Economic Implosion for Newfoundland and Labrador

It's not news to anyone that Newfoundland and Labrador is in a complete financial collapse. 2003 rang in the era of reaping rewards from the oil industry for the province, but it wasn't long before a new industry, fracking, was revolutionizing the oil industry in the United States - a revolution that is still reverberating through international oil markets and alliances. In any case, the province had ten years to reap what it could before the fracking revolution really kicked off in 2013. The graph below helps show that era:

As you can see, from 1998 until 2007 the province's production was greater than the value created by those barrels. In 2008 production and value finally met, then in 2009-2010 production was again greater than value, but from 2011 until 2014 the province really reaped a massive windfall from its production. Oil's value vs production petered out after 2014 and remains that way to this day. The nuts and bolts of it is that out of 22 years of oil production, the province had only 5 years where we made money on oil by its pure value over simply producing as many barrels as possible.

All that seems a little academic now though. Upwards of $3 billion of that money the government managed to save in the bank was spent as its share of the Muskrat Falls project. The remainder was blown and no provincial rainy day fund was created. In fact, people like Danny Williams and Kathy Dunderdale often said that Muskrat Falls was that rainy day fund, and that just seems outright scary at this point. Nonetheless, given that oil's best days have come and gone, where are we left today?

Some facts:            18%     of the budget is funded by oil revenue

                               49%     of the budget is funded by taxpayers income tax, sales tax,
                                           booze and smokes revenue

                               4.3%    of the budget is funded by corporate tax

                               18%     of the budget is funded by the federal government

That's the nuts and bolts of it. The average working person in the province and oil (a distant second) pay most of the place's bills.  A real eye opener should be the measly 4.3% corporations in the province contribute to the well being of the bottom line. Another, perhaps more ominous number is 20%. That's the amount that the province must pay on every dollar it makes to service its debt annually.

All these numbers would be enough on their own to paint a foreboding financial picture, but it gets worse - much worse. The key for the province is that 18% of oil revenue, because that revenue actually represents new wealth rather than simply recycled money. It allows the government to pay for the roughly 30% of the province's work force that it employs. Newfoundland and Labrador's 2019 budget pegged oil at $65 a barrel, but then revised it to $63. Either way, the province pretty much hit the market price and its budgeted revenue was for the most part in tact.

However, and its a huge however, once again international strategic events have blind sided the government's best laid plans. The advent of the US fracking revolution created a massive strategic shift in the control of international oil markets - specifically market share. Initially the US essentially satisfied its own oil needs, but as its fracking industry grew the US became an exporter of oil for the first time in history. It was no longer dependent on the Middle East for oil. Now, it can be easily argued, it has used its military and covert forces to knock other players out of the market to make room for its own product. Major oil producing countries like Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Syria, Sudan and even Iraq have been partially or completely removed from the oil market place. Even Russia, until fracking the largest oil producer in the world, has been targeted by US sanctions and attempts to wrestle its market share from Europe.

On March 6, 2020, Russia and Saudi Arabia decided to start an oil war. The story goes that Saudi wanted Russia to sign off on a three year production agreement that would limit each country's oil production - even further than it had already been cut. Russia backed away from that so Saudi opened the valve and promised to flood the markets, bringing Russia to its knees in the process. Russia, especially Putin the judo master, likely saw an opportunity to starve US oil companies by killing their stock values and driving them out of the markets. While all this plays out, innocent bystanders like Canada have seen their own domestic oil industries crippled in the cross fire, and by ricochet, their budgets. While this province escaped 2019 with a break even oil projection of $63 a barrel, it won't be as lucky in 2020. The graph below gives a sense of oil prices for the first quarter of 2020:

Newfoundland and Labrador's stated budget price for oil this year is $65 a barrel (US). As you can see on the graph above, oil was already falling from that point by mid January. Much of the decrease can be attributed to the corona virus outbreak in China, which resulted in oil demand from the world's largest oil importer drying up. The price continued to get worse as things got worse in China, then globally. Then, on March 6, the bottom fell right out as Russia and the Saudis threw in the towel. The market has been trying to find its bottom ever since.

The cost for the province is potentially catastrophic. The average price of oil for the first three months of this year was $51.73 per barrel (US). If oil recovers to a consistent level around $50.00 a barrel the hit to the treasury will be about $300 million. Unfortunately, as bad as that would be, there is no reason to expect either Saudi or Russia will pull back in this market share battle. If oil settles at $30.00 a barrel for the rest of fiscal 2020, the treasury will lose $600 million dollars. For perspective, the province budgeted oil revenue of  $1.09 billion, in other words the government will receive a mere $400 million or about 40% of what it had budgeted for. If, as many analysts have suggested, the price of oil drops to $25 a barrel and remains there, the hit to Newfoundland and Labrador's budget will be a striking $670 million leaving the province with a mere $300 million to fund 18% of its budget for fiscal 2020. It must be remembered that Russian President Putin has stated publicly Russia can withstand a $25 per barrel price for at least 6 years, and lower if necessary.

Now lets turn the page on oil for a moment, and focus on the Coronavirus pandemic's effect on the economy, and therefore budget. The most conservative projections in Canada place the country in a three month shut down. Many others are putting it at four to five months - likely dependent on how bad the pandemic ravages the US. Those will impact the budget:

Scenario One:

The Newfoundland economy shuts down for 3 months, and takes 2 months to regain normalcy. The government will lose in every category of its budgeted revenue. Everything from mining royalties to personal income taxes, and all areas in between. The potential direct cost is in the vicinity of $809 million (cdn), or a 13% loss in budgeted revenue for 2020. Once combine with a $30 per barrel price for oil, the combined loss to the budget will be about 1.5 billion (CDN). Some of that will be slightly offset by the fact Newfoundland and Labrador receives its oil funds based on US dollars - but not a lot. Given the province's budget for 2020 had already pegged a deficit of $1.1 billion, a new deficit projection of $2.6 billion would not be out of the question.

Scenario Two:

The Newfoundland economy shuts down for 4 months, and takes 2 months to regain normalcy. The budgetary losses will be in the vicinity of $869 million, or a 14% budget loss. The combined loss, oil revenue included, is about $1.6 billion, or a total budgetary deficit of  $2.7 billion.

And so it goes.

None of these figures address business losses, or the compensation they may receive for those losses, or what form that compensation will take (ie: loan vs grant), or even whether or not the compensation will be taxable. It does not address the economic costs of closing the tourist industry, or potentially the fishing/processing industry. They don't reflect the costs in interest and financing of shutting down the completion of the Muskrat Falls project. It goes on and on. Bottom line, for a place that was already expecting a terrible financial year, with a preexisting $1.1 billion deficit projection, an oil war and pandemic are especially devastating. Newfoundland and Labrador risks a complete financial collapse from these turbulent times and, perhaps even more deadly for the province, a new 1980's ish exodus of people escaping a doomed ship - so to speak.

It all sounds very negative, but people need to know the truth of what they and their families are facing. Premier Ball said Newfoundland and Labrador is facing a financial crisis once the pandemic crisis is over. He wasn't kidding folks. Reality bites and this will be one hell of a bite. God guard thee Newfoundland and Labrador.
 

The Coronation of Andrew Furey - Part 2, Brendan Paddick

1986 was a defining year in the province's cable history. Prior to 1986 there were a number of scattered cable companies all over the island of Newfoundland. Everyone is familiar with former Premier Danny Williams involvement in those early days, but there were others. On May 13, 1986 the CTRC brought down its decision on which one of four cable companies would control cable vision in rural Newfoundland. Danny Williams' company Eastern Cable was in the bidding. So were Shellbird Cable (formerly Western Cablevision of Corner Brook), Central Cable and N1 Cable. HPhil Keeping, N1's founder, and personal mentor to twenty something Paddick, succeeded in convincing the CRTC to grant his company the coveted licence.

Shortly after that fateful decision, Williams' Atlantic Cable bought all the losing companies except N1. A young Brendan Paddick, fresh  from MUN's commerce program, was hired by Keeping to sell N1 to the collection of towns and villages granted to him by the CTRC. During an interview with Atlantic Magazine, Paddick opined on the old days, but his tale also tells us something about him:

"As a salesman for N1, whose business model was to build a rural cable TV network where there wasn't one, I knocked on the doors of literally every home in 151 towns. That was thousands of doors. I knowm people used to look at me and say, 'Well, now, look there's Paddick with a business degree no less, going door-to-door, couldn't find a real job.' But, you know what? In my first year oof doing that, I made about $150,000. Of course, I kept it very quiet..."

The camera pans back to the young door-knocker and his homemaker customer. Remember, he tells her, to stick her yellow copy of the cable work order in the window facing the road. That way, when the technician rolls by later, he'll know which house he's supposed to service. After all, he laughs, street numbers in these rural towns can be hard to find.
'The next thing I knew,' he says, 'is I'd have kids stopping me in the street saying, Mom wants one of those yellow things for her window. It had nothing to do with cable. It was pure peer pressure. Before I knew it, there was this groundswell. They all wanted yellow slips for their windows."

