Posted by: Dr Pano Kroko Churchill | April 20, 2017

That

The whole world lives within a safeguarding:
Fish inside waves, birds held in the sky;

All subsist, exist, held in the divine.
Nothing is ever alone for a single moment.

All giving comes from There;

No matter who you think,
you put your open hand out towards;

It’s ‘That’ which gives.

–Rumi

 

screen-shot-2017-02-02-at-10-36-03-am

 

Yours,

Dr Churchill

 

Posted by: Dr Pano Kroko Churchill | April 7, 2017

Some Sorrow

The deeper that sorrow carves into your being,
the more joy you can contain…

When you are joyous, look deep into your heart,

and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow,
that is giving you joy.

When you are sorrowful — look again in your heart,

and you shall see that in truth you are weeping,
for that which has been your delight.

–Khalel Gibran

Posted by: Dr Pano Kroko Churchill | April 5, 2017

It was good, it was good . . . it was very good…

“It was good, it was good . . . it was very good”

–Genesis 1:10-31

Posted by: Dr Pano Kroko Churchill | April 5, 2017

All the President’s Men…

Steve Bannon is arguably the biggest Kingmaker on the United States today, and also around the World.

Even now, judging whether Trump’s agenda will succeed, also depends in no small measure on the natural learner’s ability inherent to Steve Bannon, to expand his game beyond the building situated on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, and to increase his influence well beyond his efficient & safe advising for the President.

Yet it is only because the White House is Steve Bannon’s domain today, that he can operate behind the scenes effectively. And although the Capitol Hill denizens tend to hate him, while the rest of America is quite ignorant of his Machiavellian talents, he still commands the respect of an influential minority of Politically savvy Citizens and Influencers, although he is largely an unknown quantity to all the rest of America.

Yet for the savvy observer and the erudite historian, the public face of Steve Bannon has already had plenty of public successes under his belt already. Formerly as the first Editor of Breitbart Media, after the death of the Founder, and also as the intelligence behind that brand’s success that has seen him single handedly to have built a Brand and to have cultivated a cult following of tens of millions of enthusiastic & patriotic users, and consumers of that type of highly political and nationalistic Media.

And as things stand at the ripe young 63 years of age — Steve Bannon has been credited with being the only responsible “KingMaker” of this era and certainly the amanuensis of President Trump. That Steve Bannon with the unassuming personality, and the dress code straight out of yesterday’s crumpled or slept in GAP, and a fat wallet — is the person to know in Washington. His personal worth estimated to be in the upper tens of millions of dollars, is wealth generated mainly through his intellect and through his prescient investments in the Entertainment Business. His chief investment in the company that owns the syndication rights to the serial TV comedy show “Seinfeld” — made Steve Bannon a rich man to be regarded by President Trump as a peer, in the way that, the 45 year old lifelong political animal, Chief of Staff, Reince Hercules Priebus, and all the other leaders and bureaucrats of the current United States Donald Trump Administration, are not.

screen-shot-2017-03-05-at-1-30-45-pm

Steve Bannon, is also seen by the President approvingly, as a fellow traveller and a serious workaholic — whose deficit is only in the area of family and personal relations. This is the assessment on Steve Bannon as carried by the current United States President Donald Trump, whose only known hobbies are the following three: His family, his game of golf, and his deal making.

So as Trump’s Chief Advisor, Steve Bannon is a deft operator who has learned from the successes and also from the abysmal failures of all other Trump advisers, past & present. Therefore he has carefully made sure to not claim credit in any area that President Trump would wish for himself, and that is why he avoids at all costs, giving expansive interviews, on his own controversial views, and beliefs that might belie Trumps’ ideology, and on issues that might detract from his boss’s celebrity.

Like the former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, Steve Bannon understands that power in President’s Trump World derives mainly from his close and sustained physical proximity to the Big Boss. And wisely unlike Lewandowski, Bannon immediately grasped the importance of maintaining close relations with Jared Kushner, who factored heavily in Lewandowski’s dismissal from the Trump campaign last summer, and also avoids any public firework displays of his runaway and off the charts intelligence.

Yet he is very much like Kushner, because Steve Bannon has never worked in government, or at a policy-making institute, and has no meaningful experience when it comes to getting legislation passed. As for the Capitol Hill — he has a few random associations — such as Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Representative John Culberson of Texas, and Speaker Paul Ryan, among them. Other than those three — he remains a looming yet unknown presence to the lawmakers who will be needed to pass most of Trump’s legislative agenda, if it were to become the Law of the land.

Take for example that fact that only two weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, the House speaker, Paul Ryan, hosted a dinner at his office in the Capitol with members of Trump’s inner circle. The guests included the president-elect’s chief White House strategist, Stephen K. Bannon; his son-in-law and family consigliere, Jared Kushner; his chief of staff, Reince Priebus; his economic adviser, Gary Cohn; his nominee for Treasury secretary, Steven Mnuchin; his incoming deputy chief of staff, Rick Dearborn; and his legislative-affairs director, Marc Short. The ostensible purpose of the dinner was to discuss the details of Trump’s legislative agenda — in particular, the prospects for a sweeping tax-reform measure that Republicans, and especially Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, have been coveting well over the past decade.

It was hoped that the dinner could also establish some sort of common ground between Ryan and Bannon, the two figures who would arguably wield the greatest influence over how Trump’s campaign promises became law — or didn’t. Ryan was a fixture among establishment Republicans even before joining Mitt Romney’s presidential ticket in 2012, his previous labors on the House Budget Committee cementing his reputation as the charts-and-graphs wizard of fiscal conservatism. Bannon, by contrast, was a renegade autodidact who read Plato and had seemingly materialized from nowhere to become the intellectual architect of Trump’s campaign and, later, administration.

Up to this point, Ryan had epitomized to Bannon everything that was wrong with the Republican Party. Discussing the two parties’ shortcomings, Bannon had said: “What’s that Tolstoy line: Happy families are all the same, but unhappy families are unhappy in their own unique ways?” Likewise, “I think the Democrats are fundamentally afflicted with the inability to discuss and have an adult conversation about economics and jobs, because they’re too consumed by identity politics. And then the Republicans, it’s all this theoretical Cato Institute, Austrian economics, limited government — which just doesn’t have any depth to it. They’re not living in the real world.”

screen-shot-2017-03-05-at-10-03-36-am

Breitbart News, the Right wing media outlet that Steve Bannon ran before becoming the chief executive of the Trump campaign in August of 2016, had described Speaker Paul Ryan, as “arguably the most pro-amnesty G.O.P. lawmaker in Congress” — when referring to his position on immigration — an apostasy of nearly impeachable proportions from Steve Bannon’s perspective. Worst of all, House Speaker Paul Ryan, at one point totally abandoned Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. After the Hillary campaign leaks against Trump in October of 2016, the damaging “Access Hollywood” tape stemming from his locker room banter of his Hollywood episode — Speaker Paul Ryan told fellow Republican House members on a conference call that: “I am not going to defend Donald Trump — not now, not in the future.” A Republican lawmaker on the call told Trump what Speaker Paul Ryan had said, which constitutes yet another reason for Steve Bannon to regard him with suspicion although as reported the two men have a very cordial and understandably friendly relationship.

