Thursday, October 20, 2016

Donald Trump's Perve Per View TV Network

Donald Trump, cunning businessman that he is, has launched Perve Per View TV which is a new cable network. It is a bold move with a free cable element consisting of Hannity, Hannity, and more Hannity programing, along with old business news reruns. The Donald admires Sean Hannity, because he sees a lot of his own serial lying in the younger man. For the Donald, Hannity only lacks confidence to take over the world and kill off everyone else so America can be great again.

Perve Per View TV will also soon have a paid premium channel that will allow viewing of women and girls. It will be divided into two channels and called Grope TV and the Lolita Channel. Trump will be very strict, requiring only voluptuous women and girls willing to sign a form saying that they have consented to this deal. He will require that they lie about their age. Actually, it is more of a don't ask don't tell policy. 

Donald will be politically involved in the free aspect of the Perve Per View TV political coverage, inciting his followers to take out their anger in the street, as a means of competing with Fox News, who incubated the cultish Aryan Supremacist Leader in the first place. Any TV network guilty of incubating Donald Trump deserves to have its ratings die off. We look forward to this process taking down morons like Bill O'Reilly and force the lovely Megyn Kelly to move to CNN.

Trump will be very informal during these discussions, allowing his compatriots to call him the Big Orange, Trumpaloompa, the Great Pumpkin and Trumpkin. He will talk about politics, delivering ways for his followers to undermine the Republic. As of now, there are mainly reruns of Crossfire, and old reruns of Fox Business, which he bought the rights to since nobody watches Fox Business anyway. It will be like new programming to the deplorables. 

Trump will have one show called the Trumpkin 5. The five, headed by Greg Gutfeld, will all discuss the day's political issues in orange face. Apparently, orange is the new white. Trump is working on secret experiments to make his followers' children look a little orange. They will be called the Orangyans. The concept has been approved by David Duke.

These experiments will be carried out by Jack Meringue. He likes yellow, but was convinced by Trump to seek that orange look. There already are yellow men, after all. Trump wants the Orange Meringue people to only like American cuisine.  The Orange Meringue will only be associated with American cuisine. Jack Meringue has no known relationship to Josef Mengele.

Trump wanted something new, after all, with that special gene he has. He has even said he will donate his genes, and you can imagine how that will play out. He isn't offering the premium channels just to make money, if you know what I mean, wink, wink.

Trump will not allow old nicknames on his shows, like Agent Orange, Hair Hitler, Short-Fingered Vulgarian, Hair Furor, Humpty Trumpty, Alpha Molester, and any other nicknames not mentioned at the beginning of this article. He especially does not like being called the fascist carnival barker or Darth Hater or nicknames that seem to nail who he really is.

So, with Trump well on his way toward another career, I leave you with a real quote, something he said to Howard Stern:

 "No, I have no age—I mean, I have age limit. I don't want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds."

What could possibly go wrong with Perve Per View TV and the Lolita Channel?

Disclaimer: This article contains satire and humor, and while loaded with truth in my opinion, it is up to the reader to verify the claims of the article, which are made in jest and are not necessarily proven fact. Some claims are fiction. The perverted TV concept is, at the time of this writing, fiction as are the secret operations to generate a superior orange race. The disgusting quote Donald Trump made to Howard Stern has been verified to be factual.

More Trump nicknames with some adult content and unfortunate religious references.

Are Perpetual Bonds Helicopter Money? The New Japanese Plan

This article was first published by me on Talkmarkets:

The BOJ has discussed the government of Japan issuing perpetual bonds. The media has said these bonds are helicopter money. So far, I have been able to glean a few insights into the relationship between perpetual bonds and HM.

1. Helicopter Money is not legal in Japan. Issuing base money from the BOJ without some form of sterilization, or an offset to the expansion, appears to be illegal in Japan. 

2. Japan is running out of bonds with which to engage in traditional QE.

3. Perpetual bonds can decline in yield, and appear to be counted as equity rather than debt. They cannot be redeemed for their value, and interest is perpetual unless they are created with zero interest. 

4. Depreciation of the Yen, Ben Bernanke's idea back in 2000, would require unsterilized action. Zero Hedge reports that this may have been the most recent message in a meeting between Bernanke and the Japanese in July, 2016.  But no sterilization is something even Bernanke and central banks are not keen on doing. The BOJ is unlikely to do it as well, looking at unsterilized floating of base money as being dirty. 

5. Japanese government debt can be converted by the BOJ to zero interest perpetual bonds. This is where it gets interesting. If that were to occur, it would be a form of helicopter money. But we would have to see it to believe it.

Bill Gross said this about the need for some form of helicopter money:

"At some point Japan will basically buy up all its debt and the central bank will forgive the Treasury and try to move forward with that,” Gross said in an interview with Bloomberg’s Erik Schatzker. "I see no other way out for Japan.”
Ben Bernanke Wikipedia

So, what can we learn from this exercise, perhaps in futility? We can see that the BOJ, like most central banks, is just talk, until proven otherwise. The BOJ wants to talk the Yen down. But it won't increase the money supply through adding base money. How perpetual bonds are fashioned will determine if they are a form of helicopter money or not. And there is no guarantee that they will even be created.

As long as central banks see unsterilized action as being dirty, it will be difficult to stop the relentless decline in interest rates and will be difficult to stop the increasing gap between finance and the real economy as to prosperity.

For more on Helicopter Money:

Kyle Bass Says Helicopter Money Is the Only Way Out

Fed Tricksters, Put Your Monetarism Where Your Mouths Are

Is Japan Falling Back Into Deflation? Only One Monetary Solution Left

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Donald Trump is a Classic Cult Leader

Donald Trump is a cult leader, classic in his tactics and beliefs. While not all of Trump's supporters will vote for him because he is a cult leader, a large majority will.

Some of Donald Trump's supporters will vote for him as a protest against the status quo. They will do so even though protectionism may prove to be worse for the economy than globalist trade. I am no fan of the darker side of globalization, the extension of empire to establish world domination, and I have written books on the subject. But, free trade among equal nations in respect for each other is a noble goal that is not often realized. 

We can be certain, however, that Donald Trump wants an American empire that is even more oppressive to the world than we already have. And Donald Trump is a cult leader. He said so when he said:

I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.

