Bigly Important – Secretary Rex Tillerson Discusses U.S. India Relationship…


Those who are following the Trump Doctrine, strategic U.S. geopolitical alliances, and the bigger part of the big picture for how President Trump and the administration are positioning the U.S. economy toward lessening ties with China, will note the significance of this speech and the content therein.  The media will remain oblivious to it.

The Trump Doctrine surrounds modern international economic engagement only possible with a president who is not beholden to the multinational corporations and multinational banks who occupy lobbying offices on K-Street in Washington DC.  A key component of the approach is the ability to build relationships which can be leveraged for America-First interests with national economic partners aligned in common cause.

Under the Trump Doctrine, India is a strategic economic counter-weight to remove the leverage China has created for the past 20+ years.  Nothing that has happened within the strategic approach of President Trump happens accidentally.  Even the positioning of U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley is a part of this dynamic lost on almost everyone except a few who understand the insight of a president who has thought through every angle for years prior to taking office.

Small, seemingly obscure, details are part of the big picture; nothing is without design.  Understanding this principle helps to assemble the framework for this speech by Secretary Rex Tillerson.  WATCH:

“China, while rising alongside India, has done so less responsibly, at times undermining the international, rules-based order even as countries like India operate within a framework that protects other nations’ sovereignty.”

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, thank you so much, John, and it is a real pleasure to be back in the building. And I was asking John if the building was meeting all the expectations that we had when this project was undertaken, and I see so many faces in the room that were a big part of bringing this to a reality. I think he told me there’s four simultaneous events going on today, and I said, “Perfect. That’s exactly what we had in mind.”

So I also want to thank many of you in the room for the 11 years, great years I had serving on the board of trustees here, and your mentorship of me. And I learned so much during the time I was here in those engagements. And I thank John for his friendship. He was a dear friend throughout that time. And it really has been important to my ability to do what I’ve been asked to do to serve the country. So again, it is a real pleasure to be here, and thankful for the opportunity to be back in this building.

So first, let me wish everyone a happy Diwali to all our friends in the United States, in India, around the world who are celebrating the Festival of Lights. Generally, fireworks accompany that. I don’t need any fireworks; I’m getting too many fireworks around me already. (Laughter.) So we’ll forgo the fireworks.

My relationship with India dates back to about 1998, so almost 20 years now, when I began working on issues related to India’s energy security. And I’ve had many trips to the country, obviously, over those many years. And it was a real privilege to do business with the Indian counterparts then, and it’s been a great honor this year to work with the Indian leaders as Secretary of State. And I do look forward to returning to Delhi next week for the first time in my official capacity. This visit could not come at a more promising time for U.S.-Indian relations and the U.S.-India partnership.

As many of you know, this year marks the 70th anniversary of relations between our two countries. When President Truman welcomed then-Prime Minister Nehru on his visit to Washington, he said, and I quote, “Destiny willed that our country should have been discovered in the search for a new route to yours.” I hope your visit, too, will be in a sense of discovery of the United States of America.

The Pacific and the Indian Oceans have linked our nations for centuries. Francis Scott Key wrote what would become our national anthem while sitting aboard the HMS Minden, a ship that was built in India.

As we look to the next 100 years, it is vital that the Indo-Pacific, a region so central to our shared history, continue to be free and open, and that’s really the theme of my remarks to you this morning.

President Trump and Prime Minister Modi are committed, more than any other leaders before them, to building an ambitious partnership that benefits not only our two great democracies, but other sovereign nations working toward greater peace and stability.

Prime Minister Modi’s visit in June highlighted the many areas of cooperation that are already underway in this new area of our strategic relationship.

Our defense ties are growing. We are coordinating our counterterrorism efforts more than ever before. And earlier this month, a shipment of American crude oil arrived in India, a tangible illustration of our expanding energy cooperation. The Trump administration is determined to dramatically deepen ways for the United States and India to further this partnership.

For us today, it’s plain to see why this matters. India represents the world’s largest democracy. The driving force of our close relationship rests in the ties between our peoples – our citizens, business leaders, and our scientists.

Nearly 1.2 million American visitors traveled to India last year. More than 166,000 Indian students are studying in the United States. And nearly 4 million Indian Americans call the United States home, contributing to their communities as doctors, engineers, and innovators, and proudly serving their country in uniform.

As our economies grow closer, we find more opportunities for prosperity for our people. More than 600 American companies operate in India. U.S. foreign direct investment has jumped by 500 percent in the past two years alone. And last year, our bilateral trade hit a record of roughly $115 billion, a number we plan to increase.

Together, we have built a sturdy foundation of economic cooperation as we look for more avenues of expansion. The announcement of the first Global Entrepreneurship Summit ever to be hosted in South Asia, to take place in Hyderabad next month, is a clear example of how President Trump and Prime Minister Modi are promoting innovation, expanding job opportunities, and finding new ways to strengthen both of our economies.

When our militaries conduct joint exercises, we send a powerful message as to our commitment to protecting the global commons and defending our people. This year’s Malabar exercise was our most complex to date. The largest vessels from American, Indian, and Japanese navies demonstrated their power together in the Indian Ocean for the first time, setting a clear example of the combined strength of the three Indo-Pacific democracies. We hope to add others in coming years.

In keeping with India’s status as a Major Defense Partner – a status overwhelmingly endorsed last year by the U.S. Congress – and our mutual interest in expanding maritime cooperation, the Trump administration has offered a menu of defense options for India’s consideration, including the Guardian UAV. We value the role India can play in global security and stability and are prepared to ensure they have even greater capabilities.

And over the past decade, our counterterrorism cooperation has expanded significantly. Thousands of Indian security personnel have trained with American counterparts to enhance their capacity. The United States and India are cross-screening known and suspected terrorists, and later this year we will convene a new dialogue on terrorist designations.

In July, I signed the designation of Hizbul Mujahideen as a Foreign Terrorist Organization because the United States and India stand shoulder-to-shoulder against terrorism. States that use terror as an instrument of policy will only see their international reputation and standing diminish. It is the obligation, not the choice, of every civilized nation to combat the scourge of terrorism. The United States and India are leading this effort in that region.

But another more profound transformation that’s taking place, one that will have far-reaching implications for the next 100 years: The United States and India are increasingly global partners with growing strategic convergence.

Indians and Americans don’t just share an affinity for democracy. We share a vision of the future.

The emerging Delhi-Washington strategic partnership stands upon a shared commitment upholding the rule of law, freedom of navigation, universal values, and free trade. Our nations are two bookends of stability – on either side of the globe – standing for greater security and prosperity for our citizens and people around the world.