So as the previously described Speaker of the House Paul Ryan dinner progressed — it became clear that Bannon and Ryan actually had some very strong ideas in common that allowed them to bond massively. Over memorably bad chicken Parmesan, Ryan described his vision for a “border-adjustment tax,” which would levy taxes on imports while offering exemptions for exports. His tax package would include “immediate expensing,” he explained, in which capital expenditures would be written off against profits in the first year rather than over time. It also would abolish the alternative minimum tax and the estate tax.

These were conservative ideas that Paul Ryan had been pushing since 2008. Now they had also captured Steve Bannon’s attention, and consequently the President’s. Taken together with a drastic reduction in corporate taxes, Bannon believed, Ryan’s scheme would spur a renaissance of a manufacturing-based export economy, producing high-income labor in keeping with Trump’s populism. “I would actually say,” Bannon remembers observing admiringly, “that this tax reform comes as close to a first step of economic nationalism as there is.”

“I would call it responsible nationalism” Ryan said, according to Bannon who laughed and said: “You’re going to have a lot of folks in the Senate say this is breathtakingly radical.” Steve Bannon meant this as a compliment, because according to Bannon, the entire world order, from the two political parties to the Wall Street reliance on leveraging to multiculturalism, is undergoing an extraordinary realignment, one made manifest stronger than ever in the outcomes of the 2016 U.S. elections. And according to Bannon’s vision, economic nationalism would reorient governmental priorities towards the working class’s benefit. Trade deals, jobs programs, tax incentives, immigration restrictions, environmental deregulation and even foreign policy would ultimately serve to restore the primacy of those Trump called “the forgotten Americans.”

For Trump the term “economic nationalism” means something slightly different as compared with Bannon’s revolutionary fervor, and is encapsulated in the President’s quotation herewith: “Well, nationalism, I define it as people who love the country and want it to do good,” President Trump said. “I don’t see nationalism as a bad word. I see it as a very positive word. It doesn’t mean we won’t trade with other countries.”

Trump’s tone is genial but also defensive because his postelection honeymoon has been rather short, if it ever existed at all. There were the administrative intrigues and all the Twitter drama, along with the questions about his campaign’s contacts with Russia, which had already forced the resignation of his national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Still, Trump’s legislative liaisons and their counterparts on Capitol Hill were doggedly negotiating a rollout of the Trump Era, one that would fulfill his most significant campaign promises — those that could not be done with just a stroke of Trump’s own pen but required acts of Congress.

First, Obamacare would be repealed and replaced. Next, an austere budget would be passed, with emergency funds allotted for the construction of a wall along the Southern border. Then would come a tax-reform plan, presumably of the type Ryan and Bannon discussed. And finally, a bipartisan coalition would deliver a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan to Trump’s desk. If all this came to pass by the end of 2017, it would lend some credence to Trump’s pledge that this would be “the busiest Congress we’ve had in ecades.” But by March, this timetable was looking like a formidable “if.”

Trump himself seemed prone to distraction as he spoke from the Oval Office. When asked about his policy aims, his musings swerved off to other vexations. More than once he denounced as “fake news” reports about his administration’s supposed disharmony. He brought up his speech before the joint session of Congress in February, “which I hope you liked, but I certainly have gotten great reviews — even the people who hate me gave me the highest review.” Trump sounded more clipped and less jaunty than he did during his discursive chats on the campaign trail. The business of governing had little to do with any trade he had previously practiced. In Congress, he was grappling with an arcane and famously inefficient ecosystem over which he had little if any control — and people he incessantly derided on the campaign trail as being “all talk and no action. It’s like any other industry. I’ve met some great politicians and some, to be honest, who aren’t so hot.”

Trump wanted to make sure that he was given adequate credit for his achievements, even in his administration’s infancy. “We’ve only been here for a tiny speck of time,” he said, “and what I’ve done with regulations, moving jobs back into the country, what I’ve done with airplane pricing and buying is amazing. We’ve done a lot. I think we’ve done more than anybody for this short period of time.”

Of course, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and even Lyndon Johnson, would take exception to this claim… And it is also important to recall that President Trump’s significant actions to this date, have consisted entirely of executive orders. What he has not yet demonstrated is his ability to actually shepherd bills into laws.

screen-shot-2017-03-05-at-1-28-11-pm

The only major legislation that congressional committees have even seen thus far is a bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, which met with a stunning rebuke from Trump’s own party zealots, forcing Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to withdraw the ACA measure on the afternoon of March 24. As a comparison — at this stage of his presidency, Barack Obama had already signed into law his $787 billion economic-stimulus package and had moved on to holding White House meetings on health care. It’s conceivable that Trump could hit Day 100 with only minor symbolic legislative achievements to his name. For him to avoid this ignominy, the 45th president will have to develop a rapport with Washington’s 535 federal deal makers, including the ones who “aren’t so hot.”

And Steve Bannon’s interest in this agenda, also predated his association with President Donald Trump. One evening in January 2013, two guests showed up for dinner at the Capitol Hill townhouse that Bannon liked to call the Breitbart Embassy. One was the man Bannon would later describe as his “mentor”: Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama. The other was Sessions’s top aide and protégé, a jittery 27-year-old named Stephen Miller.

Two months earlier, Obama decisively defeated Mitt Romney in the presidential election, prompting Priebus, then the chairman of the Republican National Committee, to commission an analysis of the state of the party and its future, known colloquially in Washington as the “autopsy” which would be delivered that spring. The only certainty was that the report would urge Republicans to court the growing Latino electorate — which had voted for Obama by a 44-point margin that November — by championing comprehensive immigration reform. The three men at the dinner table that night were among the few Republicans in town who thoroughly rejected that conclusion.

Bannon wanted to talk to Sessions and Miller about a different report: an article written by Sean Trende, the senior elections analyst for the website RealClearPolitics, titled “The Case of the Missing White Voters”

In that report, Sean Trende observed that Obama’s victory was less a function of increased minority turnout than of the fact that 6.6 million white voters who participated in the 2008 election stayed home in 2012. The reason for this drop, Trende argued, was that white working-class voters who did not approve of Obama but were alienated by Romney’s perceived elitism had not voted.

These votes were gettable, Bannon believed. As he would later state: “The working class, and in particular the lower middle class, understands something that’s so obvious — which is that they’ve basically underwritten the rise of China. Their jobs, their raises, their retirement accounts have all fueled the private equity and venture capital that built China. Because China’s really built on investments and exports, right? People are smart enough to know that they’re getting played by both political parties. The two may be different on social issues, but when it comes to fundamental economics, they’re both the same. That’s why the American working class is interested in trade. It’s linked to their lives.”