It turns out that his self confessed sexual improprieties have cost the Donald many voters. But his core of white society first people remain. To them, Donald Trump is indeed a cult leader, and they worship the man, who can do no wrong in their eyes. Here is a list of cult leaders, all with at least one corner on what they call truth that draws and keeps their followers. With Trump it is white supremacy, but others have had strong followings:

Having studied at length the life, teachings, and behaviors of Jim Jones (Jonestown Guyana), David Koresh (Branch Davidians), Stewart Traill (The Church of BibleUnderstanding), Charles Manson, Shoko Asahara (Aum Shinrikyo), Joseph Di Mambro (The Order of the Solar Temple aka Ordre du Temple Solaire), Marshall Heff Applewhit (Heaven’s Gate), Bhagwan Rajneesh (Rajneesh Movement), and Warren Jeffs (polygamist leader), what stands out about these individuals is that they were or are all pathologically narcissistic. They all have or had an over-abundant belief that they were special, that they and they alone had the answers to problems, and that they had to be revered... 
From the article containing the above quote, here is just a partial list they have for help in identifying cult leaders. If someone possesses most of these traits, one can be assured he is a cult leader. A religious position does not have to be a requirement, but a doctrine that makes the followers drawn to him, as in superior white domination, is required. Donald Trump, then, is a classic cult leader:

  1. He has a grandiose idea of who he is and what he can achieve.
  2. Is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, or brilliance.
  3. Demands blind unquestioned obedience.
  4. Requires excessive admiration from followers and outsiders.
  5. Has a sense of entitlement - expecting to be treated special at all times.
  6. Is exploitative of others by asking for their money or that of relatives putting others at financial risk.
  7. Is arrogant and haughty in his behavior or attitude.
  8. Has an exaggerated sense of power (entitlement) that allows him to bend rules and break laws.
  9. Takes sexual advantage of members of his sect or cult.
  10. Sex is a requirement with adults and sub adults as part of a ritual or rite.
  11. Is hypersensitive to how he is seen or perceived by others. 
  12. Publicly devalues others as being inferior, incapable, or not worthy.
  13. Hates to be embarrassed or fail publicly - when he does he acts out with rage.*
  14. Doesn’t seem to feel guilty for anything he has done wrong nor does he apologize for his actions.*
*These are last two are actually numbers 34 and 35 on the list of 50 traits, many of which are possessed by narcissistic cult leaders. 

I urge everyone to read the entire list and spread the word, Donald Trump fits the description of a dangerous and dominant cult leader. Certainly, the president of the United States cannot take on cult status, but Trump will keep the cult followers by using media, to make them pliable to possibly do things to undermine the Republic. Regardless of issues upon which he may make sense from time to time, the personality cult that he deliberately fosters must be avoided, at the ballot box, and in every way possible. 

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Top Ten Reasons Why Trump Cannot Be President

Here are the top ten reasons why Donald Trump cannot be president of the United States. These are not necessarily in the order of importance, although I have tried to rank them. These have all been verified or have become newsworthy:

1. He loves nuclear weapons. He stated also that he loves war. That makes the Donald a very dangerous human being.

2. He believes he has genetic, Aryan superiority. That doctrine is the most divisive political doctrine and opposes what the nation of the United States has stood for and fought for in World War 2.

3. He applies his ideas of racist superiority to hurt Americans in other bigoted ways, by calling them Mexicans, by hurting women, by calling them fat and/or ugly and/or dogs and/or flat chested, and by hurting disabled people by making fun of disabilities.

4. He is a child in a man's body, confirmed by his wife, who said he is an overgrown child. We must have an adult in the White House, not a child. Melania Trump says Donald was "egged on" by Howard Stern. If he is so weak a child, he should not be president.

5. He is an unstable soul, borderline mentally ill it would seem, by his relentless projection of all his bad traits onto other people and by his idea that in spite of self incrimination he is the victim.  Trump believes that he is somehow a victim of the political process and that there is mass rigging of elections.

6. He is a bully, calling for protesters at his rallies to be injured. He wanted a Scotsman farmer to pay for a fence to hide his cows from Trump's golf course, incurring anger from Scottish people. He has inflamed Mexico by seeking to get Mexico to pay for a wall to keep its people in. He suggested that his supporters could take action against Clinton over the Second Amendment.*

7. He is a groper of women, by his own admission. He now has women confirming his own statement. Melania Trump says the timing is suspect, but the release of the video showing Trump incriminating himself about groping private parts preceded the public accusations by the offended women.

8. He is a pervert with little girls. He has admitted to Howard Stern that his age barrier is very low. He has admitted that they do not have to be of age. A woman is suing him for raping her when she was 13 and she has a witness.

9. He is a hater, hating Muslims, whether peaceful or not. He wants to blow up Iran. He wants to destroy all families in war. He is a monster in waiting.

10. He promotes fear among Americans, He makes them fear other nations, cultures and this goes along with his white supremacy. He wants it to be us against the world and that will weaken America economically and will lead to war. He is a cult leader to his gullible supporters who feed on his fear mongering.

Dishonorable mention:

He is a bad businessman. We can't know the extent of how bad he is until he releases his tax returns.

As to number 6, I am a centrist who happens to support the Second Amendment because globalists want it ended. However, to suggest that followers should take violent action against Hillary Clinton goes too far and hurts the cause of the Second Amendment. 

Monday, October 17, 2016

Kyle Bass Says Helicopter Money Is the Only Way Out

This article was first published by me on Talkmarkets:

Kyle Bass had an interesting take on the state of the Fed's effectiveness. He concluded by saying that helicopter money is the only way out, which is the most important thing that he said, but he said other interesting things as well that make helicopter money look like the only way that all central banks can offer stimulus at the same time, throughout the world. 

As Tyler Durden has said, Bass believes that QE doesn't work well when everyone is doing it. In fact, he says a central banker told him that QE should only be done by one nation. That severely limits the effectiveness of QE when everyone is doing it. He goes on to say that non sterilized QE, which is more like helicopter money, must be the only tool left for the central banks.

Permission granted by J Kyle Bass Wikipedia
Non Sterilized QE means that the central bank expands base money without offsetting that expansion with a contraction elsewhere. Here is the Investopedia definition of sterilization. 