The challenges and dangers we face are substantial. The scourge of terrorism and the disorder sown by cyber attacks threaten peace everywhere. North Korea’s nuclear weapons tests and ballistic missiles pose a clear and imminent threat to the security of the United States, our Asian allies, and all other nations.

And the very international order that has benefited India’s rise – and that of many others – is increasingly under strain.

China, while rising alongside India, has done so less responsibly, at times undermining the international, rules-based order even as countries like India operate within a framework that protects other nations’ sovereignty.

China’s provocative actions in the South China Sea directly challenge the international law and norms that the United States and India both stand for.

The United States seeks constructive relations with China, but we will not shrink from China’s challenges to the rules-based order and where China subverts the sovereignty of neighboring countries and disadvantages the U.S. and our friends.

In this period of uncertainty and somewhat angst, India needs a reliable partner on the world stage. I want to make clear: with our shared values and vision for global stability, peace, and prosperity, the United States is that partner.

And with India’s youth, its optimism, its powerful democratic example, and its increasing stature on the world stage, it makes perfect sense that the United States – at this time – should seek to build on the strong foundation of our years of cooperation with India. It is indeed time to double down on a democratic partner that is still rising – and rising responsibly – for the next 100 years.

But above all, the world – and the Indo-Pacific in particular – needs the United States and India to have a strong partnership.

India and the United States must, as the Indian saying goes, “do the needful.” (Laughter.)

Our two countries can be the voice the world needs to be, standing firm in defense of a rules-based order to promote sovereign countries’ unhindered access to the planet’s shared spaces, be they on land, at sea, or in cyberspace.

In particular, India and the United States must foster greater prosperity and security with the aim of a free and open Indo-Pacific.

The Indo-Pacific – including the entire Indian Ocean, the Western Pacific, and the nations that surround them – will be the most consequential part of the globe in the 21st century.

Home to more than three billion people, this region is the focal point of the world’s energy and trade routes. Forty percent of the world’s oil supply crisscrosses the Indian Ocean every day – through critical points of transit like the Straits of Malacca and Hormuz. And with emerging economies in Africa and the fastest growing economy and middle class in India, whole economies are changing to account for this global shift in market share. Asia’s share of global GDP is expected to surpass 50 percent by the middle of this century.

We need to collaborate with India to ensure that the Indo-Pacific is increasingly a place of peace, stability, and growing prosperity – so that it does not become a region of disorder, conflict, and predatory economics.

The world’s center of gravity is shifting to the heart of the Indo-Pacific. The U.S. and India – with our shared goals of peace, security, freedom of navigation, and a free and open architecture – must serve as the eastern and western beacons of the Indo-Pacific. As the port and starboard lights between which the region can reach its greatest and best potential.

First, we must grow with an eye to greater prosperity for our peoples and those throughout the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

By the year 2050, India may boast the second largest economy in the world. India’s population – with a median age of 25 – is expected to surpass that of China’s within the next decade. Getting our economic partnership right is critical.

Economic growth flows from innovative ideas. Fortunately, there are no two countries that encourage innovation better than the United States and India. The exchange of technologies and ideas between Bangalore and Silicon Valley is changing the world.

Prosperity in the 21st century and beyond will depend on nimble problem solving that harnesses the power of markets and emerging innovations in the Indo-Pacific. This is where the United States and India have a tremendous competitive advantage.

Our open societies generate high-quality ideas at the speed of free thought. Helping regional partners establish similar systems will deliver solutions to 21st century problems.

For that to happen, greater regional connectivity is essential.

From Silk Routes to Grand Trunk Roads, South Asia was for millennia a region bound together by the exchange of goods, people, and ideas.

But today it is one of the least economically integrated regions in the world; intra-regional trade has languished – sitting at around 4 or 5 percent of total trade.

Compare that with ASEAN, where intra-regional trade stands at 25% of total trade.

The World Bank estimates that with barriers removed and streamlined customs procedures, intra-regional trade in South Asia would nearly quadruple from the current $28 billion to over $100 billion.

One of the goals of greater connectivity is providing nations in the Indo-Pacific the right options when it comes to sustainable development.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation is one model of how we can achieve it. The program is committed to data, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making to foster the right circumstances for private investment.

Last month, the United States and Nepal signed a $500 million compact agreement – the first with a South Asian nation – to invest in infrastructure to meet growing electricity and transportation needs in Nepal, and to promote more trade linkages with partners in the region, like India.

The United States and India must look for more opportunities to grow this connectivity and our own economic links, even as we look for more ways to facilitate greater development and growth for others in the region.

But for prosperity to take hold in the Indo-Pacific, security and stability are required. We must evolve as partners in this realm too.

For India, this evolution will entail fully embracing its potential as a leading player in the international security arena. First and foremost, this means building security capacity.

My good friend and colleague Secretary Mattis was in Delhi just last month to discuss this. We both eagerly look forward to the inaugural 2+2 dialogue, championed by President Trump and Prime Minister Modi, soon.

The fact that the Indian Navy was the first overseas user of the P-8 maritime surveillance aircraft, which it effectively fields with U.S. Navy counterparts, speaks volumes of our shared maritime interests and our need to enhance interoperability.

The proposals the United States has put forward, including for Guardian UAVs, aircraft carrier technologies, the Future Vertical Lift program, and F-18 and F-16 fighter aircraft, are all potential game changers for our commercial and defense cooperation.

The United States military’s record for speed, technology, and transparency speaks for itself – as does our commitment to India’s sovereignty and security. Security issues that concern India are concerns of the United States.

Secretary Mattis has said the world’s two greatest democracies should have the two greatest militaries. I couldn’t agree more.

When we work together to address shared security concerns, we don’t just protect ourselves, we protect others.

Earlier this year, instructors from the U.S. and Indian Armies came together to build a UN peacekeeping capacity among African partners, a program that we hope to continue expanding. This is a great example of the U.S. and India building security capacity and promoting peace in third countries – and serving together as anchors of peace in a very tumultuous world.

And as we implement President Trump’s new South Asia strategy, we will turn to our partners to ensure greater stability in Afghanistan and throughout the region. India is a partner for peace in Afghanistan and we welcome their assistance efforts.

Pakistan, too, is an important U.S. partner in South Asia. Our relationships in the region stand on their own merits. We expect Pakistan to take decisive action against terrorist groups based within their own borders that threaten their own people and the broader region. In doing so, Pakistan furthers stability and peace for itself and its neighbors, and improves its own international standing.

Even as the United States and India grow our own economic and defense cooperation, we must have an eye to including other nations which share our goals. India and the United States should be in the business of equipping other countries to defend their sovereignty, build greater connectivity, and have a louder voice in a regional architecture that promotes their interests and develops their economies. This is a natural complement to India’s “Act East” policy.