What these statements say, at least to this author, is that Paddick is an aggressive, motivated, manipulative, and ruthlessly determined individual whose primary focus is making money and using the basest means to do it. As he says:"It had nothing to do with cable. It was pure peer pressure," and "Of course, I kept it very quiet". Remember those comments for later.

Despite the aggressive expansion of its business, and re-branding to Regional Communications, the company was having great difficulty in remaining in business. It was not meeting all its debt obligations, and Paddick managed to talk the Board into allowing him to become the company's new president when the original gave his notice.

Then, in 1991, a truly fortuitous moment happened in Paddick's life - he met Wayne Myles. At the time Paddick was running his own company named Research Associates, a market research company. Myles approached Paddick to join the Board of the Victorian Order of Nurses (Myles Chaired the Board - More on Myles the Rotarian in the next part of this series). Once Paddick agreed. Myles became involved in his life helping him to negotiate a concession package, and restructure of the debt of Regional Communications. This allowed for the rebranding of Regional Communications to Persona Communications - as most people are familiar with it. Persona continued on with varying degrees of success until it went public in 1998. After the IPO Paddick became President of Persona.

Myles describes it:
"When he became CEO, we did a number of complex deals for them...in my firm which was then known as Benson Myles. So we did work for Persona across Canada and established a fairly deep relationship with him and his team."

In 2001, Myles hooked up with John Risley (much more on him in next parts), owner of ClearWater Seafoods. At the time, Risley was attempting to take control of FPI, but the Newfoundland government (Brian Tobin) would not give control of more than 15% of the company to any non-Newfoundland entity. The solution was to place Paddick as a Board member. Risley was then successful, on his second attempt, to take over FPI. After that time Myles, Risley and Paddick collaborated in each others' business:" Risley as an investor in Persona; Paddick as a board member of the Risley-founded Clearwater Seafoods public company; and Myles as legal strategist for both."

In 2002, as President of Persona, Paddick purchased a 25% share in Cable Bahamas from his old mentor Phil Keeping. As the Globe and mail noted, in 2002, Paddick did quite well by his new acquisition:
"A walking tour through Persona's management proxy circular and assorted financial statements presents a few curious tourist attractions. Here's one: Brendan Paddick, Persona president, is the happy recipient of a $1.1 million (US), interest free loan. The money, according to the proxy, was used "to finance the purchase of his new personal residence. And where is the new residence? In the Bahamas, lucky him."

By 2003 Paddick faced  a shareholders revolt over his Caribbean wanderings - they accused him of not being focused on Persona's core operations. So, in 2004, Paddick agreed to sell Persona to a group of wealth funds fronted by Dean MacDonald. The wealth fund that purchased Persona could not, however, own holdings outside of North America, so Persona's interest in Cable Bahama became immediately available. Paddick scrambled to buy it before anyone else moved in. He personally did not have the money to purchase it, but his friend John Risley did. As Risley put it:
"We had decided what our launch had to be. We originally thought it (Cable Bahamas) carried a price tag of US $35 million. At a dinner in Toronto, it became apparent that it was going to be US $50 million, and I went home angry and disappointed. Brendan told it was 50 or we weren't going to get going, so I agreed."

According to Paddick:
"Risley actually wired US $50 million to my personal chequing account in the Bahamas without a piece of paper, a demand note or a lawyer involved. We closed the deal after regulatory approvals in February 2005 and the rest is history."

By that same year, despite a seven year rule for citizenship in Barbados, Paddick was a Barbados citizen. Also in that year, Paddick and Risley had run out of their own money after buying the Cable Company of Trinidad and Tobago. Hankering back to his early door-to-door, dogged, pavement-walking days, Paddick and Risley tried to raise funds in New York, but failed. As providence would have it, or just good intelligence, billionaire Michael Lee-Chin and Michael Dell (Dell Computer) came to their rescue. They paid $130 million for a sub sea cable network called New World Networks, which became Columbus Networks. Over the years of purchasing, amalgamating, and selling cable companies in the Caribbean, Paddick established 30 corporations through a law firm owned by one Andrew V Thornhill in Barbados. The disclosure  of these tax haven accounts was made as part of the giant leak of tax haven accounts collectively known as the "Paradise Papers" to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. For your information, the 30 accounts and their details can be read here:

https://offshoreleaks.icij.org/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=paddick&e=&commit=Search

It is unclear whether or not any of Paddick's businesses or income have paid any taxes in Canada, and specifically Newfoundland and Labrador, in ages. He remains a citizen of Barbados, and his income fund remains there too.

In November, 2016, Brendan Paddick was named Chair of Nalcor Energy, despite having no background in utilities or mega projects, other than being the "cable guy".

Exactly six months later, Wayne Myles, lawyer, chief connector with a large empire of his own, was named as Chair of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation.

The next part in this series will focus on John Risley, Wayne Myles, Mark Dobbin with a few others, and their ties to Doctor Andrew Furey. The alarming agenda behind the coronation of Andrew Furey.

The Coronation of Andrew Furey - Part One

Doctor Andrew Furey, son of Senator Furey (Chair of the Senate of Canada), Surgeon, Philanthropist, humanitarian, and family man. Have I missed anything? This is how Furey is being sold to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and all of it is true to one degree or another. However, and it's the biggest however I can give you, that is only one side of Andrew Furey. The other side of Furey, the one that is driving his coronation as Liberal leader and therefore Premier, couldn't be more different. That side of Furey is all business, friends in business, and back room wheeling and dealing. The two seem impossible to reconcile on the face of it, but facts don't lie.

To understand the backroom deal made to bring Furey in as Premier you have to understand that in the realm of the backroom. or the darker side of politics shall we say, there exists a schedule. When a person such as Furey "suddenly" emerges onto the scene, and has this sudden swell of support, you need to understand that it is not spontaneous. It involves years of grooming and positioning by handlers and fixers. Anyone remotely close to Furey's position has both - normally close to their inner circle. They also have financial backers to pay for organizing it all, and to fix those problems that come up along the way. Furey has these folks, and in the following parts to this expose I will be laying them out in detail for the people of the province.

Another important fact to remember is that the soil which has fed the political and business roots of Furey's life has been supplied by his father - Senator George Furey. In itself, there is nothing wrong with that, and all of us might hope our Dad would do the same for us. However, in the context of the rise of Andrew Furey, and the business interests that he has surrounded himself with, it is important to note that his father has been in the general area, so to speak.

All of that generally brings us to the backroom dealings to bring Furey into the Premiership of the province. Without getting into too much detail in this part of the expose, suffice it to say several clues were put out there to show people what happened. The first thing you need to understand is that backroom deals appointing Premier are across party lines - ie: in this case the backroom of the PC Party has decided to throw Ches Crosby on the proverbial pitchfork, and the PCs will be relegated to opposition with a caretaker leader - as per the schedule.

The first clue a move was under foot, from the general public's perspective, was the decision by the Liberal government not to proceed with a public inquiry into the Humber Valley Paving scandal. Frank Coleman, who was at the time owner of the company, and anointed leader of the PC's (Premier in waiting actually), was a long-time business associate of not only Andrew Furey's father, but also Brendan Paddick, John Risley, Peter Woodward, Rex Anthony, and Danny Williams. Other major business people with links to Andrew Furey, and or his father, include people such as Paul Antle and especially Mark Dobbin (as you will see later). Here's a little taste of what's to come on this:

The Fish Merchants Battle For the PC Leadership
Rock Solid Politics, March 30, 2014,
https://rocksolidpolitics.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-fish-merchants-battle-for-pc.html

"
Coleman was educated as an economist. He was the senior economist for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro (before there was a Nalcor), and had a private consulting business known as Atlantic Consulting Economists Ltd. Strangely, he wrote a study in 1993 on the economic feasibility of the Trans Labrador Highway - which his company is now paving. But there are many more twists along this road.

It goes back to the fishery, strangely enough. Back to the days of FPI. FPI was a company formed by the provincial government from the assets of a number of failed fishing companies in 1984. Then, in 1987 under Premier Peckford, FPI was privatized. Previous to the privatization, a number of fishing corporations that were competitors to FPI put forward proposals to take it over, but the government wouldn't relax the rule of a maximum 15% ownership per entity. The predecessor to Iceland Group PLC was one of them. The Risley Group (Clear Water) was another. The proposals were refused by the government, and John Risely blamed the Williams government for meddling in the deal, and killing it. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/government-meddling-hastened-fpi-s-demise-risley-1.652838

In any case, Bill Barry of the Barry Group (the other PC leadership candidate) thought he had secured a deal to buy FPI's Newfoundland assets - so much so that it was made public:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/fpi-reaches-deal-to-sell-local-operations/article676850/ 

But, the Williams' government didn't go with Mr. Barry. Instead, the assets were sold off to Ocean Choice International which was owned by Ches Penney of the Penney Group. National media were so perplexed by Penney's move that they speculated he could be the front man for an Icelandic company: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/who-is-this-guy-and-whys-he-investing-in-fish/article1077331/
The other successful bidder was High Liner Foods Inc of Nova Scotia - which bought a plant and FPI's US marketing arm.