Sterilized intervention involves two separate transactions: 1) the sale or purchase of foreign currency assets, and 2) an open market operation involving the purchase or sale of U.S. government securities (in the same size as the first transaction). The open market operation effectively offsets or sterilizes the impact of the intervention on the monetary base.
Of course, real helicopter money as defined by Eric Lonergan is non sterilized. It amounts to a permanent increase in the money supply by offering everyone money in place of lending it to them. It does not require the usage of bonds, and it does not increase the debt of government, it only expands the balance sheet of the central banks. It would be shared by the central bank in a window of 12 to 18 months, allowing the central bank to monitor the goal of getting rates to move higher off the zero bound and out of negative where necessary. It would not be Universal Basic Income, which would require permanent transfers of money to the people.

This is a precise definition of helicopter money as I discussed Lonergan:

I checked with Mr Lonergan prior to writing this article, and he has confirmed that HM does not involve the issuance of treasury bonds as collateral. Former Fed president Narayana Kocherlakota always speaks of treasury bonds being issued for the purpose of spreading HM. But according to Lonergan, Kocherlakota is simply not correct in his analysis of what HM is. This is not to say there are laws that need to be changed from nation to nation to make this process work. But the issuance of treasury bonds is just QE again, but for the people. Helicopter money is much more powerful than QE! It is an alternative to QE.

I have to mention another most interesting thing Kyle Bass said regarding negative interest rates from the Tyler Durden link above:

And this idea of negative interest rates's interesting, academically negative interest rates look like they work on paper. And in reality, what these central bank heads are realizing, whether you're in Denmark or Japan or any of these economies, is savers think, "Well, I just need to save more if I'm not going to earn anything on my savings..."
I argued this point as well, that savers will save more, not less, so negative rates may not serve as a stimulus under those circumstances but will be shown to be a hindrance to economic prosperity.

See also:

Fed Tricksters, Put Your Monetarism Where Your Mouths Are 


Responsibly Expand the Monetary Base Before It Is Too Late


Riksbank: Cash Must Be a Protected Legal Right for Good Reason

Monday, October 10, 2016

Cash Is a Fundamental Human Right. Not So Says Business Insider

Access to cash is a fundamental human right. If banks cannot give you your cash, they should be dissolved. When you deposit your money into a bank, it is no longer yours, but is a loan to the bank. Since that is well understood in banking, the implication is that while it is in your possession, the cash belongs to you.

Therefore, the Business Insider article speaking to the issue of cash with the diverting title Traditional Banks May Be in Trouble Due to Digital Banking is very troubling. The article is an obituary for cash as a viable option going forward. And it is written by BI Intelligence, right from the heart of Business Insider.

Here are just a few disturbing trends they see. I have written about some of them, but the authors of this article have a positive take on these very disturbing trends, that have yet to be proven. This is my brief take on the points in the article:

1. The Bank Branch will become obsolete.

2. Banks should upgrade their technology to keep communication open with customers.

3. The ATM will go the way of the phone booth.

4. The smartphone will become the primary banking channel

Of course you need a subscription to get the whole scoop. I don't want to encourage this thinking.

But what concerns me is that the destruction of cash will be the destruction of freedom. When you loan money to the bank, it becomes the bank's money. When you don't loan money to the bank, you can save it under the mattress or spend it. It is your money.

But the banks are counting on technology to impose the abolition of freedom to hold cash, so they don't have to write a law. Same with Sweden, in particular, who seeks to abolish cash through allowing business the power to refuse cash transactions.

I believe both the destruction of access to cash and the refusal to take cash should be against the law at least for retail goods. The government must protect cash because if it doesn't, the consumer will only have two choices, to spend his money or lend it to the bank. 

Technology is doing for banks what they want to impose, forced savings or the choice to spend. They want a hot potato effect of spending to boost the economy. They would try for negative rates on retail accounts and push it as far as they need to, to get people to spend. They want to do away with big bills to force people to spend or deposit money, since it is cumbersome to take small bills around for large quantities of money.

And of course, this desire for a cashless society is all couched in the concept of crime. Stop crime by stopping large cash transactions they say. But it never was about crime. It was always about negative interest rates.  The real crime is the destruction of the freedom to access cash. That is a societal crime of immense proportions.  

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Donald Trump Will Grope Ann Coulter to Show Fairness

Donald Trump has come out saying he doesn't like flat chested women, who are on the skinny side. He likes voluptuous women and has stated so on Howard Stern. He regrets this statement deeply and wants to make amends.

So, in order to show that he is not sexist and is willing to treat all women fairly, he has decided to grope Ann Coulter, the conservative pundit who has been supporting him all along. He figures that at least flat chested girls will feel a little better if he goes ahead with this. He has not decided whether to do this deed on Saturday Night Live, at a press conference or at a debate.

Trump may even do a reality show if he can piece it together before the election. He is good at piecing. Or at least he brags that he likes interacting piecemeal. Well, something like that.

Trump is trying to kill two birds with one stone. First, as I said, he wants to show he likes all body types. Second, he wants people to know he likes adult women. He wants to minimize that Howard Stern interview where he caught himself saying he had no age limit as to the youth of females he would have sex with.

As to the first issue, NPR reported this:

On Friday afternoon, the Washington Post published a clip of Trump on a hot mic before an interview with Access Hollywood. In chatting with then-host Billy Bush, who is now co-host of NBC's Today show, Trump talked about kissing women and grabbing them between their legs (using far cruder language) without permission, because he's "attracted" to them like a "magnet."

As for the second Issue, Trump caught himself and said age 12 was certainly where he would draw the line. Here is the interview:

In a 2006 interview, Stern asks Trump, 
"Do you think you could now be banging 24-year-olds?"
"Oh, absolutely," Trump says.
"Would you do it?," asks Stern.
"I'd have no problem," Trump said.
Stern then asked Trump if he has an age limit.
"No, I have no age — I mean, I have age limit. I don't want to be like Congressman Foley, with, you know, 12-year-olds."[Emphasis mine]
We know he is being sued in NY by a woman who was 13 when a witness testified she saw Trump rape the girl. So, the fact that he expressed that his age limit was 12 is fairly significant. Trump wants to raise that a bit, at least to the age of consent. Ann is old enough for Trump to up that age limit.

It could be too late for that tactic, however. Trump is also on file stating that he likes to grope women's private parts. He expressed that pattern of behavior as groping a kitty. Well, you know.

So, as to character, Trump being a groper could bode ill for lawsuits both by adult women and adult women who were underaged. That is usually considered rape when accompanied by sexual intercourse.

Trump does not want to be known as a rapist, as that would really make his presidential bid a colossal waste of time. Nobody wants a rapist firing them. Nobody wants to be hired by a rapist. Trump's reality days could be over. He would likely have to cast his lot with the misfits of reality TV, Tanya Harding and that group.