We ought to welcome those who want to strengthen the rule of law and further prosperity and security in the region.

In particular, our starting point should continue to be greater engagement and cooperation with Indo-Pacific democracies.

We are already capturing the benefits of our important trilateral engagement between the U.S., India, and Japan. As we look ahead, there is room to invite others, including Australia, to build on the shared objectives and initiatives.

India can also serve as a clear example of a diverse, dynamic, and pluralistic country to others – a flourishing democracy in the age of global terrorism. The sub-continent is the birthplace of four of the world’s major religions, and India’s diverse population includes more than 170 million Muslims – the third-largest Muslim population in the world. Yet we do not encounter significant number of Indian Muslims among foreign fighters in the ranks of ISIS or other terrorist groups, which speaks to the strength of Indian society. The journey of a democracy is never easy, but the power of India’s democratic example is one that I know will continue to strengthen and inspire others around the world.

In other areas, we are long overdue for greater cooperation. The more we expand cooperation on issues like maritime domain awareness, cybersecurity, and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, the more the nations in the Indo-Pacific will benefit.

We also must recognize that many Indo-Pacific nations have limited alternatives when it comes to infrastructure investment programs and financing schemes, which often fail to promote jobs or prosperity for the people they claim to help. It’s time to expand transparent, high-standard regional lending mechanisms – tools that will actually help nations instead of saddle them with mounting debt.

India and the United States must lead the way in growing these multilateral efforts.

We must do a better job leveraging our collective expertise to meet common challenges, while seeking even more avenues of cooperation to tackle those that are to come. There is a need and we must meet the demand.

The increasing convergence of U.S. and Indian interests and values offers the Indo-Pacific the best opportunity to defend the rules-based global system that has benefited so much of humanity over the past several decades.

But it also comes with a responsibility – for both of our countries to “do the needful” in support of our united vision of a free, open, and thriving Indo-Pacific.

The United States welcomes the growing power and influence of the Indian people in this region and throughout the world. We are eager to grow our relationship even as India grows as a world leader and power.

The strength of the Indo-Pacific has always been the interaction among many peoples, governments, economies, and cultures. The United States is committed to working with any nation in South Asia or the broader region that shares our vision of an Indo-Pacific where sovereignty is upheld and a rules-based system is respected.

It is time we act on our vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific, supported and protected by two strong pillars of democracy – the United States and India. Thank you for your kind attention.

(Applause.)

MR HAMRE: Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We’re going to move this down so people over here can see. We’ve got a blocking vector.

Thank you for really a very interesting speech. One particular phrase really caught my attention. I’d like to just drill in a little bit on it, and I had the luxury of seeing it last night, so this is why I wrote it down. (Laughter.) “We need to collaborate with India to ensure the Indo-Pacific is increasingly a pace – a place of peace, stability, and growing prosperity so that it does not become a region of disorder, conflict, and predatory economics.” Very interesting expression. Would you – what do you see as being the example of predatory economics that we should be alert to ourselves between us?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I think everyone is aware of the huge needs in the Indo-Pacific region among a number of emerging economies, a number of fledgling democracies for infrastructure investment, and it is important that those emerging democracies and economies have alternative means of developing both the infrastructure they need but also developing the economies. We have watched the activities and actions of others in the region, in particular China, and the financing mechanisms it brings to many of these countries which result in saddling them with enormous levels of debt. They don’t often create the jobs, which infrastructure projects should be tremendous job creators in these economies, but too often, foreign workers are brought in to execute these infrastructure projects. Financing is structured in a way that makes it very difficult for them to obtain future financing, and oftentimes has very subtle triggers in the financing that results in financing default and the conversion of debt to equity.

So this is not a structure that supports the future growth of these countries. We think it’s important that we begin to develop some means of countering that with alternative financing measures, financing structures. And during the East Asia Summit – Ministerial Summit in August, we began a quiet conversation with others about what they were experiencing, what they need, and we’re starting a quiet conversation in a multilateral way with: How can we create alternative financing mechanisms? We will not be able to compete with the kind of terms that China offers, and – but countries have to decide: What are they willing to pay to secure their sovereignty and their future control of their economies? And we’ve had those discussions with them, as well.

MR HAMRE: Secretary, just – that’s – that really helps open up a new understanding, that we all have to develop. And if I could just ask, this seems to be an asymmetry because you ran a big corporation. For you to raise capital for a major project, you’d have to go to public markets, the discipline of a public market, and yet you were competing against state-owned enterprises that could turn to a central bank and get a no-interest loan or maybe just a grant. I mean, this is a profound asymmetry that we have to deal with. It may go beyond just new financing instruments. How are you thinking about it?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I think, in many respects, it is the case that has to be made to these countries that need the infrastructure financing that they really have to think about the long-term future of how do they want their country and their economies to develop. And in many respects, those were similar to the kinds of discussions and arguments that we would make back in my private sector days, that here are all the other benefits you receive when you allow investment dollars to flow to you in this way: You retain your sovereign control, you retain complete control over the laws and the execution within your country. And that should have significant value to them as they’re thinking about the future. And so it is – while it is on a direct competitive basis, it’s hard to compete with someone who’s offering something on financial terms that are worth a few points on the lending side, but we have to help them put that in perspective of the longer-term ability to control their country, control the future of their country, control the development of their economy in a rules-based system. And that’s really what we’re promoting is you retain your sovereignty, you retain your commitment to a rules-based order, we will come with other options for you.

MR HAMRE: Great. Thank you. And I apologize. Ambassador Singh is here. He is running a very dynamic embassy. I want to make sure that you knew he was here, and I’m going to ask a question he would ask, but he’s not going to get to – (laughter) – and that is: I was in India in August and great enthusiasm in India about a growing relationship, but real frustration with the way in which we restrict India getting access to technology and this sort of thing. What – what would – this is the ambassador’s question: So how are you going to fix that?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, just so you know, he’s not shy. He’s asked the question. (Laughter.) So I mean, we’ve had discussion about it, and I touched on it briefly in the prepared remarks in designating India as a major defense partner and Congress’s affirmation of that.

I think as everyone appreciates, the U.S. has the finest fighting military force on the planet, first because of the quality of the men and women in uniform – all-volunteer force, but they’re also equipped with the greatest technologies and weapons systems that are unmatched by anyone else in the world. So that’s an enormous advantage to our military strength, so we don’t provide that lightly, and that’s why we have such rigorous review mechanisms when we get into technology transfer.