What was left of FPI became FP Resources Ltd. (FPR) FPR's membership is a who's who of the Newfoundland and Labrador business establishment : Peter Woodward (Woodward Group); Rex Anthony (Anthony Group); Frank Coleman (Coleman Group); and previous members John Crosby and George Furey. International players are: Iceland Group PLC; Glitner Banki hf (recently stripped of its bank status in Iceland and in the midst of serious issues); Eric Barratt (Sanford Limited New Zealand); and Randy Bishop (Whitecap International Seafood Exporters). John Risely and his Risely Group of Nova Scotia round out the list.

FP Resources took its cash from the fishery and began investing in the Caribbean. Specifically it began investing in a company called CFFI Venture (Barbados) Inc. (CFFI). CFFI in turn invested in Columbus Communications Ltd, a privately owned telecommunications company that provides retail, cable and internet services to Jamaica, the Bahamas, Trinidad and Grenada, and broadband connectivity to Caribbean countries.  Columbus is run by Newfoundlander Brendan Paddick. He was also the CEO of Persona Communications, which some of you may remember being at the centre of a $15 million contract controversy (Williams' government gave Persona an untendered  $15 million contract to deliver cable services to Labrador). http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/tax-dollars-boosted-persona-for-sale-reid-says-1.678159 "

By dropping the judicial/public inquiry into Coleman and his company, the Liberals signaled a deal had been done. Within a week Dwight Ball resigned as Premier. The media in the province is spinning Ball's departure as an uprising within the caucus against Ball. The truth is that certain cabinet ministers within the caucus, acting in conjunction (more or less orders) with the backroom, deliberately undermined Ball to make room for Furey. Furthermore, there is evidence the federal Liberal party is up to its neck in the Furey coronation (later in parts to come). Suffice it to say that the political/business establishment is behind the "sudden rise" of Andrew Furey.

It is also evident that once Furey is made leader of the Liberal Party (officially), and Premier (officially), that he will call a summer election. The first clue for this is the temporary spending bill just passed in the House of Assembly that funds the government until June. The second clue is that Furey will be an un-elected Premier, which has never happened in the province's history, and therefore its a good excuse to call an election so he can "have a mandate, blah, blah...". You get the idea.

Other signs to look for:

1. The media, especially the CBC, spinning stories that make Ches Crosbie look bad or ineffectual;

2.  Media, or Liberal spinners (yes, like you Lori Ann Oates), stressing the need for a new economy in the province based on technology rather than resources (as if the place doesn't need every single cent it can squeeze from any rock available...)

3.  Key words like "transformational"and "generational" and "fundamental" "change" coming from the media, business, and/or previously mentioned shills. These words are a clue to what Furey and his business backers/friends have in store for the province. They're trying to get people thinking along those lines before they bring in their plans;

4.  A heavy emphasis on the state of the economy and the desperate need to act - to create fear in the public, and condition them for saving solution; and

4.  Marginalizing of critics publicly.

These are some of the things you can expect. There may well be others for the same purpose. The important thing for you to know, as a Newfoundlander and Labradorean, is that you are being played yet again by the business elite of the province - as disgusting as that is. Muskrat Falls made some in the business community very rich. They took what little money you had, and then they mortgaged you for generations, but they got their piece. Now they are about to do it again. This time it will involve technology. The "transformation" that Furey referred to in his opening address has to do with digitizing the province, artificial intelligence, and selling people's genetic information - most notably to an American corporation. All the players mentioned above have a hand in it. Most have formed corporations to profit from it. It's happening exactly the same way Muskrat Falls happened: an arranged political coronation that has at its core people with vested interests that will cost the people of the province whatever they might have left.

The parts coming up in this expose will be the detailed breakdown of the business people involved in this "transformation", their relationship to Andrew/George Furey, and the detailed breakdown of the corporations and organizations they have established over the last decade to get ready for this moment. You've been warned. Be vigilant. Be informed. Let others know the truth. If you question whether I'm telling you the truth ask yourself this: "Was he telling us the truth about Muskrat Falls?"

Newfoundland and Labrador needs Crosby

Newfoundland is in a state. It had a very brief period of oil fueled hysteria, and then, as they say in Newfoundland: "the bottom fell outa her". It was sad really. Of course, the collapse of oil prices didn't just single out Newfoundland for financial mayhem - see Alberta, Libya, Iraq, Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc. The difference really is that these other places had great oil prices for a long period before the collapse, and were able to better sustain a price collapse. So, with a series of very poor financial decisions (see Muskrat Falls as an example), the collapse of the oil industry, and the corruption that runs rampant in the province, Newfoundland is in desperate need of a change in governing - that change could be Ches Crosbie.

Ches Crosbie is a very thoughtful, very successful lawyer from St. John's (okay he's a townie and a lawyer … so we'll have to look past that). His family is one of the most influential and wealthy families in Newfoundland (okay, we'll have to look past that as well). The difference with Ches Crosbie is that he is not a flashy egotist. That is a major difference - more than you might think. He is a reasoned man, and that is exactly what Newfoundland needs at this time.

Because Newfoundland is a place of very concentrated wealth, and very wide spread poverty, the provincial government there is used as a wealth distribution vehicle rather than an instrument of considered decisions. It is incredibly knee-jerking. The population is very susceptible to patronage, and panics when it thinks it may be out of favour for that patronage - in other words there are so few crumbs they will bare knuckle fight for them. That's the way they've been played for hundreds of years by the small establishment there, and the same remains true today.

Current premier, Liberal Dwight Ball, has the very appearance of the slick used car salesman from the movie "Fargo". Slicked up hair, and cowboy boots with his suits. His approach has been shockingly similar. He promised 3 inquiries on incidents that were very important to the people but failed to deliver on two: the Coleman/Humber Valley Paving scandal; and the Burton Winters tragedy (ironically both tied to Labrador). He promised to review construction of the infamous Muskrat Falls hydro dam. He didn't. He promised to manage the project better, and at last count it was 120% over budget - which puts those corrupt African dam projects to shame at their measly 65% average. He promised a democratic reform program, and just like Trudeau federally he broke it without shame. The people have every reason to reject the Liberal Party in this election.

So who should they vote to replace the disappointing Liberals? Well the NDP and NL Alliance rump parties are not an option. Newfoundland only has 40 seats up for grabs, but neither party could muster even that tiny number of candidates - not even close at less then 30%. They are not an option, and quite frankly they are a waste of a vote - with all due respect to the men and women who were brave enough to put their names forward to carry the respective banners. In addition, and perhaps even more importantly, the federal Liberals are on their way out after the callosal SNC Lavalin scandal. Newfoundland likes to have a close relationship with the feds when it needs money (like now), and it's hard to see that relationship happening with a Conservative government in Otta, and a Ball government in St. John's. That leaves the PC Party.

However, the PC Party was really the initial author of Newfoundland's current misfortune. As a governing party during the ten years or so that Newfoundland enjoyed oil prosperity the party was infused with corruption and cronyism. It spent every single cent of oil money it made, every single cent of regular taxation funds it raised, and then borrowed massively on top of that - a tradition the Liberals carried on with when they took over. The real question remains did the PC Party learn its lesson? Did the PC Party reform itself internally? The answer may be Ches Crosbie.

Crosbie, after all, is not a man of unlimited charisma. He is not the fire breathing dragon of say a Danny Williams. He is not the smooth, smiley Tobin or Ball type. He is not even the force of nature type like his father was. He is in fact his own man. A man who appears to value reason and sober thought over flash and dash. He is an intelligent man in his own right. This is exactly the kind of man Newfoundland needs at the helm to navigate the seas of financial disasters facing Newfoundland now - and in the future. The only question remaining is whether or not the PC Party has learned its lesson, or is it simply waiting at the trough to take its turn. Given the choice, and keeping in mind the very poor governance record of the Liberals, the balance leans toward Crosbie and the PCs. Whatever the election this week results in, it is very unlikely to be a major win for either side. A small majority is likely. That being said, and if the polls are right, Crosbie will be the benefactor of that choice.
 

Newfoundland's Pied Piper - Premier Danny Williams

If you live long enough, especially in Newfoundland and Labrador, you will be a witness to great irony, tragedy and suffering. Such is the case of the Muskrat Falls hydro dam project's creator. Although Newfoundland was settled primarily by the English, during the potatoe famine of the early 1800's a large number of Irish came to the Island (my ancestors on my father's side included). Perhaps it is this Irish brush that paints the place in its melodramatic colours. Perhaps not. But, it is certainly an Irish tale that a lone piper lead all the children away by hypnotizing them with mystical notes from his pipe. The Pied Piper. This post is dedicated to the Pied Piper of Newfoundland - Danny Williams.