Sessions shared Bannon’s belief that the Republican Party needed to emphasize immigration reduction, border security and the preservation of working-class jobs through trade policy rather than courting Latino voters with a bill he regarded as “amnesty.” As Sessions would write in a memorandum to his Republican colleagues six months later, “This humble and honest populism — in contrast to the administration’s cheap demagoguery — would open the ears of millions who have turned away from our party.”

At some point during the five-hour dinner, Bannon recalls blurting out to Sessions, “We have to run you for President.” Just two years earlier, in 2011, he made a similar pitch to Sarah Palin, after completing a documentary about her called “The Undefeated.” Palin demurred. She was enjoying her life of celebrity and wealth, she had done little to immerse herself in policy minutiae and she was no doubt unsettled by Bannon’s warning that she stood little chance of defeating Obama.

Now he delivered a similar message to Sessions. “Look, you’re not going to win,” he recalls saying. “But you can get the Republican nomination. And once you control the apparatus, you can make fundamental changes. Trade is No.100 on the party’s list. You can make it No.1. Immigration is No.10. We can make it No.2.” Acknowledging that the drawling Alabama senator lacked Palin’s charisma, Bannon said, “You’ll be the anti-candidate.” But Sessions told Bannon he did not see himself running for president. “It was pretty obvious by the end of the night,” Bannon recalled, “that another candidate would have to do it.”

Two months later, on March 15, 2013, Bannon happened to be attending the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington when Trump took the stage. Trump had been a marginal figure at most in politics up to that point, entertaining a Reform Party run in the 2000 election — when he speculated that he would probably take more votes from the Democratic candidate than the Republican one — and leading a conspiratorial crusade in 2011 to force Obama to release his birth certificate. The possibility that he might be a suitable host body for Bannon’s worldview had not occurred to Bannon before Trump spoke.

But Trump’s grousing references to China’s economic superiority, to 11 million “illegals” and to the erosion of America’s manufacturing sector were right out of Bannon’s playbook. From his desk in the Russell Senate Office Building, Stephen Miller, too, watched Trump’s speech. By 2014, Miller was sending emails to friends expressing the hope that Trump would run for president. By the time Trump announced his candidacy, in June 2015, Sessions was officially uncommitted but privately of the view that Trump was best suited to tap into the movement that he, Miller and Bannon discussed over dinner more than two years earlier.

Bannon’s early support for Trump was manifest in Breitbart’s breathless coverage of his candidacy. In an email he sent on Aug. 30, 2015, to his former filmmaking partner Julia Jones, Bannon explained that while Republican candidates like Ted Cruz, Bobby Jindal, Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina were “all great,” Trump represented a superior choice, because he “is a nationalist who embraces Senator Sessions’s plan” on immigration. Still, recalls Sam Nunberg, Trump’s first campaign strategist, “Steve kept all of his cards.” He added: “He was respectful to some of the other ones who were running, like Walker and Cruz and Carson. He didn’t want to be seen as Trump-bart.” When Trump publicly disparaged John McCain’s war-hero credentials, Bannon — himself a Navy veteran — called Nunberg and demanded that Trump issue an apology. (Trump did not.)

Bannon was well positioned as a supportive but not sycophantic observer by Aug. 13, 2016, when the Trump donor Rebekah Mercer read with alarm a New York Times account of the Trump campaign’s inability to handle its mercurial candidate. At Mercer’s behest, Bannon (whose website Mercer’s family helped underwrite) and Kellyanne Conway (who at that point was receiving money from both a Mercer family political action committee and the Trump campaign) flew out that day to East Hampton, N.Y., where Trump was attending a dinner fund-raiser at the home of the New York Jets’ owner, Woody Johnson. After the dinner, Bannon and Conway huddled with the candidate. Bannon remembers telling Trump, who at the time was trailing Hillary Clinton by double digits in the polls, “As long as you stick to the message” — by which he meant economic nationalism — “you have a 100 percent probability of winning.”

A week after the election, in an interview with the journalist Michael Wolff, Bannon offered a bold, sweeping sketch of what the vision might mean in policy terms: “Like Andrew Jackson’s populism, we’re going to build an entirely new political movement. It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy.” Of course, some of the conservatives Bannon intended to drive crazy possessed the congressional votes Bannon and Trump would need to advance this agenda. Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a leading conservative in the House, told me in March, “I would argue that populism, as long as it’s rooted in conservative principle, is a darn good thing.” Jordan was smiling as he said it, but the note of warning was hard to mistake.

The last time the Republican Party controlled all branches of government in Washington was from 2003 to 2007. During that period, the United States military toppled Saddam Hussein, Congress delivered tax cuts for the wealthy and President George W. Bush appointed the reliably conservative jurist Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the Supreme Court.

screen-shot-2017-03-05-at-9-50-01-am

But in the collective view of conservatives, these years of the Bush presidency were mostly characterized by betrayal and disappointment. Goaded by Bush, congressional Republicans passed into law a new federal entitlement (prescription drugs for senior citizens, also known as Medicare Part D), ran up the deficit, promoted democratic ideals overseas in the feckless manner of Woodrow Wilson, considered a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and confirmed a Supreme Court chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., whose swing vote would later save Obamacare from judicial evisceration. “My go-to line when I first ran in 2008 was, ‘Republicans had the House, the Senate and the White House — and they blew it,’ ” Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said. “Now we’ve got all three again, and I’m the guy who’s in Congress, not running for it. I don’t want to be in a position where we’re going to blow it one more time.”

Chaffetz and other House conservatives freely acknowledge that Trump is not cut from their cloth, but they say they could not care less as long as he gives them what they want. Selecting Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill the Supreme Court seat once held by Justice Antonin Scalia was “the best thing the President did in his first 50 days,” Chaffetz said. He and his conservative colleagues have been cheered by Trump’s recruitment of former House colleagues and conservative stalwarts like Vice President Mike Pence; Tom Price, the Health and Human Services Secretary; and Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Management and Budget Director.

When Chaffetz met with the president twice so far — he considered this a“such a huge sea change” from the stony silence Republicans say they encountered from the Obama White House. Most important, the Trump agenda’s first three projected legislative moves — the Obamacare repeal and replacement, an austere budget and tax reform — were intended to keep conservatives happily in Trump’s camp. In turn, when the agenda moved on to less conservative items like infrastructure and trade agreements, Trump and Bannon would fully expect Republicans, including Ryan, to remember whose message resonated most with working-class voters last year.

Representative Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, is Trump’s chief point of contact on the Hill. When McCarthy was a college student and budding entrepreneur in Bakersfield, Calif., in the late 1980s, his girlfriend at the time, now his wife, Judy, gave him an autographed copy of Trump’s “The Art of the Deal.” “I thought it was great,” he told me. In McCarthy’s view, President Donald Trump is a Master of today’s media, much as Lincoln and Kennedy were in their own times. “He has mastered instantaneous Twitter,” he said. “It’s like owning newspapers.”