But having said that, our most important allies and partners have access to that, and India has been elevated to that level. And that’s why I touched on a couple of systems that are not offered to everyone. The Guardian UAV system is an extremely technological piece of kit that we now are making available, and we’re in discussions with India about other high-level weapons systems. And as I said, it’s all to improve their capabilities to play this important security role that we know that they want to play in the region. So we’re continuing to work through those systems in a very deliberate way while protecting America’s competitive advantage in this area.

MR HAMRE: I don’t know how close you all listen, but the Secretary had a remarkable invitation, which is for the U.S. and India to jointly take a larger leadership role together in Southeast Asia. It was quite an important statement. You also indicated that there would have to be an evolving architecture of coordination. You hinted that it could revolve around expanding the U.S.-Japan-India trilateral. You indicated maybe Australia. Does – is that going to be the architecture of America’s engagement in this new strategy?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I think as you heard me say and if you think about the map – the Indo-Pacific all the way to the Western Coast of the United States, and that’s the part of the map we’re dealing with – India, this very significant and important democracy, pins one side of that map; Japan, another very important and strong democracy that we have very strong security relationships with, pinning this side of the map. But there’s an important part of the South Pacific that also we think needs an important pinpoint as well. Australia, another very strong and important strategic partner, ally to the U.S., has fought in every war and has fought alongside us. In every battle we’ve ever fought, the Australians have been there with us.

So we think there are some useful conversations to have in the current trilateral relationship, which is very strong and effective – the India-Japan-U.S. relationship. So we’re going to continue to explore how do we strengthen that architecture that really is – it is about this Indo-Pacific free and open policy that we have, and how do we pin that in the proper places with our strongest, most important allies, and how do we strengthen those in this multi-party arrangement. India-Australia relations, how can they be strengthened? It has to be in everyone’s interest, obviously. India has to see it in their interest. Japan has to see it in their interest.

But it is going to be an evolving process as to how we create the security architecture which keeps this free and open Indo-Pacific region, creates the opportunity for nations to protect their own sovereignty, to have the opportunity to conduct their economic affairs without being threatened by others. And that’s really what the architecture’s design is intended to do.

MR HAMRE: I’m going to turn back to you as an energy guy. And last week – last month, I should say, we had the Indian minister responsible for renewable energy was here, and this is a big push for India. Now, you’re not the Secretary of Energy, but you know a lot about it. How do you think we could expand cooperation on energy issues with India?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, there – I know there are any number of active programs within India. India has huge energy needs, not just from the direct supply of energy but also the infrastructure to distribute that energy and get it into – so that all Indians have access to that, both for their personal quality of life but also to support economic growth and expansion. And I know CSIS has some particular programs that are exploring that as well, and those are all, I think, important avenues and mechanisms.

The U.S. has a very important energy posture in terms of the technology that’s been developed here across the entire slate of energy choices from conventional to renewables and other forms of energy, and I think that’s the value of the relationship is within the U.S. business community and our entrepreneurs and our innovators, we have a large slate of opportunities we can offer in partnering with India to meet those needs, and we want to – we’re encouraging that. Again, we think the work that CSIS is doing is valuable in that regard as well to create those relationships to provide that. It’s another area of opportunity for U.S. businesses.

MR HAMRE: As our Indian friends complain rightly about the restrictiveness of technology, American companies complain about how hard it is to do business in India. How is that conversation going to enter into your discussions?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: It has its ups and downs. And in the 20 years I’ve dealt with India, I encountered these same frustrations. I think India has undertaken a number of important reforms, and we want to acknowledge that. I think it’s important that those efforts and that momentum be sustained. It’s easy to take a few actions, you get a few reforms in place, and then say okay, we’re done, let’s sit back. You’re never done. You’re never done. And that’s my message to India: You’re never done. Because the world around you is not sitting stagnant, and you have to continue to put in place the necessary conditions that is attractive, first, to Indian business, just your own internal business entities, but also then make it attractive for foreign investors to come to India and grow that economy.

I think an – one of my interesting early experiences with India was in the ‘90s India undertook very, very little foreign direct investment. It was a very closed system. They didn’t encourage companies to go out and invest overseas. And one of my first interactions was to facilitate the purchase of ONGC Videsh Limited, which is a very important Indian national oil company, acquiring 20 percent Sakhalin-1 project in Russia. And I put those parties together for a lot of reasons that served the interest of the people I represented at that time. But it was an interesting discussion. I had a lot of conversation with the Indians in that process because they were not used to investing overseas. That resulted in me going to a business conference in Goa.

A couple of years later they asked me to come over to meet with Indian businessmen that were being encouraged to invest overseas. Again, it was kind of a new thing for them. And I remember the last – we had a panel discussion, a lot of great questions. The last question I got, one of the Indian businessmen said, “If there’s one thing that we should always make sure we keep in our mind in investing overseas, what is it?” And I said to him, “It’s very simple. Choose your partners wisely.” Because in any venture you are going to have partners, and who you choose is going to determine your success.

I’ve carried that same most-important element in any relationship. I’ve always viewed that. And that’s the way we view the Indian-U.S. relationship now: Choose your partner wisely. We think we have wisely chosen a partner in India for the strategic relationship, but I think that process I have watched over the 20 years of India investing abroad helps India understand the conditions necessary to be successful back home, because when you have to encounter it as a foreign direct investor, suddenly you understand what’s important to success. You take that back home, and that helps you with your reforms back home.

We encourage India to continue the pathway towards reforms. There’s much more that needs to be done to really enhance the full economic value of what India has to offer.

QUESTION: I have about four or five questions that are all kind of clustered around the same issue, and that’s about the complex power geometry in this region. We’ve – India historically had close ties with Russia. China had close ties with Pakistan. We had – we tried to keep ties with both India and Pakistan. It’s a lot more complicated environment now. Could you just give your thoughts about India in this power geometry?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, our – my view, and I think it is the collective view within the U.S. Government as well, is as China has risen over the last 20-plus years now to take its rightful place as an economic power in the world, moving hundreds of millions of their people out of poverty into middle-class status, India too has been rising. And I commented on this again in the remarks. As we watch how these two very large nations are taking their place – rightful place in the global economy, they’ve gone about it in different ways, and I touched on that. And I think that’s why the U.S. now sees this as an important point in thinking about the next century of our relationships.

We’re going to have important relationships with China. We’ll never have the same relationship with China, a non-democratic society, that we can have with a major democracy.

And so I think what has evolved, and I would have to let the Indians – Indian Government speak for themselves, but I think as India has gone through this process of rise, it too has taken account of the circumstances around it and its own history of relationships, and how have those relationships served their advancement and how have they not served their advancement. And I think as a – as the world’s largest – one of the world’s largest democracies, the world’s largest democracy, it has said, I want to be a partner with another democracy; I don’t want to partner with these other countries that do not operate with the same values.

