissioner of the Inquiry, announced today.

Ms. Chaytor was admitted to the Bar of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1989 having completed a Bachelor of Arts degree at Memorial University in 1985 and having obtained her LL.B from Osgoode Hall Law School in 1988. She was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 2007, the same year she was appointed co-counsel to the Commission of Inquiry on Hormone Receptor Testing, an inquiry in Newfoundland and Labrador which investigated errors in breast cancer testing. In 2010, she was appointed a Master and Taxing Officer of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador. Ms. Chaytor is Deputy Managing partner of the St. John’s office of Cox & Palmer where her primary area of practice is litigation. She has presented cases at all levels of court within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Ms. O’Brien was admitted to the Bar of Ontario in 2003 and the Bar of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2004 having obtained her LL.B. from the University of British Columbia in 2002. She completed a Bachelors of Engineering from Memorial University in 1996. Ms. O’Brien is a partner at the law firm of O’Brien White where she provides a range of legal services to individuals and businesses. She is an experienced litigator and has appeared at all levels of court in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Commission of Inquiry Respecting the Death of Donald Dunphy was established by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on September 23, 2016, in accordance with Part 1 of the Public Inquiries Act, 2006. The Terms of Reference for the inquiry are as follows:

1. The commission of inquiry shall

       (a) inquire into the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Donald Dunphy, including

             (i) the date, time and place of his death, 

            (ii) the cause of his death, and

            (iii) the manner of his death;

       (b) inquire into the reason why a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer attended upon Mr. Dunphy on the day of his death, including whether or not the officer was directed to do so, and if so directed, by whom and for what objective;

       (c) ascertain what information provided the basis for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer's attendance upon Mr. Dunphy on the day of his death, and the reliability, interpretation, evaluation, transmission and dissemination of that information;

       (d) inquire into why the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer who attended upon Mr. Dunphy on the day of his death did so in an area of Royal Canadian Mounted Police jurisdiction, the criteria applied in reaching the decision to do so and the objective for the decision;

       (e) inquire into the facts surrounding the command, control and implementation of any relevant police operation on the day of Mr. Dunphy's death, the actions of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer during the operation and the actions of any other Royal Newfoundland Constabulary or Royal Canadian Mounted Police officers involved both before and after Mr. Dunphy's death;

        (f) inquire into the circumstances under which the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officer who fired the fatal shot or shots on the day of Mr. Dunphy's death came to discharge his weapon;

       (g) inquire into whether the relevant use of force protocols were properly adhered to in the circumstance of Mr. Dunphy's death;

       (h) inquire into the relevant policies, protocols or manuals in force at the material time in either the Office of the Premier or the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, including particularly any policies, protocols or manuals relating to

             (i) the security of the Premier and Cabinet Ministers, 

            (ii) the monitoring of and response to social media, and

            (iii) with respect to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, policies, protocols or manuals governing communications by members with the public or the media following serious incidents and during active investigations;

1. inquire whether Mr. Dunphy's use of social media had any role in the circumstances of his death;
   
           (j) ascertain whether there were any material deficiencies in the investigation into Mr. Dunphy's death; and
   
          (k)         in accordance with section 4, make recommendations that the commission of inquiry considers necessary and advisable relating directly to the matters of public concern referred to in this section.

1. The commission of inquiry, in carrying out the terms of reference referred to in subsection (1), shall consider the following:

       (a) the need to maintain public confidence in law and order;

       (b) the need to protect fundamental rights of citizens;

       (c) the powers, duties and responsibilities of police; and

       (d) the need to ensure the safety of police officers in the execution of their duties.

The commission of inquiry shall not express any conclusion or recommendation regarding the civil or criminal responsibility of any person or organization.

The commission of inquiry shall terminate its work and deliver the final report to the Minister of Justice and Public Safety, who shall be the minister responsible for the commission of inquiry, before July 1, 2017.

Further details will be provided in the coming weeks in relation to the commission office, as well as a Notice of Hearings for Standing and Funding.

- 30 -

Media contact:

Diane Blackmore

Chief Administrative Officer

709-729-0403 (as of October 4, 2016)

709-738-7800 (c/o Cox & Palmer)

2016 09 30                                          3:40 p.m.

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.