That would be a big fall, but he may need the money. After all, he is pulling his campaign commercials. Maybe people want their money back, but we don't know. We heard he was in a lot of debt, but evidently that is why he is running for president in the first place!


Disclaimer: This article contains satire and humor, and while loaded with truth in my opinion, it is up to the reader to verify the claims of the article, which are made in jest and are not necessarily proven fact. Some claims are fiction. The Quotes in this article are authentic.

Author's note: Donald Trump caught himself saying he had no age limit on sexual relationships with young girls. Then he said yes, he had age limits. He gave the age limit as 13 years old, saying he would not have sex with a 12 year old. That should not be lost on the young lady bringing the lawsuit accusing Trump of rape and beating when she was 13. I believe Donald Trump has said things that show his character is one of sexual assault behavior towards adult women and maybe even under aged girls. This should trouble any religious person who is contemplating supporting Trump politically or in business. This conclusion is my opinion only.

Trump has made fun of women who don't meet his standard of voluptuousness. This damages young girls. Likewise, his criticism of the disabled is just disgusting and so is his criticism of minority citizens. I hope he is exposed, fully, for the kind of person he is, a racist, sexist, bully of a man.

Sunday, October 2, 2016

God Hates Master Race Idea. Donald Trump Embraces It

 This article was published, by me, at It is important in order to clear the air about master race ideas:

1. God hates the master race concept. Christians believe that Satan works among all leaders of the physical nations. However, the doctrine that is most Satanic is the one that proposes there is a master race. Donald Trump believes he is part of a master race, that he has the master race gene, through possessing German Blood. This is pure Satan. If you vote for Satan, it is your right, but you are putting the nation in grave danger. 

So Trump said from the video:

A. He has a certain gene. 
B. He has a winning gene.
C. He has German Blood.
D. He has the right genes. (Others must have the wrong genes.)

If you put the three of these statements together, along with a statement from his exwife that he kept a copy of Hitler's Mein Kampf on his nightstand, there is no other conclusion than he believes he has the master race gene. There is no other possible conclusion.

From Wikipedia:

...The ideology of Nazism was based upon the conception of the Aryan race or Germanic peoples being a master race.[33] The Nazi conception of the Aryan race arose from earlier proponents of a supremacist conception of the race as described by racial theorist figures such as Arthur de Gobineau and Houston Stewart Chamberlain...[34]

...Hitler's conception of the Aryan Herrenvolk ("Aryan master race") explicitly excluded the vast majority of Slavs, regarding the Slavs as having dangerous Jewish and Asiatic influences.[41][42] The Nazis because of this declared Slavs to be untermenschen (subhumans).[41][43] Exceptions were made for a small percentage of Slavs who were seen by the Nazis to be descended from German settlers and therefore fit to be Germanised to be considered part of the Aryan master race.[44] Hitler described Slavs as "a mass of born slaves who feel the need of a master"...[45]

...Hitler declared that because Slavs were subhumans that the Geneva Conventions were not applicable to them, and German soldiers in World War II were thus permitted to ignore the Geneva Conventions in regards to Slavs...[46]  [Emphasis mine]

2. God also hates Zionist versions of master race theory. Globally, Zionism has become multiracial. Joe Biden said you don't have to be Jewish to be a Zionist. But in Israel and in its inner doctrine, Zionism is racist. Zionism is not Judaism, nor is it any religion. It is a doctrine of a master race. It is fairly secret, but is why there is a Nazi spirit in the Zionist view. The Zionists borrowed from Hitler and adopted his views as their own. Menachem Begin said as much. Not all Israelis hold to this view, but, the power in Israel is Zionist power.

 From a debate about Zionism as racism:
Zionism is racism and genocide. The massacres at Deir Yassin [1948], Qiblyah [1953], Sabra and Shatila [1982], and other locales up to the past twelve years - Jenin and Gaza - are well documented, and - to the everlasting shame of the international community - not one perpetrator of these war crimes has been held accountable…
In 1975, the United Nations characterized Zionism as 'a form of racism'. By the early 1990s, under pressure from the United States, that characterization was rescinded. Such rescinding did not make the characterization any the less true then or now."[Emphasis mine]

"A society that endorses a 40-year occupation of another people cannot be a liberal one. A society that discriminates against 20 percent of its population because they are not Jews cannot be described as progressive. The problem in Israel is not the role of religion or tradition; it is the role of Zionism, a very clear ideology of exclusion, racism and expulsion. This ideology allows the army to play a significant role in most of the domestic and foreign policies, and it is probably right to say that Israel is not a state with an army, but an army with a state."[Emphasis mine]

A Zionist, Oded Yinon, had his writings revealed by translation to English, by Israel Shahak, a Jewish hero. Yinon called for regime change and total disregard for national sovereignty in the middle east. Our neocons adopted the plan, and initiated regime change in Iraq, Syria, Libya, and other nations, creating chaos and death.

3. More and more Jewish people oppose Zionism, such as the True Torah Jews, who predated Zionists in Israel by 100 years and do not recognize the Zionist state.

Israel seeks to place these Jews who are persecuted by the Zionists into military service. This is the Zionist way of forcing patriotism on them.

So, Zionism and Trump are two prime objects of God's anger and ultimate wrath towards His enemies, on the day we are all judged.

Other leaders have expressed superiority of their races throughout history. For example, while Hitler rejected Mediterranean superiority, Mussolini embraced it.

4. I do not oppose birth control, but I oppose abortion*, however, negative Eugenics was advocated by Margaret Sanger, champion of birth control. She believed that procreation of the irresponsible and reckless must be stopped.

What legitimate things she did for preventative birth control, were overshadowed by her views, her vision. She expressed ideas for stopping the poor from having children based on a misguided moral view. She said, in agreement with the Eugenicists, that society should:

"..assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."
Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit.

It isn't up to man to determine who is fit or unfit. Trump is for Eugenics. It is yet to be determined if he supports negative eugenics. I have written that Obama and Romney both had eugenicists as advisors.

5. As far as Hillary Clinton is concerned, she has always believed that children who are living should be given every opportunity to succeed. What desire she has for the improvement of genes is surely disturbing, but does not rise to the level of Trump's idea that he possesses the master race gene.

Hillary does not subscribe to a master race theory, but certainly supports Israel. But so does Donald Trump, in spite of his German blood comment.