Trump has found a kindred spirit in McCarthy, a coastal extrovert of ambiguous ideological portfolio who (unlike Speaker Paul Ryan) would far rather talk about personalities than the tax code. And as the former minority leader in the California Legislature during the governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger, McCarthy is experienced in the care and feeding of celebrity egos. Since Donald Trump’s nomination, the two have spoken frequently by phone — to date, Trump has never been known to directly email or text anyone — about the cast of 535 individual Capitol Hill denizens, with whom the president must now deal.

But in the end, what Trump needs from the majority leader is not gossip but votes — 216 of them, to be exact, in the House. And McCarthy’s recent track record in obtaining majorities has not been the greatest. In his previous capacity as House whip, he was thwarted by members of his own party when it came to subjects as diverse as reauthorizing a Patriot Act they deemed too intrusive, a farm bill they considered too expensive and a border-security bill they regarded as too lenient. His most reliable obstacles have been the three dozen or so House conservatives known as the Freedom Caucus, a two-year-old group of fiscal hard-liners. Early this year, McCarthy predicted to me that the new president would quickly subjugate the Freedom Caucus. “Trump is strong in their districts,” McCarthy told me. “There’s not a place for them to survive in this world.”

When we spoke on the morning of March 7, Trump assured me that he would not bully the Obamacare-replacement bill’s loudest Republican critics, like the Freedom Caucus chairman, Representative Mark Meadows, on Twitter: “No, I don’t think I’ll have to,” he said. “Mark Meadows is a great guy and a friend of mine. I don’t think he’d ever disappoint me, or the party. I think he’s great. No, I would never call him out on Twitter. Some of the others, too. I don’t think we’ll need to. Now, they’re fighting for their turf, but I don’t think they’re going to be obstructionists. I spoke to Mark. He’s got some ideas. I think they’re very positive.”

But on March 21, in a meeting with the Freedom Caucus about the bill, Trump called out Meadows by name, saying, “I’m going to come after you, but I know I won’t have to, because I know you’ll vote ‘yes.’ ” Meadows remained a “no” on the bill, and among conservatives, he was far from alone. One of the Freedom Caucus’s most outspoken members, Representative Raúl Labrador of Idaho, believes that the Trump White House was led astray by Ryan’s confidence that he knew what conservatives wanted when drafting the bill. “The legislation has to go through the body, not the top,” Labrador told me. “And if our leadership thinks now that we’re a unified body, that they can do things while ignoring us, that’s not going to happen.”

Screen Shot 2017-04-02 at 3.49.19 PM

Labrador is an affable but decidedly stubborn 49-year-old Mormon and former immigration lawyer who moved as a child with his single mother from Puerto Rico to Las Vegas. He was interviewed by the president-elect for the post of interior secretary at Trump Tower last December — though Trump selected Labrador’s House colleague Ryan Zinke for the post a few days later.

For now, Labrador and other Freedom Caucus members have been willing to blame House leaders like Ryan and McCarthy for drafting a health care bill that was not to conservatives’ liking. They aspire to remain philosophical whenever Trump’s daughter Ivanka persuades her father to propose initiatives like paid family leave, as he did during his joint-session speech. “I didn’t stand up when he said that,” Labrador said. “That’s the only part of the speech where I thought, That’s not even close to what my party stands for.”

To House conservatives like Labrador, the Republican Party stands for limited government. To Trump and Bannon, big-ticket items like a border wall and infrastructure take priority over shrinking America’s debt. As Chaffetz admitted to me, “On the spending front, things could slip away really quickly.”

Trump’s budget blueprint is regarded by deficit hawks as fundamentally unserious, because it does not touch entitlements. Instead, it ravages perennial (and already pint-size) conservative piñatas like foreign aid, public broadcasting and the National Endowment for the Arts, in addition to downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department — cuts that focus on the 27 percent of the federal budget that is not mandatory spending or devoted to defense. And for all the Republicans’ chesty rhetoric on cuts like these over the years, as a top House Republican staff member told me, “even the cabinet secretaries at the E.P.A. and Interior are saying these cuts aren’t going to happen. They’re going to protect their grant programs, their payments to states, their Superfunds. So how do you cut 31 percent of the E.P.A. out of the 5 percent that isn’t protected? And a bill that cuts all money for the N.E.A. will not pass. For Republicans in the West” — states whose vast rural areas benefit disproportionately from N.E.A. grants — “that’s a re-election killer. The campaign commercials write themselves.”

Labrador says he would defend Trump’s cuts but doubts that many of his colleagues would. “What he’s going to learn is that members of Congress are unwilling to take the tough votes,” he told me. “When he learns that, what’s going to be the next step?” In Labrador’s view, Trump’s only sane recourse will be to accept the need for entitlement reform. “At some point, the reality of the budget is going to have to hit him,” he said. “You can have this economic nationalism — Bannon is very smart, he clearly helped him with his messaging, it was so successful — but at some point, that theory is going to hit reality.”

President Trump said that all his colleagues felt that based on available evidence, it seemed as though conservatives probably shouldn’t hold their breath for the next four years expecting entitlement reform. Trump’s reply was immediate: “I think you’re right.” In fact, Trump seemed much less animated by the subject of budget cuts than the subject of spending increases. “We’re also going to prime the pump,” he said. “You know what I mean by ‘prime the pump’? In order to get this” — the economy — “going, and going big league, and having the jobs coming in and the taxes that will be cut very substantially and the regulations that’ll be going, we’re going to have to prime the pump to some extent. In other words: Spend money to make a lot more money in the future. And that’ll happen.” A clearer elucidation of Keynesian liberalism could not have been delivered by Obama.

The one clear point of agreement between the Trump economic nationalists and the House conservatives is the one Ryan and Bannon identified over dinner in January: tax reform. But in so doing, they will be picking a fight that may prove perilous to Republicans. The border-adjustment-tax proposal that Ryan floated to Steve Bannon has never been able to get past K Street lobbyists and wealthy Republican donors like the Koch brothers.

When I asked Trump if he was a fan of the border-adjustment tax, he replied: “I am. I’m the king of that.” Almost no other country grafts an import tax onto a corporate tax, and it’s possible that enacting a border-adjustment tax might well be in violation of the World Trade Organization’s agreements. Of course, Steve Bannon has openly advocated abandoning the W.T.O. anyway, because of China’s membership in it. Still, the specter of new taxes on American corporations, higher prices for consumers and a jump in the dollar’s value may compel an unusual confederacy against the tax-reform plan.

Labrador predicts that the border-adjustment tax “will have very little political legs” in the conservative House, while Senator Lindsey Graham said in February that even in the Republican-controlled Senate, Ryan’s tax plan “won’t get 10 votes.” Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat who has been outspoken in her willingness to work with Trump in spite of the broader stance of her party, says, “Let me tell you, I represent farmers, and anyone who tells me that farm country benefits from a high dollar needs to have a discussion with me.”