I think at the end of it, this relationship is built on shared values. That’s what has brought us together. Two very large important democracies want to share the same future and we have a shared vision for the future.

And I think that’s what’s changed over the last couple of – three decades. There’s been a real accounting, as I have observed it – a real accounting has been taken by the Indian Government of its past experiences and it’s decided, this is where we want to go.

MR HAMRE: Secretary, it’s – I know it’s not precisely the reason for your trip, but I think we have several questions. I’d have to ask you about Myanmar. You know there’s been an incredible humanitarian crisis with the Rohingya. Could you just share us your perspective on this?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, we’re extraordinarily concerned by what’s happening with the Rohingya in Burma. I’ve been in contact with Aung San Suu Kyi, the leader of the civilian side of the government. As you know, this is a power-sharing government that has emerged in Burma. We really hold the military leadership accountable for what’s happening with the Rohingya area.

What’s most important to us is that the world can’t just stand idly by and be witness to the atrocities that are being reported in the area. What we’ve encouraged the military to do is, first, we understand you have serious rebel/terrorist elements within that part of your country as well that you have to deal with, but you must be disciplined about how you deal with those, and you must be restrained in how you deal with those. And you must allow access in this region again so that we can get a full accounting of the circumstances. I think any of us that read this recent story in The New York Times, it just had to tear your heart out. It just had to break your heart to read this.

So we have been asking for access to the region. We’ve been able to get a couple of our people from our embassy into the region so we can begin to get our own firsthand account of what is occurring. We’re encouraging access for the aid agencies – the Red Cross, the Red Crescent, UN agencies to – so we can at least address some of the most pressing humanitarian needs, but more importantly, so we can get a full understanding of what is going on. Someone – if these reports are true, someone is going to be held to account for that.

And it’s up to the military leadership of Burma to decide what direction do they want to play in the future of Burma because we see Burma as an important emerging democracy. But this is a real test. It’s a real test of this power-sharing government as to how they’re going to deal with this very serious issue.

So we are deeply engaged. We’re engaged with others and we’re going to be engaged at the UN, ultimately, with the direction this takes.

MR HAMRE: Again, several questions: We’re dealing with Afghanistan and Afghanistan has complex geography, complex geopolitics, I should say, as well. The Indians have had a strong interest in what happens in Afghanistan, as does Pakistan, part of the backdrop here. Afghanistan – what are you going to be doing there?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, you heard the President’s announced his new policy towards – and it’s the South Asia strategy. Afghanistan is what people tend to focus on. But one of the differences in how we approach the challenge there, and it’s why it took a little longer for us to fully develop the policy, is we do see it as a regional issue. It’s not solely an Afghanistan issue.

And you solve Afghanistan by addressing the regional challenges. And Pakistan is an important element of that. India is an important element of how we achieve the ultimate objective, which is a stable Afghanistan which no longer serves as a platform for terrorist organizations. Our policy, quite simply, on terrorism is that we will deny terrorists the opportunity, the means, the location, the wherewithal, the financing, the ability to organize and carry out attacks against Americans at home and abroad, anywhere in the world. Well, clearly the threat to that policy finds its locus in many ways in Afghanistan. And so, to the extent we can remove that as an opportunity for terrorism in Afghanistan, the greatest beneficiaries are going to be Pakistan and Afghanistan. And India’s important role is in providing development assistance to Afghanistan as they move forward to create better economic conditions that provide for the needs of a very diverse ethnic group of people in Afghanistan. So it is about a commitment, a message to the Taliban and other elements that we’re not going anywhere. And so we’ll be here as long as it takes for you to change your mind and decide you want to engage with the Afghan Government in a reconciliation process and develop a form of government that does suit the needs of the culture of Afghanistan.

And to the Afghan Government, they have to be committed to being open to addressing the full needs of the very ethnically diverse culture that exists in the country and its own history as well. And we think that is achievable and we can have a stable, peaceful Afghanistan. And when that happens, a big threat is removed from Pakistan’s future stability as well, which then creates a better condition for India-Pakistan relationships. So we see it as not just one issue, but a means of stabilizing the entire region. And we intend to work closely with India and with Pakistan to, we hope, ease tensions along their border as well.

Pakistan has two very troubled borders – two very troubled borders. And we’d like to help them take the tension down on both of those and secure a future stable Pakistan Government which we think improves relations in the region as well.

MR HAMRE: Secretary, I’m – I know I’m running close up to the deadline I was given by your horse holders, but let me ask – several questions were dealing with development, and I guess the question I’d like to pose to you is: We’ve got a very capable new administrator for USAID. I know you personally have been quite involved in aid and development-related issues through the years. What do you see as the relationship between the State Department and USAID going forward? How are you thinking about it?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, we – I think it’s no different than has traditionally been the roles of the two organizations. State Department develops foreign policy, it develops the strategies and the tactics, and an important element of our execution of foreign policy is development aid and assistance, whether it be in direct humanitarian assistance, food programs to address dire needs, disaster response, or whether it’s in developing democratic capacity and institutional capacity. So USAID is an important enablement tool of the foreign policy. They don’t make policy, but they are critical to our execution of foreign policy. And that’s really where we want that expertise to reside, and I view them as in many – using lingo of my prior life, they are a center of expertise when it comes to aid and development programs. Nobody does it better than they do; not just directly, but they have tremendous organizational and convening capacity to work through other multilateral organizations. Whether it’s UN organizations, NGOs, direct in-country capability, they are really the experts in the world for doing that. They have the relationships, they have the contacts, they have the process, they have the procedures and they’re vital to our execution of foreign policy. And therefore, they become integral to how we develop foreign policy, how we test its viability, and then how we lay out the plans, the strategy and the tactics for executing against that policy.

So that’s – that’s the relationship and one of the things we want to be sure is that everyone understands their roles and everyone understands what’s not their role. On the State Department side, our expertise is the analysis, the assessment, the development of foreign policy, the carrying of the diplomatic integration of all of that. USAID, though, they are really the experts and that we’re – the State Department doesn’t have that expertise. It really resides over there.

MR HAMRE: One last – I got a sign that said, “Last question.” Let me ask this last question and – in recent years, most secretaries of state have been policy people, they’ve spent their life in the policy world. But frankly, through the history of the department, we’ve had a great number of businesspeople that have been in. What is the – how do you think about the way that you can work with the private sector in advancing American diplomacy and American values around the world?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Well, I think one of the things that’s important for us is to make sure that we are – we have great clarity around what our policies are, what our strategies, what our tactics are so that investors, the business community, can at least make their assessment as they’re trying to make decisions about their own business conduct, private enterprise, whether it’s investment, foreign direct investment that they want to make, or whether it’s partnerships they’re creating for investment here in the U.S. It goes back to my earlier comment: Choose your partners wisely.