Now, because Williams is  known to sue the bejesus out of anyone who even suggests wrong doing on his part, myself included, let's just make the disclaimer that I'm not "insinuating, by innuendo or otherwise", that Williams plays a pipe or that he's Irish or that he leads children into the water to disappear. That's just a metaphor there Danny, so put your big boy pants back on, stop thrashing on the floor and stomping your feet. What I am most definitely saying is, that as Premier of this "sunny land", which ain't very sunny, Williams created the monster that is known to all as Muskrat Falls.

Of course "Muskrat Falls" is far more than just a point on the Churchill River. It's more than just a dam. It started with a series of bills created and passed by the Williams' government to create Nalcor as a corporation, and little beauties like the Water Management Agreement - to illegally take power from the Upper Churchill dam, which is controlled by Hydro Quebec. The stated goal was to make Newfoundlanders "Masters in their own house" … ah you can here that pipe singing now as the children line up one by one. Surely a Rhodes scholar (arts degree) and a distinguished lawyer (Dalhousie Law School), such as Williams could be trusted to know what he was doing the media and masses quipped. But, sadly, despite the deep unending strains of his pipes, he did not.

Seven years later, a project that was to cost $5 billion has now swelled into a sea of at least $12.7 billion - not unlike the Irish sea the children walked in to and disappeared. However, unlike the piper of lore, this piper will have to answer for his deeds. There is now a public inquiry being held in Newfoundland, and this Monday the Pied Piper of Newfoundland will be starting his testimony. Unlike his Irish predecessor, Williams will have to explain his deeds as Premier. It's unlikely that he will piously apologize for leading the child to the sea. What we are more likely to witness is an indignant old man, possibly in a "Kavaunghaesk" performance, lash out at those to small minded to see his grand vision.

What ever the case may be, you can be sure that somewhere, nestled away with a warm cup of coffee, there will at least one person who would not walk into the sea, smiling to himself. It's probably the same person who had been threatened with personal destruction, including that of his name. Ah, the delicious irony in that.

 

Trump is not Stupid

It's fashionable, even expected, to pour scorn on the current President of the United States - Donald Trump. Of course, he brings It upon himself with his unmatched egotistical meanderings. That being said, there is a definite method behind his madness that eludes most political commentators. What Trump is very deliberately doing, albeit from many different directions, is attacking China's attempt to replace the United States as the preeminent economy with the world's new reserve currency.

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, China has taken a different tact in its march to world supremacy - the economic route. It transformed itself from an insulated and agrarian society to essentially a quasi-capitalistic sweat shop. For decades the Chinese people slaved in factories to produce the cheapest possible products for primarily American multi-nationals. America became almost deindustrialized as a result. However, the American services economy grew exponentially as a result of cheap Chinese imports. It looked like a win-win for the US and Chinese economies.

However, the Chinese government saved a substantial amount of the funds it earned at the hands of its citizens, and reinvested the funds in US real estate, stocks, bonds and currencies. It did the same in many other countries in the world as well. It has stocked up on massive quantities of gold to back its national currency. It has created its own version of the World Monetary Fund. To make a long story short, the Chinese used discipline to place themselves in the position to replace both the US dollar and the American economy as the primary economic pillars of the world today.

So great has the Chinese effort been, that it now can challenge the US dollar as the primary economic, political, and even military tool in the world. Just very recently China has concluded deals with Russia and Iran to purchase oil and other goods in their national currencies, excluding the US dollar as a necessity for trade. Even more perilous for the Us is China's ambition to create the same agreements throughout Asia, Africa, South America, and even Europe. In a nutshell, the American Empire is under direct threat by a "communist" country that has beat them at their own game. The solution? Change the game.

Enter Donald Trump. What the majority of the world seems to be missing is that Trump is not some lunatic fanning his ego with schizophrenic economic and military policies. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather, he is directing the disassembling of the world order the United States created, because they are losing their own game. His strategy is clear: isolate China by any means. Whether its fanciful deals to bribe North Korea's regime away from China's wing, threats of war against Venezuela's government, appeasing Russia to try and sway it away from Beijing, the result is the same: isolate China. By isolating China Trump hopes to stop China's ambitious "Belt and Road" project and stymie a Eurasian takeover of the world economy. It's that simple. Trump's speech in Poland in 2017 very clearly reinforces that belief:

"The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert it and destroy it?"

This was just a part of his "Churchillian-type" speech to the people of the West from the capital of Poland in 2017, but it raises some immediate and obvious questions: Is there a threat to the survival of the West that we are unaware of; is it necessary to defend them at "any cost"; and is our civilization under immediate threat of extinction? You could be forgiven for thinking these words were some kind of attempt by Trump to sound Churchillian or Kennedy-like in the depths of the Cold War, but the truth is we aren't in the depth of a Cold War are we? At least not one we are aware of in any case. What we are in is the final stages of American dominance of global affairs using economic tools to foist itself upon the peoples of the world. So if that qualifies as the end of civilization, well, then I suppose we are almost there.

The truth is, like any other politician, Trump is the front man for those in the back ground, or "backroom" as we say here in Canada. It's worth noting that at one point or another his entire cabinet seems to reflect every branch of the US military. It's also worth noting that he threatens countries with maximum consequences, but holds out credence for those that follow his line. So it has been worth watching as he pursues a trade war with China, despite China's attempts to placate him. China now appears to have learned the lesson that they are in fact the strategic target of the US, and as such Trump will go all the way with them. What we in the rest of the world need to understand about Trump is that he is not the "dotard" of the political realm, but rather a very deliberate person doing a very calculated thing, with every intention of taking it all the way. "All the way" means if the economic war does not bring China, and by ricochet Eurasia, to its knees then actual war will follow - "...at any cost?".

Trump is, as they say, dumb as a fox. While the world may be dazzled by his approach, it should not fail to see his aim. Trump, and specifically those behind Trump (read the US "Military Industrial Complex") aim to preserve US hegemony over the world, and to do so they must rip apart the current world order they built and replace it with another. So, belittle and scoff at Trump all you want, but be warned he is most definitely not the court jester you may imagine him to be.  

Israel Skating on Thin Ice

As we all know, criticizing the State of Israel is considered a dangerous practise. In fact, just today, the State of North Carolina made it a criminal offence to do so. So there you go. That being said, another qualifier is needed. The author has no issue with the Jewish religion or Jewish people in general. Firstly, it would an act of prejudice to lump all people of a group or religion together and cast them in the same light merely because they share a religion. Only the most racist and bigoted (Nazis as an example) would do so. I have friends who are Jewish. They don't live in Israel, so they aren't Israeli, but they are Jewish. This article is about the government of Israel, not about all the people in Israel, or about Jewish people in general.

The Israeli government and the Israeli military are, in a phrase, acting above the law. The "law" being those written and unwritten rules that separate humans from untamed beasts in the wild. During the last few months, in particular, Israel has committed mass violations of International Law: All UN Charters and their respective clauses guaranteeing the rights of refugees, civilians, and the basic rights of people; the Geneva Convention regarding targeted attacks on medical staff and civilians; and the statutes restraining State action banning crimes against humanity, and genocide. Simply put, Israel is now an outlaw state in the family of nations.

That being said, Israel has been getting away with these crimes against humanity because it has, over many decades, carefully influenced people in positions of power all over the world to "see things" from Israel's perspective, when in reality its actions against the Palestinians in particular ought to transcend even the most "influenced people's" bias. The slaughter of nearly 60 people in one day, and the maiming of 1200 more on that same day, was an act that will live in infamy.

The Israeli government's characterization of these victims as "terrorists" is both disgraceful and dangerous. It is disgraceful because it intimates those of any age, who throw themselves at a fence in protest (they had no weapons to use) can be classified as terrorists and summarily executed. It is dangerous for the same reason. Consider the precedent the State of Israel is setting for the rest of the world. Is it now okay for the nations of the world to set up machine guns and snipers at protest and mow down unarmed people? Even if those people are spurred on by another group which may have a darker intent? The answer is as obvious as the massacre that Israel executed against the Palestinian people - no, it's not acceptable.

The brutal massacre of unarmed civilians relates in some ways to the Israeli air strikes being conducted in Syria by the same source - the Israeli Army. The common threads are they both: break international law; they're done in the name of Israel's security; and Israel couldn't care less what the international community thinks. In a word, Israel has gone rogue. It now sits outside the family of nations. Certainly is totally supported by the United States government, although I venture not amongst a majority of the American people. It's also supported by Saudi Arabia, which just happens to be the biggest violator of individual human rights in the world, and, like Israel, is conducting an unsanctioned war against one of the poorest countries in the world - Yemen. Those are the countries Israel has locked up, and clearly Israel feels those are the countries it needs to lock up for support.