Perhaps the Republican faction most alarmed by Bannon’s economic nationalism is Washington’s military hawks. John McCain is among those not mollified by Trump’s pledge of enacting “one of the largest increases in national-defense spending in American history.” McCain scoffed: “Of course that’s simply not true,” he said. “When you look at 1981 and Reagan’s commitment to rebuilding the military, there’s no comparison to this 3 percent increase. It’s a shell game, my friend.”

Despite his obvious differences with President Trump — Senator McCain was willing to work with him, but Steve Bannon’s presence seemed to confound such prospects. “It’s kind of interesting,” McCain said, “because I have decades of experience with Kelly, with Mattis, with Dan Coats, McMaster” referring to Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly; Defense Secretary James Mattis; Dan Coats, the director of national intelligence; and H.R. McMaster, the national security adviser. “We discuss issues all the time. I think this is probably the finest national-security team that I’ve ever observed. It’s almost schizophrenic, in that I obviously don’t have conversations with Steve Bannon, but I do with Reince Priebus — he was my Republican chair in Wisconsin in my 2008 presidential campaign. So it’s almost a schizophrenic, that’s not the right word. A very divided kind of relationship. Paradoxical.”

McCain acknowledged that economic nationalism was a global movement and therefore not entirely “the making of some members of the Trump entourage.” He said: “But it is an articulation that I believe is strongly reminiscent of the 1930s. It certainly has unsettled our allies and friends around the world, there’s no doubt about that.” Already, the senator asserted, the new administration’s bellicosity toward Mexico has increased the likelihood that its citizens will elect “a very left-wing, anti-American president.” As for an import tax of the sort favored by Bannon and Ryan, “talk about harkening back to the 1930s,” he said. “It’s unbelievable to me that they somehow think if we start taxing goods coming across the border, that that’s somehow not going to be responded to by the Mexicans. Please. History shows this sort of action gets you into a trade war.”

Listening to McCain’s tirade, I found it evident that the Steve Bannon Effect might well cost the Trump White House at least one Republican Senate vote on a number of central issues — this at a time when Republicans are clinging to a slender majority in the upper chamber. In such cases, Trump could find himself asking for something Obama was never able to count on: votes from the opposition.

Screen Shot 2017-03-23 at 11.37.04 AM

Early in the afternoon of Feb. 9, several Democratic senators met with Trump in the Roosevelt Room of the White House to discuss the Gorsuch nomination and other matters. Among them were Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Jon Tester of Montana. All four are moderates who are up for re-election in 2018 in states Trump carried in 2016 by titanic margins — the least of which, in Donnelly’s state, was nearly 20 points. If Democrats are to nurture any hopes of retaking the Senate majority, they will need to hold these four seats.

But if Donnelly, Heitkamp, Manchin and Tester need to be seen back home as willing to work with Trump, the president needs them as well. Republicans enjoy a precarious 52-to-48 advantage in the Senate. On matters like the Supreme Court, Trump can count on all 52. On votes requiring a simple majority, any two of those Republicans could fall away, and Pence could preserve the win with a tiebreaking vote. But a trio of fiscal hard-liners (like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Mike Lee), military hawks (John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio) or social moderates (Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Shelley Moore Capito) could deny Trump a majority, unless he could swing at least one Democrat to his side.

That February afternoon in the Roosevelt Room, Donnelly thanked Trump for negotiating with Carrier, the manufacturing company based in Indiana that had threatened to move jobs to Mexico before Trump arm-twisted it into keeping many of them in Indiana. But Donnelly urged him not to view that episode as a “one-off.” He requested the president’s support for his End Outsourcing Act, which would give preferential treatment in awarding federal contracts to businesses that kept jobs in America.

The words were scarcely out of Donnelly’s mouth before Trump said, “I’m 100 percent for that, and I’ll do everything I can to help get it passed.” He then asked Pence, who was in the room, “What do you think, Mike?” Trump was apparently unaware that Pence, as the governor of Donnelly’s state, had refused to back the senator’s initiative, claiming instead that burdensome federal regulations were to blame for outsourcing. According to Donnelly, Pence gamely replied, “If it’s like what Joe describes, I’ll do everything I can to help.”

Donnelly, a thick-handed Irish Catholic with a barroom guffaw, had met Trump once before. In January 2011, he was among the so-called Blue Dog Coalition, composed of conservative House Democrats — what remained of them, anyway, after the previous November’s disastrous midterms — who traveled to New York for their annual retreat. At a hotel conference room in Midtown Manhattan, the 20 or so Blue Dogs received a procession of guests, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg and former President Bill Clinton. Only one of their scheduled appointments required that they go to their guest — and so they did, by bus, to Trump Tower.

Screen Shot 2017-04-04 at 10.12.46 AM

Trump greeted them in his boardroom, with its commanding view of Central Park. He was charming but also brash. “Remember, at that point he wasn’t really talking about running for office,” recalls one attendee, former Representative Dan Boren of Oklahoma. “But what strikes me was how he talked about the same issues — the wall, China — that became his stump speech years later.”

It was evident to the Blue Dogs that Trump was no Clinton or Bloomberg when it came to the issues. Says former Representative Ben Chandler of Kentucky, who was also in attendance: “The difference in terms of detailed knowledge of policy was stark. Trump just made bold assertions, really.” Particularly memorable to Chandler was Trump’s insistence “that one of the best things the country could do was slap a massive tariff on the Chinese.” Chandler continued: “He seemed not to understand that this would probably cause the entire world economy to melt down by causing a huge trade war. What I remember more than anything else was our general reaction afterward. And it was one of disbelief.”

Today Donnelly remains offended by what he calls Trump’s “crazy stuff,” as well as the alternative to Obamacare that Trump supported. But he does not begrudge Trump his showmanship. “He came to the Carrier plant,” Donnelly said. “I’ve been working on that issue since Day 1. I was begging people in the Obama administration to come out and talk to our workers. Donald Trump came out there. And Donald Trump talked to our workers. You can tell people you care. But it matters if you show up.”

The Senate Democrat who, to outward appearances, seems closest to Trump is Joe Manchin, who met face to face with the president-elect in Trump Tower in December. Before the meeting, Steve Bannon took the West Virginia senator aside. “The thing you need to know about Trump,” Bannon said, “is he doesn’t care about the Republican Party and he doesn’t care about the Democratic Party. He just wants to put some wins on the board for the country.” In the meeting, Trump asked Manchin what could be done for coal miners. Manchin replied that he should support his Miners Protection Act, which would secure health benefits and pension funds for retired miners. According to Manchin, Trump replied that he would thoroughly support such a measure.

Later that month, Manchin went on “Morning Joe” — the one show on MSNBC that Trump has been known to watch — to discuss, on the occasion of the fourth anniversary of the Newtown school massacre, the need to expand background checks on gun purchases. Within an hour after Manchin was offscreen, his cellphone rang. It was Trump. Manchin is not completely forthcoming about the conversation, but said that Trump envisioned “a complete opportunity” for new gun-safety legislation. Unlike with Obama, he said, “no one thinks President Trump would do anything that would take away your gun rights.”