One of the things I think is important for us in the State Department to do is to be able to ensure we can provide clarity to the business community and to investors as to what the relationship is with a particular country, how we view the risk, the stability of that country. Those were things that were important to me in making decisions when I was in the private sector. It is a risk management decision. So how can we help everyone understand what the risks are in this country, but also what the vectors are? Do we think the vectors going in the right direction, or we have concerns that things could go in the wrong direction, and then the business leaders can make their own decisions about what they choose to do.

MR HAMRE: I think you all can see why I was so lucky for 11 years to have Secretary Tillerson on my board. He’s a wise and thoughtful man. Would you please thank him with your applause?

SECRETARY TILLERSON: Thank you.

[Transcript Link]

Sex with Robots? 49% of Men say they would Give it a Try – Women 9%


Well, there seems to be a new sex revolution emerging – sex with robots with Artificial Intelligence. It may seem completely nuts, but something is going on. A friend of mine went to a baseball game and he sat next to two young girls 21 and 23. They were curious about the good-old days and told him they had never been on an official date. They explained that boys just called and said we are all going to meet at xyz, so come along. Have the younger generation just so completely changed that relationships are gradually fading away?

When you dig a little deeper, you find that the youth are not only living with their parents into their 30s, but they are not buying into the American Dream of owning your own home. Rents are cheaper. With some, I have spoken to and they say how their parents worked hard, put everything into the home, watched taxes soar and property values crash after 2007. They seem to be taking a different path in life altogether.

About half of American adults believe having sex with robots will become common in the next 50 years. About 49% of adult males are ready to give it a try now but only 9% of women. The first time this sort of thing was portrayed in a moved was back in 1990. The girlfriend was a hologram. Well, we are not quite at the hologram level of technology just yet, but the AI sex doll revolution seems to be taking hold.

Some of the benefits – no divorce settlements and I suppose you get a window seat when you travel. The Global Warming people will be happy since that means a lower birth rate. Then again, what will the government do? The Ponzi scheme of counting on the next generation to pay for the previous will completely collapse.

A new AI sex doll revolution would also have profound economic consequences for the government.

Make Austria Great Again – Nationalism Rises Amid Europe’s Latest Election Result…


Against growing immigration policy backlash, early results in the Austria election show the center-right People’s Party (OVP), led by Sebastian Kurz, winning with around 31 percent of the vote.  The second place party, Freedom Party (FPO), with around 27% is even more euro-skeptic and nationalistic minded.  The Social Democrat Party, the former lead party, has dropped to third place with around 26%.

(Via Express UK) The People’s Party (OVP) got 30.2 per cent of the vote, according to exit polls from Austrian news channel ORF.

Mr Kurz’s party is tough on migration, easy on taxes and widely Eurosceptic after rebranding itself over the last few months to propel its popularity in the wealthy Alpine nation.

He is expected to form a coalition with the right-wing populist Freedom party (FPO), who got 26.8 per cent of the vote, according to the latest projections.

Speaking after 85 per cent of the votes were counted, he told his cheering supporters: “Today we have won a huge mandate to change this country, and I promise you I will work with all my energy for change.

“We want to establish a new culture in politics. And we want to change the country for the better.”

Meanwhile, the Social Democratic Party, the largest party in the last government, are in third place with 26.3 per cent. (link)

(Via Reuters) There was a temptation after the Dutch and French elections this year to declare an end to the nationalist/populist wave in Europe. But last month’s German election, which saw the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD) party surge into the Bundestag, and now the Austrian election, say otherwise.

Despite a hard shift right by the conservative OVP under Kurz, the FPO appeared close to the all-time high of 26.9 it won in 1999. That result paved the way for it to enter government, a move which prompted a horrified European Union to impose sanctions against Austria. If the FPO enters the government this time, expect little more than a whimper.

The Austrian result showed that the refugee crisis of 2015 has left deep scars among European voters, especially in countries that were at the center of the storm. The number of asylum seekers entering Austria has fallen sharply over the past year. But migration was the dominant theme in the election.  (read more)

Geopolitical Adversaries Prepare To Defend Against Trump’s Iran Strategy…


Just because western media doesn’t understand how President Trump executes a geopolitical strategy based on economic leverage, that doesn’t mean adversaries are not fully aware of the effectiveness of the approach.

The Trump Doctrine has two avenues toward dealing with national security adversaries.

The first route is direct assignment of responsibility toward the enablers: see China for North Korea; The Gulf States for Qatar (Sunni extremism); Russia for Syrian terrorism (Assad); and Pakistan for Afghanistan (Taliban); as recent examples.

However, when the geopolitical threat stems directly from the enabler, and not the enabled, the Trump Doctrine has a distinctly different and far more encompassing, approach.  Route two goes through leveraging regional allies and partners: See ASEAN and India for ¹China; and France, Poland, Baltic States for ²Russia.  And now President Trump is beginning to shift toward ³Iran.

In each case: China, Russia and Iran, unlike Western media, these powers assemble volumes of research to assist them in understanding the most likely sequence of events President Trump will take.

When we say volumes of research, we indeed mean hundreds of people researching and drafting position documents based upon every scintilla of every deal Donald J Trump has engaged in.  No expenses are spared as these state actors assemble information toward their own strategy to counter the most unpredictable adversary they have faced.

These states fully understand how President Trump intends to utilize economic leverage toward his next national security focus.  As soon as President Trump mentioned he was going to outline a strategy for Iran, all international adversaries immediately began road-mapping their defense.

How do we know?  Well, if you follow the twitches, and you understand the larger dynamic of how Trump weakens his opposition’s position prior to confrontation, you know exactly what to look for.  Example(s):

(Via CNBC) Russia has accounted for oil at £30.1 ($40) a barrel in its budget, finance minister Anton Siluanov said. Oil prices have fluctuated this year, falling below $45 a barrel and going above $59.

Russia has accounted for oil at $40 a barrel in its budget, the country’s finance minister Anton Siluanov told CNBC in a TV interview on Friday.

Brent crude was trading above $57 on Friday, but the Russian minister said that the budget has taken into account price fluctuations.

“In order to minimize price fluctuations on foreign markets we have prepared a budget which is based on a price of forty dollars a barrel. I think that this is a fairly considered and conservative price, which has been factored in for the next three years,” Siluanov told CNBC in a TV interview on Friday.