However, where is the rest of the world? Certainly Turkey, who has a blemished record on human rights all its own, has taken decisive, and in my opinion leadership worthy action against Israel by immediately recalling its ambassador to Israel, and sending Israel's' ambassador to Turkey packing. Turkey may be many things, but when it comes to defending the rights of peoples less able to defend themselves, especially Palestinians, Turkey can be counted on to be there. The European Union, to its credit, stood against the Americans at the UN and demanded an independent investigation. The Palestinian Authority itself took the strongest move, and the most effective move, by filing a complaint with the International Court of the Hague against Israel today. The Palestinian government only joined the International Court in 2015, and had been persuaded by the US not to file charges on previous occasions, however this time is different. This time the US has lost its influence with the Palestinians, and now Israel faces the prospect of an international war crimes trial - in my opinion well over due.

We simply cannot tolerate Israel, or any other country, committing wanton murder upon unarmed civilians as they protest. It is unacceptable to every value we hold as civilized people living in the 21rst century. In many ways it is incredible that a people so violated, and so persecuted by the Nazi regime of Germany would in turn persecute another in such a violent and indiscriminate way. It boggles the mind. One of the key lessons of the evil that was Nazi Germany surely is that barbarism against people, particularly identifiable (or unidentifiable) groups can never be allowed to happen again. The Palestinians are in every way deserving of this protection now. The Israeli people should know better. It is after all the primary responsibility of the Israeli people to confront their own government when it acts in such a brutal fashion. The international community must, and will, act as well, but surely the Israeli people won't stand for such inhumane treatment of a people already scattered to the four winds - it was not long ago the Jewish people were scattered to those same winds without a home of their own.

What is done is done now. The dead are buried. The thousands of wounded, from the last few weeks of protest, lie at home or in hospitals contemplating life ahead as amputees or orphans, or what have you. The Israeli Prime Minister stands defiantly in the face of the civilized world, his chin firmly in the wind (a lot like former Italian dictator Mussolini), as the Israeli Army continues to "operate freely" in the air space and on the ground in sovereign countries like Syria and Lebanon. Something has very much changed though this week. Israel's slaughter of the Palestinians has cost Israel any moral authority or high ground it thought it may have had. It is now under scrutiny. It may find itself as a war criminal in the Hague. It may find itself boycotted, or even sanctioned. Certainly its reputation will be down there with the Apartheid government of South Africa, or the murderous Croats, Serbs and Muslims from the former state of Yugoslavia who killed each other as if they were animals and not humans. This is the ground Israel now sits on. Perhaps not ground. Perhaps ice. Thin ice.  










  

Going To War With Russia

As sad, and painful, as it is to contemplate, let alone say, it appears the West is going to war with Russia. Yes Russia. The firing of US National Security Advisor McMaster today, and most significantly his replacement with John Bolton point to a direct confrontation against Iran. Bolton has always advocated war with Iran, but never really been in a position to make good on the threat. Now he has been invited to join US President Trump's cabinet - a cabinet already dominated by US Generals (for the most part retired). Trump now has what any clear analysis would point to - a war cabinet.

In a game of one-up-man-ship, UK Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has been blowing the proverbial bridges between Russia and the western world to pieces in the last several weeks with comments that have really been beyond the pale. He suggested that Russian President Putin was the person that gave the go ahead for the attempted assassination of a former Russian spy in England. He then absolutely blew that out of the water by claiming yesterday that holding the World Soccer Cup in Russia was akin to Hitler's 1936 Olympics. This last point I personally took huge exception to, because the fact is the 25 million or so Soviets that died actually fighting Hitler saved England fro German invasion - an invasion that England would have lost hands down. In truth, Johnson might just as well of accused modern day Israel of being a Nazi state. That's just how bizarre Johnson's attack on Russia was. And perhaps more importantly in the scheme of things, how incendiary the attack was.

What is becoming clear is that the US, and its western allies, are laying the groundwork for a massive war, perhaps a world war, with Eurasia and its allies in the Middle East. With the appointment of Bolton on the same day as Trump signed the first trade action against China (and he emphasized it was the first of many) the signs are very clear. The West is going to war with the East. The likely initial targets are Syria, and Iran. Any attack on Iran is a declaration of war on Russia. Iran after all is not just an important ally to Russia, but it sits right on the border with Russia. In other words, Russia would be pulled into such a war out of self-defence if for no other reason.

Bearing Russia's position in mind, think back to last week when Russia announced a number of new generation weapons it stated were untouchable by Western anti-missile capabilities. It is quite obvious that Russia is attempting to dissuade the West from its intended push against one of Russia's most strategic interests - Iran. It's also quite evident from Trump's gestures today that he is completely unmoved by Russia's message. That can only mean one thing - we are going to war. When I say we, I mean the West. As someone who has served, and the son of a World War II veteran I am disgusted by Western aggression toward Eurasia. Yes, I said Western aggression. Have a look around at all the conflicts going on. They're all going on around Russia's or China's backyard - not so much in the West...

Nobody knows for certain how this will play its deadly hand out. One thing is for certain, scrapping of the Iran Nuclear Agreement appears imminent. Also, a reigniting of the Saudi/Iran conflict is sure to follow. The West will need an easily understandable excuse to attack Iran, and that can only be one of three things really: an attack on Israel; coming to the aid of Saudi; or a North Korea style action against Iran having a nuclear weapon once the aforementioned agreement is unilaterally cancelled.

This won't be a picnic for the West though. Leave a direct conflict with Russia and China out of the equation for the moment. Consider that a Saudi/Iran conflict, or an Israeli/Iran conflict would have the affect of tripling oil prices over night. Then consider a massive sell off on the stock market. Factor in the US Federal Reserves increases in its over night lending rates. All these things, and quite a few economic problems not mentioned here, would plummet the Western economies into a cataclysmic spiral. The markets are very jittery as it is, sensing as they do that things have gone quite far off the tracks. Many people have said to me that such an economic collapse would cause Eurasia to fall as well, but I always answer that statement like this: "Remember in 2008 when the market collapsed? China sent 250 million people home to their villages, without a job, and that was that. There was no revolt, or any social turmoil. If that happened in the US or any Western economy, there would be civil insurrection almost over night. Therein lies the difference. While China would be hurt, it can sustain the blow. The Western world cannot. In other words, a war of economic attrition."

I don't know if there is anything the ordinary citizen can do to forestall this madness - as one American recently said to me: "all I can do is vote". But, I suggest if you like the world in one piece and you are concerned about the end of humanity, get out and say something. Be accountable to yourself, to humanity, and the world. Don't be a sheeple.

Is Putin hurting Russia?

A strong Russia, or perhaps a strong Eurasia, is in the interest of a peaceful world. That may not be the most politically correct position to take as a writer in the West, but I'm convinced of it. Growing up in the Cold War era wasn't easy on the nerves as the great powers from each side starred each other down, but with age comes wisdom, and for me that means an unshakeable belief that nations are people - people are possessed with "want" - and want creates tension. In other words, we as a species aren't happy unless we can control and consume everything we choose, and when we choose it.

Enter modern day Russia. Enter Putin. Ostensibly, Vladimir Putin is serving the function of President of Russia, but in the bigger picture his role (and responsibility) is far greater than that. He, and Russia, are the major force behind a greater Eurasia. You can call it the "Silk Road" or whatever you like, but in reality Eurasia represents a deterrent to American unilateralism (or domination if you like). Putin's job has been to use oil money to rebuild Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, and he has done so with great discipline. The question, however, is whether he can place Russia in the shoes of the Soviet Union and re-establish a multi-polar world. That question is both burning and unanswered.

Just like most things in life, Putin's great strengths are also in many ways Russia's great weaknesses. On the one hand, Putin is a master of the concept "don't use a hammer to kill a fly", but on the other hand he is failing to realize that great statesmanship may necessitate the use of a hammer to send a message to the rest of the flies. In other words, a taking of one's place with authority. His decision to allow Russian athletes to compete at the Olympics while Russia itself was humiliated as a sort of "non-country" is a case in point. Putin had all sorts of reasons for sending his athletes, but he failed his country horribly by doing so. A great power, or even just a self-respecting power, does not allow other nations to disrespect its colours. That is as old as humans' presence on this earth. Yet, Russian athletes were subjected to just that in South Korea. It was the Russian men's hockey team that refused to allow that humiliation to taint them, yet their "unlawful" singing of the Russian national anthem was more an act of defiance than a proclamation. That is a key difference. Great nations do not commit acts of defiance, because to do so is to admit they are unequal - as defiance is the act of the weaker while principled decision is the role of the strongest.

It's important to note, and their must be many in Russia that would agree with this, that a country is meant to be run as a country and not an intelligence agency. Putin, out of necessity and likely habit, has run Russia like an intelligence agent - harkening on his old career no doubt. While those skills may have been well placed in placing Russia back to a position of strength, they now hold Russia back from its position as a great power, and without Russia being a great power America is free to continue its relatively unopposed world rule. The best current example of that is Syria.

Syria is really more of a Putin failure than it is an American success. Putin is deathly afraid of  "another Afghanistan". Afghanistan rings in the Russian ears as Vietnam rang in American ears before Ronald Reagan. Reagan, however, used his popularity  to move the American people past the Vietnam era, and pushed them into global military supremacy. Think what you will of Reagan, but that was an act of great leadership. Unfortunately, it appears Putin is not as confident in his ability to lead the Russian people past their Afghanistan mindset and into their place as an equal super power. Instead he prefers to sit himself, and Russia, in the shadows of international conflicts. His approach is that of an experienced intelligence officer - careful, targeted, and effective. What's wrong with that you might say.