6. Overall, Trump's master race ideas are much more dangerous than Hillary Clinton's views. Where Clinton may hold partially to the Sanger vision of a world where everyone has productive genes, certainly Trump holds to a view that there are not many, as a percentage of world population, that have his "certain" gene. That is a far more dangerous and exclusive world view. And it is a world view that rejects that all races are equal in the site of God.

*The state should stay out of abortion decisions, in order to maintain separation of church and state. This is my personal opinion.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

Great Recession Causes and Case Shiller as Explained by Marcus Nunes

 This article was first published by me on Talkmarkets:

Before ending with ideas offered by Marcus Nunes, it is helpful to explain Case-Shiller. The leading indicator of the housing crash was the Case-Shiller Home Price Index, abbreviated C-S HPI. It is a 20 city measurement of house prices. The leading indicator of the housing crash was in serious decline prior to the subprime housing crisis of August, 2007. The subprime crash of August was brought into being when the commercial paper market was destroyed, commercial banks were forced to take back loans hidden in SIVs, and subprime loans went away completely.

The banks could have solved at least part of this problem prior to the August crisis, with starter loans for first time buyers, who were either priced out of the market or forced to take subprime mortgages. Starter loans for first time buyers would have been new lifeblood interjected into a housing market where subprime was dying!

If the central bank had 1. encouraged this starter loan program, and 2. had not permitted mark to market, 3. banks would have honored promises to refi toxic loans, and 4. had embarked upon an effort to buy commercial paper in early 2007, the banks would not have stopped lending in the real estate market in general (though the bubble states may have suffered), and the following chart would not have looked the way it now looks.

There may have been a decline in prices, but surely not the decline that took place. After all, the real subprime (including Alt A) debacle came from 4 states, California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona. 

We can see that the crash started before the subprime financial crisis took place. The question is why? The C-S HPI clearly was the leading indicator of crash. The chart is shown below:

The decline in prices began in April, 2007. Again, this was way before the subprime crisis of August, 2007. But the decline was as intense in April as it was after August. The question remains, why?

Clearly, the bankruptcy of New Century Finance must have had a major affect on kick starting the real estate decline. The trouble started in January of 2007, increased in March, 2007, and culminated in the April 2, 2007 bankruptcy of the firm.

This should not have affected the entire housing market. However, the MBSs that were pledged as collateral were undermined by the bankruptcy. The mortgages were simply not worth what people thought they were worth. The collateral derived from the MBSs was not worth what was claimed.

The derivatives catastrophe that resulted from the mispricing of MBSs by the Fed made the New Century Finance demise that much more significant than it ever should have been. Banks had bet on the stability of these MBSs, making things even worse, undermining the these bonds

This derivatives catastrophe was all made possible by the creation of securitization of mortgages. Getting rid of the paper brought profits based on the volume, not the soundness, of the loans.  The bonds, mispriced by the Fed itself, were then used as collateral in other deals until shown to be faulty.

New Century was ruined when it was forced to repurchase failed mortgages which were no longer being securitized, and it ran out of money. According to Investopedia New Century was over leveraged, controlling 25 billion dollars of assets with 2 billion dollars of equity. Leverage played a key roll in the destruction of subprime lending. Yet it was all sanctioned by commercial banks until the CP market went under. Once New Century and more subprime lenders went under, the commercial banks had to bring the bad loans back onto their balance sheets. Lending to the subprime market effectively ended.

I take issue with the conclusion of the Investopedia article. The article author blames New Century, but really the fault was with those responsible for allowing deregulated entities like New Century to exist in the first place.  That would seem to fall at the feet of congress and central banks.

As Marcus Nunes has pointed out, once the subprime crisis had stalled, the next shoe to drop was the ability to borrow on your own wealth. That HELOC source of credit was destroyed in mid 2008, and with the demise of HELOCs, housing wealth as shown by the CS20 chart above was cratering too. That probably was the back breaking development.  Once nominal income and spending declined, and people had no access to credit from their own vanishing equity wealth, the economy collapsed!

Nominal spending is still below trend, as Nunes goes on to say. Therefore, recovery just isn't progressing as it should. Of course, that article was written in 2013, and it appears that the economy is a little stronger now, but not strong like past recoveries.

But, as Prof. Nunes points out, forcefully, the destruction of housing wealth, and the ability to borrow on that wealth, was a key driver of financial decay in the entire system, leading to the Great Recession. Not only did the banks experience a financial crisis, but so did many homeowners, the backbone of the middle class. Banks would not lend, and borrowers could not borrow.

If you want to keep an economy going, you have to give the people access to credit. Cut off credit in a widespread manner and you risk upending the financial system's solvency. Heloc destruction and the inability to refinance easy loans, caused a mark decline of wealth, and were key to the take down of the real estate market.

Yet the wealthy were able to blow the bubble back up in the last few years without the help of the middle class. Therefore, keeping credit going for the middle class during the financial crisis would not necessarily have been an exercise doomed to failure in most states. I just think it was failure that was wanted by those who would profit.

See more about Market Monetarist Marcus Nunes

Sunday, September 25, 2016

It Appears Donald Trump Is a Pedophile or Condones Pedophilia

Donald Trump may very well be a pedophile, not proven in a court of law, and/or condones pedophilia.

From the blog link above:

About Epstein, Trump said:
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,'' Trump booms from a speakerphone. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life."[Emphasis mine]
Epstein is a known pedophile, convicted in 2008. He has settled with 50 young women, and is said to have supplied a sex ring of young underage women, for powerful businessmen and other powerful figures in NYC. Trump is toast if we show people he condones pedophilia. And it appears he does!

The blog link is useful as it goes into detail about certain Trump pedophilia issues. He can squash this claim about donating to pedophile groups simply by showing his tax return. It is clear Mr Trump had a close relationship with Jeffrey Epstein no matter what his attorney says.The link above spells it out.

I do not believe Trump can fix his unwholesome ties with Jeffrey Epstein, since he was found in Epstein's little black pedophilia book in 2004. He had numerous contacts with Epstein during those years, and even flew with him on his private jet according to Epstein's brother Mark, in sworn testimony.

A new lawsuit has emerged, filed in NYC, alleging Trump raped and beat a girl, then 13, and promised to kill her if she told his family. That is a serious charge. There is a witness who has given her testimony to the court. 