“Incidentally our balance of payments on our current account is balanced on a price of forty dollars a barrel. Therefore, the percentage of the federal budget from oil and gas revenues has gone down from 60 percent to 40 percent.”

But some analysts have predicted prices could go lower. Global stock builds, rising non-OPEC production and sluggish growth in demand could weigh on the oil price, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said in its report published Thursday.

Meanwhile, OPEC’s production hit the second highest monthly level this year in September. (read more)

Notice OPEC, particularly ‘The Gulf States’ (two-thirds of all production), now a Trump ally, are continuing to driving production. This is in combination with western nations domestic energy policies shifting as a result of Trump withdrawing from the Paris Climate Treaty.  [*Note* all nationalistic energy activity is driven by the economics of financial viability, not the ruse of planetary climate.]  Sword dancing has benefits.

Meanwhile Venezuela, an OPEC member and also China and Russia’s largest debtor, is in a state of economic crisis and under sanctions from Treasury Secretary Mnuchin.  This makes their ability to reach out to the international financial community very, well, challenging.

So what impact is all of this Trumpian shifting of geopolitical economic plates having out in the world of multinational finance?

(Via Bloomberg) The IMF’s steering committee warned that global growth is at risk of faltering in coming years given uncomfortably low inflation and rising geopolitical risks, injecting a cautious note into an otherwise improving economic outlook.

“The recovery is not yet complete, with inflation below target in most advanced economies, and potential growth remains weak in many countries,” the International Monetary and Financial Committee said in a communique released Saturday in Washington.

“Near-term risks are broadly balanced, but there is no room for complacency because medium-term economic risks are tilted to the downside and geopolitical tensions are rising.” (read more)

Take all the money you can get“…

Q Mr. President, on the Iranian nuclear deal, why not just scrap it altogether now? You threatened to do so. Why not just end it now, withdraw?

THE PRESIDENT: Because we’ll see what happens over the next short period of time. And I can do that instantaneously. I like a two-step process much better.

Q Mr. President, you had said you were going to rip the Iran deal up, and you called it the worst ever.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I may do that. I may do that. The deal is terrible. So what we’ve done is, through the certification process, we’ll have Congress take a look at it, and I may very well do that. But I like a two-step process much better.

Q How long will you give Rex Tillerson to get this new deal? And are strikes on Iran still a possibility if you don’t get what you want?

THE PRESIDENT: We will see what happens with Iran. We’re very unhappy with Iran. They have not treated us with the kind of respect that they should be treating. They should have thanked Barack Obama for making that deal.

They were gone. They were economically gone. He infused $100 [billion] to $150 billion into their economy. He gave them $1.7 billion in cash. And they should be, “Thank you, President Obama.” They didn’t say that.

Q Have you spoken with Theresa May or Emmanuel Macron about the Iranian Deal?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

Q What did they say to you? What did you say to them?

THE PRESIDENT: They would love me to stay in, only for one reason: Look at the kind of money that’s being sent. You know, Iran is spending money in various countries.

And I’ve always said it, and I say to them: Don’t do anything. Don’t worry about it. Take all the money you can get. They’re all friends of mine.

Actually, Emmanuel called up, and he talked to me. And I said, look, Emmanuel, they just gave Renault a lot of money. Take their money; enjoy yourselves. But we’ll see what happens.

Iran has to behave much differently. (link)

“Complicated business folks… Complicated business”…

Rocketman May Have Destabilized the Ground in North Korea


Sources in South Korea are reporting that there was another earthquake in North Korea of a 2.7 magnitude near the Punggye-ri nuclear test site. This was the fourth earthquake to hit the region since the last underground nuclear test on September 3rd, 2017. The first earthquake was a 6.3 magnitude. The last North Korea test was a hydrogen bomb. U.S. intelligence reportedly determined the blast was 10 times greater than that of the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima at the end of World War II.

Rocketman just may have set in motion a natural disaster. Any more tests could rupture the region and radioactivity could contaminate much of the area.

Meanwhile, Trump has announced he will send ships off the coast of North Korea that will shoot down any missiles he tries to launch. Rocketman seems to be on an insane show of power to prevent his overthrow. If the USA shoots down any missile launch, all his efforts to show power will collapse and that would expose him to an internal coup.

Fake v Real News – A Turf Battle


Donald Trump launched his Real News to combat the Fake News. Interesting turf battle. What I can say is that many people in Florida are very upset with CNN and their whole coverage. They frightened people so much that they were paying $7,000 for a flight out of town. There was no 15-foot wall of water and many see it now as FAKE NEWS not just with respect to politics, but everything is exaggerated to get people to watch.

Madrid Threatens Imprisonment & Death to Catalonia Leaders?


 

The Apanish Government is clearly fascist and cannot escape that stigma. The day before the appearance of Carles Puigdemont in front of the regional parliament of Catalonia, the Madrid government has come out and warned the head of the with serious bodily threats that one would expect only from a dictator – not an elected democratic government. Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s spokes person, Pablo Casado, came out and rejected all calls for any dialogue in Madrid with Catalonia. “We will not give in, and there is nothing to negotiate with the putschists,” said Casado.

Casados boldly stated publicly: “Anyone who declares it (independence) will end up like the one who declared it 83 years ago.” In Spanish history back in 1934, Lluís Companys i Jover (1882-1940) was the head of  Catalonia’s government, which proclaimed itself as an independent state back then as well. He and the entire regional government were arrested after a few hours by the Spanish army. He was exiled to France in 1939 but would not leave because his son was seriously ill. In 1940, Companys was captured and was handed over by the Nazi Gestapo to the dictator Francisco Franco (1939-1975). He was executed in Barcelona at 6:30 a.m. on October 15, 1940 for seeking Catalonian Independence. Lluís  refused to wear a blindfold, and was taken before a firing squad of Civil Guards barefoot. When they fired, his last words were ‘Per Catalunya!’ (For Catalonia!). Keep in mind that people were imprisoned for even speaking Catalonia’s language.

More than 90% of voters in Catalonia voted for a separation from Spain BECAUSE of Rajoy’s dictatorial attitude. Here is a banknote from the last Independence movement from our collection of the World Monetary System. The opponents of Independence, who had boycotted the vote by a majority, went to the streets of Barcelona on Sunday to protest against the separation. As the EU declines in an economic death spiral, things are only going to get worse over the next two years and Rajoy will see the Spanish outside of Catalonia rise up against his dictatorial-like reign.

For the Rajoy government to threaten killing any public official who again declares independence is just beyond belief. For the EU to standby and say nothing is even more of a disgrace. The federalization of Europe to Brussels now supersede human rights. It’s all about the politicians and power now.