In his conversations with Manchin and Donnelly, Trump was essentially throwing his support behind a Democratic initiative without first checking with the Republican Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, to ask what he thought of those proposals. Had he done so, the answer in each case would have been: not much. Though on the coal miners’ legislation, Manchin said: “We’re seeing Mitch McConnell go from a ‘No, no and hell no’ to now dropping his own bill. Which is fine, so long as we get it.” Still, Trump may have little choice but to indulge Democrats on some of their pet issues, given that he will need their votes on two of the most critical pieces of his agenda: infrastructure and trade deals.

Screen Shot 2017-04-04 at 11.19.06 AM

Until now, Trump has divulged few details about this trillion-dollar infrastructure venture. On the campaign trail, he frequently cited America’s crumbling roads and bridges. He bemoaned the potholes defiling the runways at La Guardia Airport, where he parked his two planes. During Donnelly’s visit with Trump in the Roosevelt Room, the president “talked about the Queens-Midtown Tunnel with the tiles falling off, which he would see on his way to La Guardia,” Donnelly recalled.

When President Trump is asked for more specifics, he gingerly offers a few morsels: “This is something that’s going to be a real infrastructure bill, where real work is going to be done on bridges and roads and airports and things that we’re supposed to be doing. So it’s not just a political piece of paper. We’re going to do infrastructure, and it’s going to be a very big thing.”

Trump’s description struck me as uncharacteristically modest, because Steve Bannon had evoked a more gleaming vision when he said: “Look, economic nationalism is predicated on a state-of-the-art infrastructure for the country, right? Broadband as good as Korea. Airports as good as China. Roads as good as Germany. A rail system as good as France. If you’re going to be a world-class power, you’ve got to have a world-class infrastructure.”

When asked, the President himself stated: “Yes. It could, it could. You look at Japan and China, where they have the fast trains, and we don’t have any. You look at other countries where we used to be the leader, and now we’re the laggard. It’s not going to happen anymore.”

Yet, what may not happen easily, is that the House Republicans’ will be supporting a trillion-dollar bill that is at least somewhat reminiscent of the stimulus bill they unanimously opposed eight years ago. It’s also quite possible that even moderate Democrats in swing states may face pressure not to come to President Trump’s side on this bill… After all, President Trump, remains intensely unpopular among Democrats, who continue to nurture the illogical and far out stretched hope, that President Donald Trump is one “Russia Connection” away from impeachment. As a senior White House official said of Judge Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court: “The comment we often get from Democrats is, ‘That’s a great nominee.’ Oh, so you’re voting for him? ‘I can’t.’ Why not? ‘My base would go crazy, and I’d be primaried.’ That environment has to change before we can have any of these conversations.”

On the morning of Feb. 2, two Democratic leaders on trade issues, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon and Representative Richard Neal of Massachusetts — the ranking members of the Senate Finance and House Ways and Means Committees — met with Trump, along with a few of his advisers and Republican lawmakers. Trump had already greeted the day by threatening to yank federal funding from the University of California at Berkeley after acts of violence had forced the cancellation of the Breitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulos’s speech on campus, and by taunting Arnold Schwarzenegger’s poor ratings on “The Apprentice” during the National Prayer Breakfast. Disquiet lingered from Trump’s travel ban on refugees and his surly phone conversation with the Australian prime minister the previous week. Amid this chaos — entirely to Bannon’s liking and grating to nearly everyone else in Washington — actual legislative activity was slowly unfolding.

screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-12-39-09-pm

Trump began the meeting by condemning the trade deals negotiated by his predecessors. The press pool was then ushered out before the Democrats could say anything in front of the cameras. When Neal was given a chance to speak, he informed Trump, Pence, Bannon, Kushner and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross that America had in fact prospered as a result of past trade deals. Neal emphasized the crucial role that the Panama Canal played in the economic vitality of the Eastern Seaboard. Other than Ross, no one on Trump’s team seemed aware of this. “They were a bit surprised,” Neal later told me. He was also struck by the White House’s abhorrence of multilateral pacts, which seemed to him to be naïve. “The idea that you’re going to negotiate 148 bilateral agreements with W.T.O. members does not seem realistic,” Neal said. “The idea that we’re all of a sudden going to have a free-trade agreement with Great Britain, that’s going to take years to do.” Later, Neal said, Ross privately assured him that the Trump administration “would not give up on multilateral deals.”

Neal’s lecture signified the start of what is likely to be a long and at times contentious reckoning on the part of Trump and Bannon with the limits of their nationalist rhetoric. Of all the legislative lifts, none will be heavier than renegotiating trade agreements, which require fully two-thirds of the Senate. Scrounging up 15 Democratic senators who are willing to vote along with 52 Republicans would be a formidable enough task on any issue. But just as Democrats like Neal in the Northeast would fight for a trade deal that benefits their region, so will Republican lawmakers along the Southern border rebel at an effort to repeal Nafta. As McCain told me, “If you negated Nafta, it would send my state into a severe recession.” He assured that Trump’s nationalist posture would not provoke only regional opposition. He conjured up another Republican era — not Reagan’s, not Bush’s, but instead that of Herbert Hoover, when two Republican lawmakers joined with a Republican president to design a protectionist initiative that ultimately caused American exports to plummet during the Great Depression. “Somewhere,” McCain said with a dark chuckle, “Mr. Smoot and Mr. Hawley are smiling.”

On Thursday, March 23, Trump hosted a morning meeting of Freedom Caucus holdouts in the Cabinet Room. Jeff Duncan, a congressman from South Carolina who was present, told me that Trump told them: “I need you guys. We need to put up a win. It’s not just about needing to repeal Obamacare — though we do. It’s also that a win here sets up a win for tax reform and gives us momentum going into infrastructure. And if the bill fails, it could derail all of that.”

With customary bravado, Trump told the conservative members that he didn’t want to squeak by with just a one-vote victory. “I want all 237 of you,” he said, according to Duncan, referring to the entire House Republican conference. That included the more moderate members, who had told Trump they felt that the White House wasn’t paying sufficient attention to their concerns. Later in the day, Trump hosted another meeting with the moderates, where Representative Charlie Dent of Pennsylvania informed Trump that he remained a “no.” According to an attendee, Trump angrily informed Dent that he was “destroying the Republican Party” and “was going to take down tax reform — and I’m going to blame you.”

Until that day, Duncan had been an unyielding “no” on the bill. The previous week, he delivered an impassioned speech to the vice president and other Republicans, insisting that this vote constituted “our generation’s rendezvous with destiny — a real chance to roll back the size and scope of the federal government, returning some liberty back to the people through our actions to repeal Obamacare.” In a text to me, Duncan pointed to history: “39 men in a hot room in 1787 had the courage to break from the norm and empower a nation.”

screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-12-36-20-pm

But now the four-term congressman was, for the first time in his life, sitting across the table from a US President who was personally appealing for his support. The White House was offering concessions and agreeing to them in writing. Duncan left the meeting and spent a few hours pondering, as he would later put it, “the greater opportunity we as Republicans have.”