Sunday, September 18, 2016

Currency Hegemony, GDP Growth, and Why BREXIT Was Good for the UK

 This article was first published by me on Talkmarkets:

Currency Hegemony was in the works for the UK and all nations committed to a single Eurozone. This hegemony would be applied soon after 2020 according to a report from the Telegraph. Those who make the mistake of arguing that this sort of strong arm requirement would not be imposed upon the UK, as a reason to stay in the EU, are possibly undermining the future stability of the UK as a nation

Certainly, members of the EU have ducked the Eurozone and the Euro currency up til now. But according to the report, that would change. The Single European State is slated to come into existence. Can you imagine reports of plots to block the BREXIT coming out in the light of only a few years before a currency will be enforced upon the Brits with the pound being made extinct?

Eventually, this issue will rise to the top since it is the top issue. It is a top issue because of the need for Brits to eventually 1. abandon the pound, and 2. be required to disarm their nuclear deterrent force. It will start out as a Syncronized Armed Forces Europe. but will eventually be expected to operate as the USA operates. It is one thing to merge soldiers, quite another to merge and give up sovereignty regarding one's nuclear deterrent. Ask the state of California how much sovereignty it has over the US nuclear arsenal! Unelected technocrats in the EU (Eurocrats) would eventually take over the arsenals in establishing the Single European State.

So, just as US citizens would never allow the dollar to replaced, I believe that the UK will never allow the pound to be replaced. Had they put the BREXIT vote off, this backlash would have been certain to occur.

I don't hold out much hope for a Single European State and looking at the Peggers and the Floaters with Lars Christiansen explains why. 

As the link indicates, those nations that pegged their currencies to the Euro have not grown much. GDP has languished. But those who float against the Euro have had real GDP growth. As for GDP, the floaters have grown 5 times faster than the peggers. A central bank policy that attempts to fix all the nations with one policy has failed. The UK wants its GDP to grow, so it makes no sense to adopt the Euro.

Leave the UK alone, in other words. We have financial shocks from time to time, like the credit and asset crisis of 2008. In times of shock, having one's own currency is essential to real and quicker, recovery.

Monday, September 12, 2016

France Bosses the UK But Eurozone is the Flawed Organization

 This article was first published to my personal blog at Talkmarkets:

If anyone had any doubts regarding the real position of the Eurozone versus the UK and how that would have played out had Brexit failed, one only has to turn to the behavior of France as an example. With Brexit succeeding,  France ordered the UK to quickly choose the new Prime Minister after David Cameron had resigned. That is quite rude behavior. Now we find out that more than half of French voters want a referendum on Frexit!

France could have taken the high road, the dignified road. But it showed its true colors even though as I show later, it should get out of the Eurozone yesterday. The Eurozone would have eventually shown its true colors, maximum austerity and settling for negative interest rates, had the UK experienced any financial shock that could have changed its fortune. And if the UK had prospered, it would have teamed with Germany to control the entire block. But the concept of nations held hostage to negative rates may run against the grain of UK economics, which rejects negativity in most corners.

It looks like France was a loser in Brexit. The French CAC was down 8.04 percent. The FTSE was only down 3.15 percent. Spain was another loser in the market. The UK does not export goods and services that are important to maintaining a union. But Spain, which may benefit from free trade, is facing massive, horrendous unemployment by staying in the Eurozone.

Growth seems to be fleeting in Italy, Spain and most of the Eurozone, especially opportunity for the young. An entire generation is at risk. This was true before the Euro, but the hopes from adopting the Euro as a solution to this problem have evaporated. A chart listed below proves this to be the case.

Attributed to Sodacan, Wikipedia
Spain needs a cheaper currency, but Spain will only get that if it follows the lead of the UK. The amazingly shrinking Eurozone economic system shows us that Italy should come out too. What good is it to have massive youth unemployment and a smaller economy than Italy possessed in 2000? It makes no sense.

Investors are fleeing the markets that will be hurt the most by rumblings of discontent. The UK FTSE is not one such market. The UK maintained its sovereignty, remember?

The British have a natural separation from the rest of Europe. It is called the English Channel. It is a natural course of things that this separation be maintained. It as a symbol, translates into the need for sovereignty in governmental affairs as well.

Perhaps some of you remember the cry, "no taxation without representation", that guided the fathers of America. Certainly when it comes to the Eurozone, we could be crying for "no regulations without representation." This is what the Eurozone has become, essentially a fraudulent organization imposing it's will on lesser nations. This great source explains it in a nutshell:

Concepts of "shared sovereignty,"  "pooled sovereignty" and "joint national sovereignties" are covers for having one's laws and policies decided by European Union bodies one does not elect, that are not responsible to one's own people and that can have significantly different interests from them. As EU members countries can no longer decide their own laws over a wide range of public policy. In practice countries and peoples that surrender their sovereignty to the EU become ever more subject to laws and policies that serve the interests of others, in particular the bigger EU states. The claim that if a nation or state surrenders its sovereignty to the EU, it merely exchanges the sovereignty of a small state for participation in decision-making in a larger supranational EU, is simply untrue. The reality is different. The EU continually reduces the influence of smaller states in decision-making by abolishing or limiting national veto powers. Even if bigger states divest themselves similarly of formal veto power, their political and economic weight ensures that they can get their way in matters decisive to them.

There is no doubt that the UK and Germany would ultimately gang up on France and the periphery nations like and Spain. So, one wonders how it could be that France would want to weaken it's position within the Eurozone by seeking to admit the UK. Truth is, France has better reasons to leave the Eurozone than the UK does! France has many members who want out. For France, staying in gives little benefit, only order. France cares about order, not so much about prosperity.

Cameron wanted austerity, and ultimately power to direct the Eurozone as part of an economic mafia of sorts, in order to avoid disorder that would result from the overspending poorer nations in the zone. Germany and the UK would have comprised a formidable financial mafia against the periphery nations, formerly known as PIIGS. Even the FT is aware that France wants out, and that the Eurozone is showing signs of decay. What other signs could a failed concept show? There may even be a plot to use investors to finance government of the chosen among the Eurozone nations through getting these investors to pay interest for selected Eurobonds.

As for America, let's get real. We have our own currency. We are not in a zone. We are sovereign as to our currency. Like the UK can still do, we can issue helicopter money. We can revive off the negative interest rate floor in a way that the Eurozone may not ever be able to do. We can devalue our currency if we have to. It appears the Eurozone has settled for negative rates even for long bonds and seek to end cash in some instances.