The Euro has still been unable to reach the first key area of important resistance standing at the 125 area. We still see November as the critical turning point and a Panic Cycle as well. There is no doubt that Spain will impact the Euro and indeed may help to push the Italians to also vote to separate as they witness the fascist-style response of the Rajoy government. Taking to key institutions in Europe, what many now want to see is a resignation from Rajoy. He is doing tremendous damage to the image of Europe as a whole.

Meanwhile, there appears to be a run on the European Central Bank (ECB) itself. Banks have tendered this week calling in a total of 21.3 billion euros, which is the highest amount since March. Typically, this runs between 3 to 4 billion Euros. Many see this as rising concerns in Italy of a full blown banking crisis set in motion by the new ECB guidelines. Banks will now have to gradually cover all loans that are now classified as risky. In the case of new unsecured problem loans, 100% coverage is to be achieved after two years, and for new collateralized loan loans no later than seven years.

Others see the run being sparked also by Rajoy. The threats of violence against Catalonia’s leaders brings back the days of Franco and Nazi actions. This is just not going down very well behind the curtain.

Joseph Napoleon Bonaparte & His Exile in New Jersey


QUESTION: Years ago, while visiting Salamanca, Spain, I was told that Napoleon’s brother abandoned his rule over Spain and made off with a large cache of gold. I know that he fled Spain to New Jersey. Is there any truth to this gold story? If so, what economic impact did he and the gold have in New Jersey?

 TF

ANSWER: Yes, I grew up in New Jersey with the story of Napoleon’s brother living there in exile. He fled the British to America I suppose like Snowden going to Russia. It was on March 30, 1814, when the allied troops reached Paris. Joseph Bonaparte and his family fled at first to Switzerland. He bought an estate at Prangins, between Geneva and Lausanne. However, when Napoleon escaped from Elba in 1815, Joseph returned to Paris to join him. Then after Napoleon’s second abdication, Joseph gallantly offered to change places with his brother so the latter could board the American brig the Commerce, of Charleston, to America. Joseph had chartered that ship for his own escape. Consequently, Joseph left for the United States only when he heard that Napoleon had surrendered to Britain’s Captain Maitland of HMS Bellerophon.

The rumor that Joseph sailed with tons of gold from Spain was another conspiracy theory. However, the Commerce was twice boarded and inspected by the British. Joseph was prepared with fake papers. They worked and he managed escaping detection. He arrived in New York on August 28, 1815 . His Spanish ordinance officer Unzaga, his interpreter James Carret, his cook Francois Parrot, and his secretary Louis Mailliard all accompanied him. The rumor was that Congressman Henry Clay assisted Joseph and provided him with a hotel to stay in. Joseph left his wife Julie and his daughters in Paris. They later moved to Frankfurt and then to Brussels.

Joseph left New York City with the intention of meeting President Madison. Madison sent someone to intercept him and told that a meeting could not take place with the President. Joseph assumed the title of the Count of Survilliers, after a small property he owned near Mortefontaine. He was able to transfer a large part of his fortune to the United States, where he invested it. He rented a house in Philadelphia and bought an estate called Point Breeze in Bordentown, New Jersey. He also bought a large tract of land in upstate New York, to which he made extensive improvements. The latter contained a 1,200 acre lake which Joseph named Lake Diana, after the goddess of the hunt. It is now known as Lake Bonaparte.

Joseph’s home became gathering places for other Napoleonic exiles, including Charles and Henri Lallemand and Charles Lefebvre-Desnouettes. He contributed generously to the French exiles’ Society for the Cultivation of the Vine and the Olive. Nevertheless, Joseph also developed friendships with many prominent Americans, including Nicholas Biddle of the First Bank of the United States, as well as Charles Ingersoll, Stephen Girard, Charles Stewart, and Joseph Hopkinson. He was elected a member of the American Philosophical Society, where he met more of America’s great names.

Joseph Bonaparte’s home in Bordentown burned down though in 1820. When they excavated the site they recovered some 14,000 artifacts. He left with some gold, but there is no real record of how much he took with him into exile. As for his wealth, it was transferred by banks from Switzerland to America at the Bank of the United States as a valued customer of Nicholas Biddle.

Democrats & Their State of Denial


QUESTION: Do you see any validity to the Democrats crying Russia stole the election from Hillary?

ANSWER: No. People quickly forget that the polls at the time showed that the MAJORITY of Americans who had actually cast their votes early were worried about the direction of the country. They also responded that they wanted a “strong leader who can take the country back from the rich and powerful.” That was Reuters’  Election Day poll. Of course the majority of the people who voted Democrat fall into three main categories: (1) the people who live on government programs, (2) students who have not gotten a job for a living who think money falls from above, and (3) those who live in the past because their parents were Democrats so they just vote the party line even against their own self-interest as long as it hurts someone else as well.

What the Democrats are not saying is that of all the leaked emails, nobody has said they were fake or altered. They just blame Russia for leaking the emails and spilling the beans. It could have been anyone who hacked into the Democrats, but it’s juicer if it is Russia who they can demonize instead of a bunch of kids in a basement of their mother’s home.

Whoever leaked the TRUTH deserves our thanks. And as for Chuck Schumer who bad mouth’s Trump, his polls are lower than Trump. All Democrats leaders are polling below Trump. They just live in a state of denial. Obamacare is a disaster, yet they block any reform simply to protect their legacy – nothing more after the average person saw their healthcare costs double.

Madrid Waged Cyber-War & Catalonia Votes Overwhelmingly to Leave Spain


Catalonia voted overwhelmingly to secede from Spain. Of course, the hard line invasion of riot police who beat and threatened the people discouraged many from showing up with the turnout being only 43%. The fascist government in Spain has demonstrated to the entire world that there is a major country risk in dealing with Spain. Any government that uses force against democracy will do whatever it takes to sustain power as the economy gets wose going into 2021.

Hundreds of people were injured by riot police attempting to prevent voting, and this has only caused outrage and further protests solidifying the resolve to separate from such a fascist government. Both Canada and Britain allowed separatist votes. Why Spain deemed the vote illegal was clear that they knew they would vote to leave.

Madrid even waged a cyber-war against Catalonia. They sought to shut down the internet and even ordered Google to shut down traffic coming from Catalonia. Madrid has shown the future civil war tactic will be to shut down the internet to prevent communication.

Catalonia’s parliament may well now declare independence; Madrid could decide to impose direct rule on the region and the police have been transformed into terrorists resembling the imported Russian police in Ukraine. Barcelona is perhaps the most beautiful city in Europe. Obviously, Madrid will be off the tourist agenda in the years ahead.