By that evening, Trump had won Jeff Duncan’s vote.

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

Yet all that deal making and personal effort — still wasn’t enough.

The next afternoon, House Speaker Paul Ryan, pulled the Health Care Bill, conceding that neither he, nor the White House, could muster enough votes to pass it…

“You get about nine months to do the big things,” Kevin McCarthy, the House majority leader, said at the beginning of the year.

Nine months seemed like a long time then, the calendar spacious and the legislative deal-making possibilities plentiful.

But more than two of those months are already past — and the path to future wins, as President Trump foresaw in his meeting with the Freedom Caucus, is now more complicated…

screen-shot-2017-02-10-at-12-41-28-pm

When he took office, Donald Trump relished the prospect of becoming a new kind of deal maker in the White House.

By the time March rolled around however, he already seemed to be taking stock of the limits to his powers.

He still saw himself as the “closer in chief” — but then that was “typical, I would think, of a President,” he mused.

“Some Presidents more than others.”

Posted by: Dr Pano Kroko Churchill | March 12, 2017

Liberal Bias

It appears to me that Liberalism is inversely related to the distance people have from the problem…

Think about it.

Just think in terms of this Refugee Crisis that we are undergoing now.

All the Hollywood elites and the Democratic establishment are crying about the plight of the Refugees but you would never see any destitute Syrian refugees in the streets of BelAir or Malibu and certainly none in the Hamptons and Connecticut suburbs where the Big Whigs of the Democratic party like the Clintons, live and play.

Ever Wonder Why?

Indeed liberalism is greatest the further away one feels from the problem and the least the problem affects this person directly.

And while the Liberal Democrats who are mainly atheists, are crying crocodilians tears and are going out wearing pussy hats to demonstrate against the United States Immigration policies and are clamoring about this grave Human Rights issue — it is left up to the Christian Right and the real Compassionate adults, the Christians to actually help the arriving refugees and also to raise funds and volunteer to help the Syrians across the great migration journey towards exile and perhaps safety.

Make a note of it.

I’ve been working with several groups that I fund, on helping Refugees in the Eastern Mediterranean world since 2001, and have never received any help from any Liberal groups.

Never.

Nor have I had any non Religious volunteers join up the Charitable work that we do.

In contrast we had many Christians of all faiths, Jewish folk, Buddhists, Muslims, and even pagans — but we never had any Liberal Democrat Atheists join our life saving mission.

Wonder why that might be..

Why?

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

And although we never present ourselves as a religious group of any kind — we’ve always had young people from conservative religious upbringings swell the ranks of our volunteers through the simple belief and conviction that all good deeds are answered on Earth as in Heaven.

And we are happily trudging along putting one foot infant of another and helping all those in need. We do not discriminate but we choose to help all those Souls that come alive out of the ruins of Syria — a simple country — that the NeoCon liberal Globalist Democratic elite of this country has destroyed.

And up until the day when the Hollywood elites, like my friend Amal Clooney and George, start inviting refugees to live inside their mansions — and call me over to document their living conditions — I shall not believe a word these hypocrites are saying.

After all they are trained actors, to tell BS in front of a camera. Don’t believe a word they are saying because now they are mouthing more BS that is written on the script they are reading, for the role they are paid to play.

As for me — I put my money where my mouth is.

And if you want — please do come and give us a hand.

We need plenty of help.

And as for PHI — indeed People’s Health International, does God’s work and us Humans can only help carry on…

God Bless.

Posted by: Dr Pano Kroko Churchill | March 6, 2017

Travails and Tribulations Always Come At The Beginning of Spring

“Beware the Ides of March”

–William Shakespeare

As we enter the month of March, or otherwise known as Mars in the Roman calendar — we ought to remember that this time of year there is an abundance of weirdness amongst the people rising from a deep wintry period of darkness and meanness.

People rising up from the awful nightmare of annual “death” start turning their eyes towards the light that is sure to come any day now.

“Beware the Ides of March”: Yet as history places this in the mouth of the soothsayer warning Julius Caesar of the upcoming attack in the Senate — he neglects to pay attention, or to keep his guard about him, or to even avoid heading to the counsel meeting of the Senate…

As a matter of fact, Julius Caesar dismissed the warnings as haughty men often do… although in the days leading up to the assassination, Caesar was told by many of the visible conspiracies amongst his Senators and jealous powerful competitors for political supremacy.

Politics in the days of the height of the Republic caused so much divisions and rancor that they eventually destroyed Rome, and after many years of internecine warfare, the decline was such that the seat of the Emperor and the Crown of Caesar were sold for a few denarius, the equivalent of $200 today. Of course this allowed the Goth and the Hun Barbarians to take over the empire and even sack the Capitol City of Rome.

Yet back on the days the reign of Julius Caesar — Rome was at it’s apex of power. His victorious conquests made Caesar a very popular leader. Still in the waning days of February and leading up to the Ides of March, Julius Caesar was warned repeatedly by Mark Anthony, his elected Co-Counsel Rome, about the vast conspiracy against him coming from the Democrats in the Senate, and of the impending troubles ahead.  He was warned to keep his imperial guard about him at all times, and even to arm himself. Prescient knowing people like his doctor, his friends, and even his wife Calpurnia, begged him not to attend the Senate meetings during the Ides of March for various reasons, including medical concerns, troubling dreams, and bloody nightmares, that his wife Calpurnia had in the preceding nights of the Caesar’s assassination.

However, no matter how stern the news of Conspiracy were all around him — Julius Caesar declined to take any of those necessary precautions, that would have saved his Life, and would have sparred the Empire from many years of bloodshed, decline, and civil wars.

Does that remind you of anything going on today?

Do you see the foaming in the mouth of the Racist Democrats of the United States and Microsoft and many other Corporatists today,  attacking President Trump and vehemently rounding against his supporters, always seeking to spill blood and cause mayhem?

Does it seem similar to what I suffered in the afternoon of February 28th, at the hands of the Hillary-bot crazed man of Microsoft Mike Pell, the micro-manager of the so called “Garage” inside building 27? Yes it does. Because I was invited by Microsoft to go to their HQ campus in Redmond Washington, where I was to give a speech about Innovation, in order to support and spur all over again the creation of Innovation that eludes failing Microsoft since they decided to be serfs to the dark side, by eliminating all Freedom and Liberty from their employees.

And does it seem that this assault and battery and the racist attack against me  was orchestrated and conspired ahead of time — when the apparently “well meaning” Microsoft, invited me to Speak inside their Campus of the Evil Empire?

Methinks, that is the case and the currently blossoming investigation will prove it. Microsoft is an evil empire that seeks to undermine our 45th President and all that America stands for, because they believe in a virulently misguided version of Globalization and they choose to serve a NeoConservative World domination agenda of the moneyed Oligarchy. Surely in that world there is no room for Free Will or Free Speech, or Free Thought for that matter…

And if you have to get permission from a hundred managers to speak and then you get shut down, attacked and hurt… you get the idea that Free Speech is not welcomed inside Microsoft corporation. Got that? Do you want some Milk with that learning?