And the Eurozone has settled for massive youth unemployment, from almost 50 percent of the youth workforce in Greece to a horrendous 19.4 percent average in all of the Eurozone. Yet Germany's youth unemployment stands at 6.9 percent! I hope the US and UK do not go down that road of a shared currency with certain destruction of opportunity for the youth, unless you are the lead nation.  As we see by the FRED chart, the hope of the Euro in reducing youth unemployment in France has evaporated and an extension of the chart would show that the rate has leveled off but not declined even into 2016.

Click to Enlarge

As for investing, lots of caution in the air is being floated by pundits. No one really knows how much the Eurozone can do to make the UK "look like it made a bad decision".  But the EU clearly had more to lose than the UK in this vote, over the long run. How that plays out in the markets for the next couple of years should prove interesting.

See also:

Westfalia Lost


Personal Thoughts on Brexit Politics

Sunday, September 4, 2016

Brexit: Cameron, the Architect of Austerity, Almost Fooled the Brits

 I first posted this to my personal blog at Talkmarkets:

Poor David Cameron must have the weight of the EU on his shoulders today. He had many tools that would lead him to victory against Brexit, and almost the full cooperation of the entire media establishment while crying wolf and scaring the Brits with the fear factor, if the Brits exited the Eurozone.  Anyone who looks at the Eurozone knows this psuedo sovereignty can't work, and the zone would have pilfered the wealth of the UK while putting the nation into a prison of strict austerity.

So, what happened to the globalist plan gone bad? It is simple to understand. The globalists simply wanted it all. They wanted regime change worldwide, which interfered with the natural order of things, the Westfalia Peace. They wanted refugees, and continued with plans for moving them into Europe.
It is interesting that regime change, an attack on Wesfalia, turned out to be the mechanism that resulted in even greater calls for sovereignty, a backlash against the refugees!

Had the economy of Europe been stronger, the refugees would not have been so big an issue. They were an issue because Cameron and many leaders in the Eurozone were just technocrats in sheeps' clothing. Cameron implemented austerity in order to get the UK ready for the vice of Eurozone membership. Anyone could see what was going on. He was working for Brussels all along. Even Vlad Putin can smell a rat in all this. Cameron had said that leaving the Eurozone would benefit Putin and cause destabilization in the UK. Putin responded with the obvious:
“The number of binding decisions taken by the European Parliament as a percentage, is much greater than the number of binding decisions taken by the Soviet Union’s Supreme Council of the Federal Republic. This means that the concentration of power there is very high. Some like that, some don’t…and it appears that the majority of people in great Britain don’t.”
It looks like, from the behavior of stock markets in the beginning, that British stocks held up well, being down under 3 percent while stocks in the Eurozone were down 8 percent! That tells me that the Eurozone needed the UK a lot more than the UK needed the Eurozone. Cameron's destabilization cry regarding Putin was simply a lie. Putin said he refused to interfere with sovereign decisions of another nation, something the west threw out when it threw out the Westfalia Peace.

Add to this plot to undermine sovereignty, that the fear factor campaign presented little evidence that specific damages to the British economy would happen, and many were able to see through the entire charade.

Again, the refugees would have caused little consternation had the British economy been more robust. The economy was overcome by the austerity, by the continued pockets of massively high unemployment of the young, much like you saw in Spain and in struggling EU nations. Tying one's hands in allowing this unemployment must have seemed like a futile exercise to the voters. Private jobs have increased in the EU but they are inferior to past jobs in pay, and government jobs have not come back. Liquidation is as good a term as austerity when considering the British economy, at least liquidation of the public sector.

When a nation has its own currency, at least there is hope that austerity can be put on hold when necessary. Tying the UK to the dreadful Euro, a currency without a nation, seemed to be a recipe for slow growth in the economy and extreme austerity moving forward.

What the nations gain in staying out of the Eurozone (leading to the Euro), is their own currency, their own immigration policies and their own sense of nationhood and culture. Sovereignty of the nations really is the natural order of things. Empire is not the natural order of things and empires have crashed repeatedly through the history of mankind.

Now, don't get me wrong. There can be a negative side to sovereignty of the nations. Nations can descend into the abyss, as Germany did in electing Adolph Hitler. Other demagogues have come to use sovereign issues as a means to vent their extreme racism, their intolerance of others and of other nations.

So, there is a good side of sovereignty, the natural order of mutual respect nation to nation. And there is a bad side to sovereignty, the rise of Hitler and others like him who could care less about the natural order and of mutual respect among the nations! 

The globalist clear mission of destroying the Peace of Westfalia or Westphalia, destroying the natural inclination of nations to respect their neighbors, through advocating regime change and financial shenanigans, like liar loans across many nations, is now easy for many to see.

The only potential danger with this move toward sovereignty is that predator politicians who want to treat their neighbor nations badly also jump on the sovereignty bandwagon. I don't even have to mention who these people are. You know who they are.

But a worse fear for the Brits was Germany bossing them around in the Eurozone. It has been said that France is on its "last legs", and the UK would bolster the union. Otherwise, Germany will more and more be the dominant force in the EU. I don't think the Brits want to have a nation known for projecting its will be one that can then tell the UK what to do. But the insidious nature of the EU certainly has become a factor, as even the flag of the UK would have to be changed to reflect the Eurozone. As the article says, Brussels gets what it wants.

As for David Cameron, he has proven to be a very cowardly little man, blaming the electorate when he himself put austerity in place. He himself tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the Brits and he never had their interests paramount. He had lots of help, but people saw through the plot in the nick of time.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016

Stephen Williamson and Current Fed Behavior

 Professor Williamson, VP of the St Louis Fed said this in a comment to his blog article, to a fellow who said NeoFisherism won't work, but may result in less consumer spending and just a bidding up of assets:

Your comment illustrates the problem with what David is looking for, which is some "intuition" that will somehow convince people who are not on board with the idea. Any "intuition" that people have comes from thinking about some model that is familiar to them. In some cases, that seems to be some undergraduate IS/LM/Phillips curve model with fixed inflation expectations. In that type of model, tighter monetary policy makes the interest rate go up, spending goes down and, via a Phillips curve effect, inflation goes down. If that's your "intuition," then nothing will convince you that higher nominal interest rates make inflation go up. Checking our ideas for internal consistency involves constructing rigorous models, and trying to understand what these models have to say about the real world, and whether or not the models fit the facts as we know them. That's the level at which the convincing gets done, not in telling "intuitive" stories. I have no idea why you think the underlying assumptions behind the idea are "unrealistic," but the theory is what macroeconomists have worked on for some 40+ years - it's boilerplate.
 I responded to the Fed VP, who is willing to get to the heart of some major issues:

40 years ago, Prof, we didn't have maddening bond hoarding. We didn't have banks and counterparties fearful that a little rise in interest rates would force collateral to decline in price, causing the need to hoard even more bonds, pushing the long yields down even further.