It boils down to this: It's a totally predictable weakness. Great nations make great gestures. The prerequisite of a great nation status is that you will fully commit to the defence of your allies. Now just this week Putin claimed he would do just that, but it's been taken as just talk. And he has often wondered publicly why the West doesn't listen to him. Well the answer is quite simple - they don't respect him. Talk is cheap. The willingness to sacrifice is strength. Putin has not proven by action that he is willing to sacrifice for hos allies or even his country (ie. the recent Olympics). He's going along to get along. Sure Russia has intervened with primarily safe air force assets to stop the overthrow of Assad in Syria, but what else has it accomplished? Syria sits divided, with a now dug in American military presence insuring it remains that way. Instead of taking decisive military action at the very beginning of the conflict, which in this case would have meant sending armed divisions into Syria back in 2013, Putin took the least costly option possible and now faces a direct confrontation with the US to make Syria whole again. Ditto for Ukraine - another frozen conflict and another broken ally.

Indeed, the answer to Putin's public ruminations about the West not listening to his dire warnings lies in his mirror. When unfettered strength has been called for he has used measured responses rather than decisive strength. He has failed to set the tone that would demand respect. You don't pick your battles as the leader of a great nation. Rather, you forcefully engage those that bring battle to your doorstep. If it's war then it's war. If it's peace then it's peace. Israel is a good example of this. The reason the world listens to Israel is because they know that Israel will act - and forcefully so. There is no such feeling now for Russia. That lack of respect is something that is severely undermining the idea of a multi-polar world, and without a multi-polar world then why does Russia even matter? For Putin, the person who  is in place at this time in world history to make it happen, the mission is forget your KGB mentality and be a great statesman of a great power.

Why the Saudi Purge, and Why Now?

Make no mistake, the ongoing purge in Saudi Arabia is not about corruption. If you believe that, well, leave your tooth under a pillow for the tooth fairy.The purge is about one thing, and one thing only - power. Specifically, for the power of Mohammed bin Salman. The only questions to be answered is why the power grab, and why now?

The reason why: Saudi Arabia is about to go to war with Iran. There is no doubt that Salman, or MBS as he is known, has been conducting an aggressive covert war against Iran for years now. And, when I say Iran, I mean the Shiite. It's a blood feud going back thousands of years, and both sides take it very seriously. However, until now, Saudi Arabia and Iran have been able to avoid direct war with each other by sponsoring mini-wars with client states - like Lebanon, Syria, and the like. Why is that changing now? The Saudis are losing.

Saudi Arabia's military intervention in tiny Yemen, along with its (and MBS's) staunch ally the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E.) has become a disaster. Not only have the Saudis failed to defeat the Houthis (Shia), but they have lost immense prestige and influence in the Arab world and elsewhere for the failure. What they have achieved is the starvation of hundreds of thousands in Yemen, vast swaps of destruction in Yemen cities, and a massive cholera epidemic affecting hundreds of thousands of Yemen's people. What they have not achieved is any decisive, or otherwise, defeat of the Houthis. Rather than withdraw from this situation, Saudi Arabia just implemented a land, air, sea blockade of the tiny country. By any standard, Saudi Arabia's action in Yemen have been not just a war crime, but a crime against humanity. Yet, you would never hear a peep about it in the western press, or in western houses of parliament.

In addition to the massive failure in Yemen, Saudi Arabia's covert war in Syria has literally blown up in its face. Depending on which organization you believe, hundreds of thousands have been killed and maimed in Syria during the last four or so years, but the result has been abstract failure. While much of Syria lays in ruins, particularly the larger cities outside Damascus, the Syrian government itself was saved by direct Russian military intervention. Saudi Arabia attempted to bribe the Russian government into staying out of Syria by promising to hold terrorists back from attacking the Sochi Olympics - at least that is what was presented in the Russian media. Having failed to convince Russia that way, the Saudis decided to conduct an oil war against Russia. Specifically, they flooded the oil market with product and then refused to freeze or cut back production bringing the price down as low as $30 US a barrel in an all-out effort to destroy Russia's resource based economy. It failed. Instead of crippling Russia financially, the Saudis blew their own legs off, consolidated the Russia-China oil relationship, and severely discredited themselves among oil producing nations.

The common theme to all of MBS's covert and overt actions has been failure. It has become quite obvious that the US and Israel, both the powers behind MBS's moves, have lost patience with the Saudi's attempts to reverse Iranian influence in the Middle East. I say "reverse" because Iran has been present in Hezbollah (Lebanon), Syria, and Yemen for years. Therefore, it's quite obvious that MBS is not responding to any "new" Iranian aggression or threat, but rather simply taking on Iran as a regional actor. In other words, MBS is the aggressor. And by relation so is the US  and Israel. There is no better evidence of that relationship than the recent meeting Jared Kushner, son-in-law of  US President Trump and well connected member of the Jewish establishment in the US, with MBS just prior to the current purge within Saudi Arabia. In case that doesn't satisfy you, then please refer to Trump's own Twitter remarks where he states MBS "knows what he's doing".

In the nutshell, MBS, with the overt backing of the US and covert backing of Israel, took almost complete reigns over the Saudi state for the purpose of going to war with Iran. MBS's statement most recent statement that Saudi Arabia was in a "state of war" with Lebanon is  just the first step. It also jives perfectly with Israel's recent bombings of Lebanon and Syria, and matches the Israeli government's position on Hezbollah to a tee. Unfortunately it smells of desperation. With the war all but lost in Syria, and quagmire in Yemen, MBS is left with one option only - go after Iran itself. There are likely a few ways such a war can play out.

Before the US invaded Iraq, a Sunni-controlled buffer existed between Saudi Arabia and Iran. As I've often said, the only real result of the US invasion of Iraq was the ability of the Iraqi people to elect their own Ayatolla. Now Iraq is dominated by Shia, and thus Iranian, influence. So, bottom-line is this, if Saudi Arabia wants to get at Iran they'll have to do it through Iraq. Iraq and Iran are now strong allies - they're fought together to liberate Iraq from ISIS, and they'll keep fighting together to do the same in Syria - namely against the Kurds. Not to put too fine a point on it, but within the last month or so MBS has made it clear a war with Iran won't be fought on Saudi soil - so there's a process of elimination there.

So if you want to know why MBS has managed to clear the decks of all distractions in Saudi, the answer is that he is going to war with Iran directly and wants complete control of the apparatus of state to do so. If you wonder why now, the answer is he intends to go to war very soon. He has the complete backing of the US, and has given his own green light to Israel taking on Hezbollah in Lebanon - likely simultaneously. No question all of this smells like "Plan B", but we can all see what has happened to "Plan A".

What is key in all of this to remember is what aims all this serves. The world-wide economy is in a state of stagnation - essentially. Central banks have failed to create any real inflationary pressures that might allow them to raise interest rates. Oil is similarly stuck in the post-Saudi oil warfare blues. My feeling is there is a perception among those up high that a massive war in the Middle East will cause inflation to skyrocket world-wide. Saudi would theoretically benefit from a huge price increase in oil - as would the US. Russia's southern border, visa-via an Iranian defeat, would be massively exposed which of course is a major win for the US. Which brings me to a final point-Saudi's partial privatization of its huge state owned oil firm. Does MBS really want to stir Saudi Arabia on a post-oil course and diversify its economy? Or, is he raising a war chest to fight a to-the-death war with Iran? My bet is the latter. A full on war with Iran will likely triple the price of oil, so the Saudis will still get their much loved money, but they need cash to fight a big war, and their failed oil war has left them near a recession. Is it any wonder Trump encouraged Saudi Arabia via Twitter to conduct that initial offering on the New York Stock Exchange - hours before the purges started?

The Bitcoin Mirage

Let's be honest with each other here, Bitcoin is more of a home science experiment gone amok than a legitimate form of currency. In fact, Bitcoin far more resembles a classic Ponzi scheme than it does a currency, or a monetary system. It was created by a phantom figure known as Satoshi Nakamoto, whose identity has never been confirmed. The Japanese translation of his name roughly equates to "Central Source Wisdom (or Reason) in Japanese.

The basics of Bitcoin resemble a version of a video game you might play from your PlayStation. To enter you must get a "wallet". To create wealth you must "mine" Bitcoin. The mining process was easier at the beginning of the Bitcoin system - known as the "Genesis Block". However, the Bitcoin program was designed to make mining more and more difficult as more and more people joined the process. It has become so difficult that many groups of Bitcoin 'miners" have joined together in pools to share rewards, rather than strike out on their own and have nothing to show for it after months of work. Hence, the Ponzi scheme nature of Bitcoin. Easy money early, but as the pyramid grows the easy money gets to be less and less. Imagine yourself playing a simple video game that has you set up mines here and there, and transporting the "product" back to your fort. As your product grows you can cash it in for stronger fort walls, better soldiers, etc. You get the idea. Essentially, this rather basic concept is the Bitcoin concept.