As far as NeoFisherism is concerned, the bond hoarding is what creates the conundrum, and Greenspan said this very thing in 2007:

"To be sure, the benefits of derivatives, both to individual institutions and to the financial system and the economy as a whole, could be diminished, and financial instability could result, if the risks associated with their use are not managed effectively. Of particular importance is the management of counterparty credit risks. Risk transfer through derivatives is effective only if the parties to whom risk is transferred can perform their contractual obligations. These parties include both derivatives dealers that act as intermediaries in these markets and hedge funds and other nonbank financial entities that increasingly are the ultimate bearers of risk."

Greenspan created, IMO, too big to fail, and put the risk squarely on the counterparties and off the TBTF banks. He wanted the S&L crisis to never happen to another bank. But what he failed to understand was that risk doesn't go away, it just goes to the counterparties and the clearinghouses that demand more and more collateral for derivatives.

So, I will bet you a dollar, Prof, that any efforts to raise short rates will continue the conundrum, which is really not a conundrum at all, but is exactly what Greenspan engineered to happen.

I honestly believe the Federal Reserve Bank knows long yields cannot go up, but it is in on this tantrum behavior.

The only thing I don't quite understand is if there is a real shortage of the treasury bonds as collateral, or if there are plenty of other bonds, like corporate bonds, which can be used with a haircut. I am thinking that Greenspan's investors don't want to pay that haircut premium, which is why Greenspan is now engaged in tantrums continually, to get weak hands to get rid of their long bonds.

I am sorry if I seem cynical, but how can anyone seriously not be cynical about this system.   

The banks want a little raise in yields so they can get a boost from IOR, which is like a welfare check to them from the people.

It is the counterparties and clearinghouses that are at risk. The banks are reporting less revenue and profits yoy,  but the folks with most of the collateral are counterparties to the banks. Greenspan wanted it that way. He wanted TBTF and he got it.

Of course, the counterparties can’t provide enough collateral to the casino if the Fed raises yields. You think bonds are hoarded now. Wait till short rates are raised and you will see a massive “conundrum” of demand for long bonds. And of course, really, it is not a conundrum at all. Even Greenspan knew this and said:

To be sure, the benefits of derivatives, both to individual institutions and to the financial system and the economy as a whole, could be diminished, and financial instability could result, if the risks associated with their use are not managed effectively. Of particular importance is the management of counterparty credit risks. Risk transfer through derivatives is effective only if the parties to whom risk is transferred can perform their contractual obligations. These parties include both derivatives dealers that act as intermediaries in these markets and hedge funds and other nonbank financial entities that increasingly are the ultimate bearers of risk.

It is clear that the counterparties could undermine the stability of the financial system. The betting and trading they do is a significant portion of all trades.As George Carlin once said, the elite don't care meaning the Fed (banker to the will of elite) doesn't much care. I have become more cynical and the Fed, first mispricing risk, then being slow to save the economy did more than destroy wealth. it transferred it from mainstreet to Wall Street. It almost looks preplanned, and there is a strong case that the Fed decided to liquidate the economy so that Wall Street could consolidate financial power in the Great Recession.

But of course, creating structured finance, bond hoarding and derivatives has just boxed the Fed in. It may be comfortable with that box, thinking not much could go wrong in the new normal it seems to relish. Although I am sure it is not without worry about what could go wrong.

If you read Stephen Williamson's blog (and by the way he has been very kind in posting my comments most of the time), you will see that the mind of the Fed as revealed by Prof Williamson is technical to the core, and involves just a little tinkering with rates and minimal Fed tools. The Fed really isn't worried too much about big moves, and as long as growth is slow, they seem fine with how things are, so far. And so far is no guarantee of future Fed success!

Friday, August 26, 2016

Sorting Out the Ryan Lochte Story

The Ryan Lochte story needs to be sorted out. While I support national sovereignty over loss of sovereignty to global alliances, I only support sovereignty that comes with mutual respect.

The old idea of the ugly American, or the ugly German, or sometime now, the ugly Israeli comes to mind as an abuse of sovereignty, a patriotism gone wrong.

One could even add Donald Trump to that camp, not respecting Mexico apparently because he lost a big deal there and had to pay up in a lawsuit. But this article isn't about that ugly American, Donald Trump. It is about the ugly American, Ryan Lochte.

Lochte and his friends were allegedly drinking and some vandalism occurred at a convenience store in Brazil during the Olympics. Lochte and his friends claimed, allegedly, that they were robbed at gunpoint. It turns out that security at the store simply demanded payment for the damage that the Americans caused.

That would have been the end of it, damages done, damages paid for. But when Lochte and his friends apparently filed a police report saying they were robbed, it looked to many as a coverup of what really happened.

The Brazilian government has since filed charges against Lochte for filing a false police report. He has lost most sponsors and is relegated to reality TV, like Dancing with the Stars. He has been banned from the 2020 Olympics, and more punishment from the Olympic leadership may follow.

Lochte made a minor situation worse because the Rio games were far safer than reports said prior to the games. Those reports were all over the news. Rio proved those authors wrong. But then came Lochte and company, placing a stain on the Olympic games themselves just to cover up vandalism.

A young person's mistake, minor vandalism, turned into a disastrous slander, in my opinion, against the nation of Brazil. That is why Ryan Lochte is in so much trouble.

He will always, being famous or infamous now, have reality TV to fall back on. One only has to look back to Tanya Harding, banned from skating when her team attacked a competitor, Nancy Kerrigan, in the knee.

It is a sad chapter in American behavior abroad. But as long as empire controls our leaders and their ambitions for world dominance, ugly American behavior will continue. It is almost bred into people from an early age, that the USA is number one.

Unfortunately, we are both number one in good things and number one in bad behavior, all the way up to and including regime change, which is a policy of the USA. It is disrespectful to sovereignty, and makes America the thug, not the policeman, of the world.

That role as policeman changed to role as thug came with the election of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney. We have not recovered from that behavior and will likely not anytime soon, under any president we elect. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Ryan Lochte apparently is a young example of a wider American problem, the arrogance of power, manifested for all the world to see.