Beyond the video gaming and Ponzi nature of Bitcoin, there are numerous, serious fundamental flaws in the concept. Firstly, and most importantly, Bitcoin is a decentralized currency. In other words, it is not regulated by anything other than a computer program - essentially. There is no governmental control. There is no central authority like a central bank. In this sense, Bitcoin is almost an anarchy currency - with the important exception that every single transaction of Bitcoin is recorded. Fundamentally any currency, whether gold, salt or paper currency, has as its primary objective to regulate the consumption of resources by people. Given that currency regulates consumption by citizens, and citizens belong to nations, and nations control territory, and territory produces resources, it has always been the case that nations have there own currency - or in the case of the European Union a supra-national currency. The one constant feature is these nations, and even the EU, have governments responsible to their citizens for policy, including the regulation of resource consumption. What Bitcoin attempts to do is take away the regulation of consumption from the state, including the responsibility for that regulation, and hand it over to a computer program that is not responsible for its decisions to anyone. A truly bizarre state of affairs for the human race - one which you might have seen in a sci-fi movie from time to time.

The most dangerous concept of Bitcoin is that it is not rooted in value, but rather transactions. In the Bitcoin world, transactions create value. Essentially, it has no intrinsic value. By contrast, gold is a commodity that is very limited in quantity, is physical, and is almost indestructible. What Bitcoin does is actually emphasize the basic fundamentals of our current financial state. The world now runs on debt rather than value. In this way it regulates how much each person consumes. For example, if you want to purchase a boat, but do not have the necessary cash to do so, you must have enough debt room to borrow to purchase that boat. More often than not, in todays world, you have very little physical wealth to back that loan. However, allowing you to buy that boat now, as opposed to when you have enough dollars to do so, allows companies to keep selling, growing, and so on. Bitcoin takes that a step further. Instead of having debt that is measured in dollars, which have now lost most of their value due to unsupported borrowing, a new Bitcoin system will not require any physical constraint to consumption.

Bitcoin represents a new generation of irresponsible economics, designed primarily to serve the individual rather than the collective society. Its inevitable result is the stripping of social constraints on consumption. For instance, medicare may be paid by taxes in one country, but another country may require private payment for the same services. In a Bitcoin world the transactions for such services would be between the doctor and the patient, leaving no room for societal values. In this sense, Bitcoin represents an extreme Libertarian view of the world. After all, if you take Bitcoin at face value, and take it to its logical conclusion, a Bitcoin world would be dominated solely by Bitcoin transactions - the world currency. If this isn't the case why does Bitcoin exist? It's the old "half-pregnant" argument. There is either a recognized crypto currency in the world or there isn't. If there is such an instrument, then the world recognizes that this currency based on a computer program is legitimate. If that is legitimate, then the current currency model must no longer be legitimate. There cannot be two simultaneous currencies in the world - one which is controlled by central banks and one which is not.

Our financial system is, at the moment, is unsupported and unsustainable. It is based on nothing other than debt. China, Russia and a few other countries are trying to reign in consumption of resources by tying the value of currencies to something meaningful and measurable - gold. China has basically banned Bitcoin operations in its country, and that is a wise move from one of the wisest societies on earth. Instead, it is implementing discipline by implementing a gold standard to measure its currency by. Russia is moving in the same direction. Personally, I see the Bitcoin movement as an attempt to circumvent the direction China and Russia have been moving in. It's simply a very poorly veiled attempt to convert the American dollar as the world's main reserve currency to Bitcoin. By doing so the Americans hope to halt the reestablishment of the gold standard which, if implemented on a world-wide basis, would render the US dollar almost worthless and see the Chinese currency become the world's leading reserve currency. No doubt the Chinese see this themselves as they banned Bitcoin.

The current price for a single bitcoin is $6,025.06 or about four times the price of an ounce of gold. All the gold mined in the world, since recorded history at least, could fill three Olympic sized swimming pools. So what makes Bitcoin so much more valuable than one of the least available commodities in the world? The answer is nothing. It's sheer speculation by the same folks that normally run up the stock market. In fact, they are attempting to create a market where one isn't needed. The reason: greed. It's like a new gold rush. Except it isn't gold. It isn't anything but a play on a simple video game that rewards those in early, and leaves the last arrivals holding the bag. Do yourself a big favour, see Bitcoin for what it is - a mirage.

Dear Premier Ball

Dear Premier Ball,

I know it's been awhile, and I know I've sworn off writing about Newfoundland and Labrador politics, but some things just can't be left unsaid. I've watched you now for almost two years, and am constantly amazed at how you let the issues that arise beat the bejezuz out of you before you act. Maybe it's the advice your getting (it's bad advice). Maybe it's you being bull headed (I hear you don't like dissent, but who knows). Perhaps it's a sadomasochistic enjoyment of being pummeled before cluing in (I doubt it, but who knows). Bottom line is this Dwight, when you drag your feet on obvious decisions those back biters in your party love it cause it makes you look like a weak leader, and the PCs who caused the problems in the first place love it cause you begin to wear their dirty clothes. Here's how you can turn that all around.

The Muskrat Falls nightmare. Yes, it's a doozy. One of those damned if you do and damned if you don't, cause you wanted political office too badly and now you have to live it, quagmires. The way out is like this: don't put off an obvious political decision until it looks like you're hiding something to cover your own arse. It's called political foresight. If you don't have it, and none of the people around you have it, do yourself a favour and find someone that does. When it comes to the Muskrat Falls inquiry, I've taken it upon myself to give you a free-bee.

First off, it has to be seen as beyond reproach. That's a pretty tough call in Newfoundland - as one very senior judge in Newfoundland once said to me: "If nothing else Mr. Cabana, you have managed to expose ... I'm not sure if this is the right word ... the incestuous relationship between the court and the legal profession here." When every law firm has a finger in the political pie, it is very difficult if not impossible to get a judge to preside over this inquiry that is beyond fairly easy scrutiny. Here's my suggestion: if not a judge from out of province, then try retired Justice Orsborne. He took on Danny Williams over the naming of the court house in Corner Brook so I think you would have a winner there.

Secondly, the terms of reference. It's not much good to have a great judge and then tie his hands with a restrictive terms of reference. Besides, the finger will be immediately pointed at you for trying to sabotage the inquiry before it even starts. To be honest Dwight, having the "departments" craft the terms of reference is a really bad start. The departments have a vested interest in covering their own butts in any inquiry, and you know they were up to their necks in it. Kinda like asking the thief to judge himself. You have to avoid stuff like that. What you need to do here is use your common sense. Muskrat Falls was a "political issue" from day one, and not a "departmental issue". If you want to get at the truth, and you aren't trying to white wash the deal for say a friend, like I don't know, say Brian Tobin, who is a friend of say Danny Williams, then you have an open terms of reference: The legislation that ran up to it; the awarding of contracts; the sale of the former Premier's assets to companies that won the major bids; etc, etc.


While you are at it Dwight, but only if you want to try and calm the waters, you might want to include the government and Nalcor's treatment of dissidents of the project. After all, Liberals are big champions of the Charter, right? Showing that the government is concerned about citizens being silenced and character assassinated by their own government might win you some points amongst the "Known Critics", and hey, they may not be attacking you and your inquiry every five minutes. A degree of bipartisan support never hurts. Being a statesman is never a disqualification for leadership, and hey, you and I both know some Liberals are sharpening their knives in the shadows. So do yourself a monumental favour, and make this an important part of the inquiry. After all, if a province has healthy dissent its leadership is less likely to pull bone head moves, like, say, Muskrat Falls.

Just an aside Dwight. On the whole forensic audit thing. You might as well announce that too. Just like Scrooge's ghosts, not green lighting this is gonna bury the inquiry, you, and the Liberals. You don't want that right?

Oh ya, one last thing. If you fail to take this free-bee advice, your inquiry is going to blow up into the nightmare your mother warned you about. Imagine it now: the social media, and especially us bloggers, are going to crucify you and the party for covering up for your buddies; radio shows will be giving you a throbbing head ache; and even the press will more than likely join the band wagon. They're all looking for blood - yours, Danny's - you get the idea. Do yourself a favour, Dwight, stop listening to whoever it is that's giving you the shitty advice, probably helping you out the door for their buddies, and do the sensible thing. You can't be faulted for the sensible thing. Come what may.

Dangerous Diplomacy in Syria

When does diplomacy become dangerous? The answer: when it is not sincere. Now that may sound a tad naïve, but give me a moment of your time to explain. The purpose of diplomacy is to allow nations to settle differences through talk rather than war. It can work, and it can fail miserably. The most often cited case of diplomacy failing is the now infamous peace plan brokered by British Prime Minister Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler just prior to the outbreak of World War Two, and Chamberlain's famous words "Peace in our time". More often than not diplomacy solves small issues between nations, while the more serious, or strategic issues generally have ended in military action.

In todays world we have all kinds of "diplomacy" happening every day, and all day long, but we also have wars raging during the same period. In fact, diplomacy has been reduced to acts of one-up-man-ship for some theoretical "moral high ground" rather than its intended purpose of resolving disputes. The peril that results from this kind of behaviour leaves mankind with no real dispute mechanism other than war, or the "Law of the Jungle" - might is right and the end justifies the means.

Just recently I had the unfortunate privilege of watching the Israeli military Chief of Staff give a brief interview regarding a possible Kurdish state being formed from the countries of Turkey, Syria, and Iraq. Although that push to create a Kurdish state from these countries is not news, his particular delight in the idea, and his "too cute for words" pronouncement that Israel wouldn't be opposed to such a development, as he smiled into the camera, was in a word shocking. It wasn't shocking because he believed in the idea, but rather it was shocking because he showed no respect for the territorial integrity of the three nations already at war for their survival. In other words, while Israel sits somewhat quietly on the sides of these conflicts, feigning if you will diplomacy, in reality Israel isn't uninvolved or sincere.

Similarly, while the United States sits at one UN Security Council meeting after another, in many cases over Syria, and attempts to diplomatically pressure the Syrian government and its allies, one of its senior Generals recently pronounced that the Syrian army and its allies would not be permitted to cross the Euphrates River to enter Eastern Syria. Take a moment and consider that General's pronouncement. The Syrian army would not be permitted to enter the eastern half of its own country... Where in the rules of international law could this statement be rooted? The idea that a sovereign power cannot exercise sovereignty over its own territory is an affront to the very foundation of nationhood. An exception to this rule can me made in cases of genocide, such as Rwanda, but that is clearly not the case in Syria.

In fact, with the establishment of at least two US airbases in eastern Syria, and according to the Turkish government at least ten US bases of all types in the same area, it is clear that the American government is occupying eastern Syria in order to reinforce the Kurdish annexation of that area in order to establish a Kurdish state. The impending independence vote of the Iraqi Kurds in northern Iraq, an area also heavily aligned with the US government, reinforces the notion. Yet, and here comes the dangerous diplomacy, the Americans continue to posture internationally that they want a peaceful settlement of the Syrian civil war.

The question then becomes, obviously, how sincere are the US diplomatic pronouncements about peace in Syria? The answer quite clearly is they are not serious what-so-ever. That leads to a greater problem: if the US is not serious about its diplomacy in Syria, then is it serious in its diplomacy toward Iran, North Korea, or even Russia and China? Should these countries take American diplomacy seriously at all, or should they rely on military means to resolve their inevitable national clashes of interests? Therein lies the danger of diplomacy without sincerity, and diplomacy that ignores its fundamental foundation which is international law. How nations must act toward other nations.

Real diplomacy has resolved some of the world's most anxious moments. The Cuban missile crisis comes to mind. There was also the fall of the Berlin Wall. These were crisis that, once resolved by diplomacy, gave nations a chance to move forward without the direct use of force. Yes, they had their origins in force, but sincerity and adherence to international law overcame the threat of war, because the nations involved sincerely did not want such a confrontation. That is missing today. On a daily basis we here one side or the other threatening nuclear war, or "limited" nuclear strikes as doable. The aim is not to restore international law, or for that matter international order. The goal quite clearly appears to be the reverse - "strategic interests or national interests" trump (pardon the pun) the law of nations. The same type of scenario the world witnessed just before World War Two and the "peace in our time" declaration. It was not "appeasement" that didn't work in 1939, but the sincerity behind the "appeasement". The exact same conditions exist today. So, yes, dangerous diplomacy is alive and well, and ruling the hearts of men and women who lead their nations, but conveniently toss the lessons of history to the side - at all our peril.

War With China

There are only so many coincidences in politics, and even less so in international politics. Today we stand on the precipice of  a war with China - all the coincidences point to it.

India

The Indian military's move into tiny Bhutan, which is located between India and China, is the latest hostile act between the two neighbors. The Indian army allegedly moved troops into the western part of Bhutan at the request of Bhutan's government in order to halt Chinese road construction on what it considers to be its sovereign territory. Each side has its own view of who's territory or claim is the truest, but the bottom line is China now has a mounting, perhaps imminent conflict on its southern border with India. As the Indian deployment in Bhutan remains ongoing, both sides have assembled forces on the border waiting to engage each other should the need rise.

The South China Sea

China's claim to the South China Sea has caused rifts with its neighbors - many of them in fact. From a purely legal point of view, China's claims to the Sea are out of whack with international law which delineates maritime boundaries between nations. The only possible way China can legitimately claim the South China Sea is to prove its has been a part of China. However, putting the legitimacy of the claim aside for the moment, let's take into account what is happening "on the ground" there. The United States navy has been conducting "freedom of navigation" drills, one tiny frigate at a time, in the Sea for months now - three since Trump became president of the US. In addition, the US has mounted aerial challenges to China's claim with mainly electronic surveillance aircraft. These challenges have been met with intercepting Chinese jet fighters. The naval challenges have not been met on the seas to any extent.

Taiwan

Taiwan has been a thorn in the side of China since anti-communist forces retreated to the island after the Chinese civil war. The US, in order to keep the peace presumably, has respected the "one China" policy that views Taiwan as essentially a part of China. However, that has not stopped the US from selling massive amounts of arms to Taiwan, and formally guaranteeing Taiwan's independence from China - essentially a country to country defence treaty. That policy hasn't changed under Trump. Instead, the Trump administration caused a furor when it suggested it may not recognize the long standing "one China" policy. It quickly changed its mind when China became enraged with the suggestion. However, the US did continue to sign multi-billion arms deals with Taiwan for the latest in military hardware.

North Korea

By far the most pressing issue between the two super powers is that of North Korea. Having been levelled by the US air force during the Korean War of the 1950's, North Korea seems completely unprepared to surrender its nuclear weapons, and/or nuclear program. It claims self-defence, and views the massive military exercises between the US and South Korea as evidence of an ongoing hostility toward it. And on it goes. What has been completely lost in this whole conflict, at least in the mass media and therefore with most of the general public, is that China and North Korea have a "NATO-like" defence treaty known as the Sino-North Korean Mutual Aid and Cooperation Friendship Treaty. The treaty was signed in 1961, renews every 20 years automatically, and Article 2 requires each side to come to the defence of the other in case attacked by an enemy or coalition of enemies. In other words, war with North Korea means war with China.

Now, there can be no doubt that the US government is fully aware of China's obligations to North Korea, yet the US is dramatically escalating the conflict with North Korea. US President Trump has even gone so far as to threaten North Korea with "fire and fury the world has never seen". What the US government is conveniently leaving out of its pronouncements is that, should it attack North Korea, it will immediately be at war with China. That's a revelation that may well alter any war licence the American people might grant their politicians. After all, it is questionable whether North Korea poses a serious threat to the existence of the US, but there is no question that China could end that existence via nuclear war - at least there shouldn't be.

Connecting the Dots

The pressure being placed on China at multiple fronts is very similar to the pressure being placed on Russia at multiple fronts. One similarity is these areas of conflicts are on China's and Russia's borders for the most part - with the exception of Syria. Just this week the top US military types were claiming "thousands would die", but those thousands would be in North Korea and not the United States. So, it seems safe to say, that the deliberate US strategy is to engage China and Russia, in an aggressive fashion, on those countries borders. A second similarity is the deployment of anti-ballistic missile systems by the US on both Chinese and Russian borders. In the case of China, the THADD system set up in South Korea to nominally defend it against ballistic missile attack from North Korea. In the case of Russia, the construction of a "missile shield" in former Soviet bloc countries to thwart potential Iranian missiles. These deployments, however, clearly effect the ground based retaliatory measures either China or Russia could take in the event of a nuclear war - back to the whole only so many coincidences thing.

Just in case you believe all these geopolitical moves have a single thing to do with "saving the world for democracy" or "fighting rouge regimes", pause, take a deep breath, and think. China is eclipsing the US as the dominant world power - a movement that has been happening slowly but surely since the early 1990's. China and Russia are in the midst of building their own world economy - Eurasia, BRICS, and the Silk Road - and this is perceived by the US as a direct threat to its "place in the world". To emphasize the point, in response to this weeks US sanctions against Russia, Russian President Putin announced his country would be dramatically ramping up its "settlement of trades" aim. Essentially, dropping the US currency as the means for trading internationally. China will likely not be far behind. The plain, obvious and simple truth is the move toward wars with China and Russia is all about business. Not the kind of business you often hear about with accusations of the "military industrial complex" looking to make more arms sales. No, not that. It's the war for economic supremacy, or better put the war to maintain economic supremacy. That's all this is about. Don't wrap yourself in a flag over it. If you have to wrap yourself in anything pick a dollar.

My final thought on the machinations happening around the world right now is this: God must be very disappointed in his creation at this time.