And although conspiracies are most often successful because a conspiracy is a rather hard thing to believe that it exists in the fist place — it is even harder to defend against it. Especially when it is orchestrated by your colleagues and people that we customarily tend to trust. And that is why old Julius Caesar didn’t take precautions — same as me — when he showed up to talk with the Senate, or Microsoft as the case might be…

Today through the historical writings of Nicolaus, Suetonius, & Plutarch — we all know that Caesar went to meet the Senate unarmed and without his customary Praetorian Guard. He went alone at the Theater of Pompey, where he addressed the assembly of Senators and he spoke “Reason” as his assassins massed about him, and even when he was attacked — he did not resist, but instead covered his face with his cloak, as he was repeatedly stabbed to death inside the very meeting of the Roman Senate. This meeting is famously dramatised in William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, when Caesar was warned by the soothsayer to “beware the Ides of March. The Roman biographer Suetonius identifies the “seer” as a haruspex named Spurinna who had perfect recall of history and always warned that it gets repeated…

Yet as I am writing this — I do not intend this as just a note for the Julius Caesar wannabes, or for the big Chiefs out there, but I intend this as a serious note for all Christians and Intelligent beings out there, that are occupying positions of Leadership or aspire to being an ethical leader.

screen-shot-2017-03-05-at-3-52-52-pm

On the Ides of March — March 15th of 44 BC — the conspirators staged a game of gladiatorial sport at Pompey’s theatre. The gladiators were provided by Decimus Brutus in case their services were needed. They waited in the great hall of the theatre’s quadriportico. Mark Antony, having vaguely learned of the plot the night before from a terrified Liberator named Servilius Casca, and fearing the worst, went to head Caesar off at the steps of the forum. However, the group of senators intercepted Caesar just as he was passing the Theatre of Pompey, located in the Campus Martius, and directed him to a room adjoining the east portico of the Theatre of Pompey.

And as Caesar arrived at the Senate meeting room, Lucius Tillius Cimber presented him with a petition to recall his exiled brother. The other co-conspirators crowded around him, in order to offer their support. Caesar waved him away, but Cimber grabbed Caesar’s shoulders and pulled down Caesar’s tunic. Caesar then cried to Cimber, “Why, this is violence!” (“Ista quidem vis est!”)…

At the same time, Casca produced his dagger and made a glancing thrust at the dictator’s neck. Caesar turned around quickly and caught Casca by the arm. According to Plutarch, he said in Latin, “Casca, you villain, what are you doing?” Casca, frightened, shouted “Help, brothers”. Within moments, the entire group, including Brutus, was stabbing the dictator. Caesar attempted to get away, but, blinded by blood in his eyes, he tripped and fell; the men continued stabbing him as he lay defenseless on the lower steps of the portico. According to Eutropius, sixty or more men participated in the assassination. Caesar was stabbed 23 times. Suetonius relates that a physician who performed an autopsy on Caesar established that only one wound (the second one to his chest that pierced his aorta) had been fatal. This autopsy report (the earliest known post-mortem report in history) describes that Caesar’s death was mostly attributable to blood loss from his stab wounds.

Caesar was killed at the base of the Curia in the Theater of Pompey.

Caesar’s last words were the Greek phrase “καὶ σύ, τέκνον;” (translated as: “Kai su, teknon?”: “You too, child?”) when he saw Brutus his protege, amongst his assassins. Caesar said nothing more, pulling his toga over his head when he saw Brutus among the conspirators. The version best known in the English-speaking world is the Latin phrase “Et tu, Brute?” (“You too, Brutus?”); this derives from Shakespeare’s play “Julius Caesar” (written in 1599), where it actually forms the first half of Caesar’s monologue: “Et tu, Brute? Then fall, Caesar.”

According to Plutarch, after the assassination, Brutus stepped forward as if to say something to his fellow senators not involved in the plot; they, however, fled the building. Brutus and his companions then marched to the Capitol while crying out to their beloved city: “People of Rome, we are once again free!”. They were met with silence, as the citizens of Rome had locked themselves inside their houses as soon as the rumour of what had taken place had begun to spread. According to Suetonius, all the conspirators made off, and Caesar lay there lifeless for some time, and finally three common slaves put him on a litter and carried him home, with one arm hanging down.

A wax statue of Caesar was erected in the Forum displaying the 23 stab wounds. A crowd who had amassed there started a fire, which badly damaged neighboring buildings. In the ensuing years a series of civil wars resulted with the end of the Republic and the rise of imperial Rome.

Now, we don’t all get killed in a bloodbath orchestrated from 60 murderers, but we all have to go through the trials of March. The ides of March, affect all of us, albeit to varying degrees, and with varying intensity. Who amongst us has not been hurt by evil conspirators seeking to enlarge themselves at the expense of another?

Who amongst us has not received the hate of those that think they have the Power to attack others because they believe that they have some Authority stemming from large institutions, such as Big Business, Big Government, Big Unions, Big Political Parties, and all the other contrivances of men who seek the anonymity of the mass that riots against personal liberty and the Freedom to Be whom God has declared to be made of Free Will…

Yet who amongst us has not suffered my suffering when I was attacked by the microsoftie drugged out lunatic — for no reason whatsoever?

Legal Cannabis in the State of Washington has caused all kinds of Losers to lose their mind completely and behave in totally irrational ways, and that is why I recommend to all Companies to administer drug tests to their employees.

But as a Leader, I have to be aware that much like Julius Caesar, more awareness of the circumstances and the enmities that lead misguided people to want to assassinate us in word, in action, and in deed, needs to be shared so that we may prevent some of those from happening. Because sometimes these assassinations today, do not involve daggers and swords, but are character assassinations, equally dastardly and painful or deadly, but that is how they often exist in our world.

Yet a strong Christian who believes above all Political parties, in the one party of the little known Carpenter from Nazareth  — has got to rise above all that. Because no matter how painful these “assassinations” might be — we just have to avert our eyes, and stop our ears, very much like Julius Caesar did, and cover up our head in our own cloak to soak up the blood, and make sure that nobody sees the Leader crying.

And maybe we ought to remember that it usually involves a Conspiracy with many people involved, in order for the scoundrels to work up the riot that gives them the courage to attempt to bring down a Great Leader. That is what happened to me at the Microsoft building 27, this past week, where a group of premeditated “assassins” lured me in under the pretext of inviting me to give a Speech about Innovation, and they ended up attacking me, assaulting me, and ultimately denigrating me and my work.

And that is what we all suffer as Great upstanding Leaders in this Life and Time of Trials and Tribulations. In the Ides of March… in the period of Lent where great crimes of passion are committed, and where we all have to be careful and guard ourselves accordingly.

Beyond all of our personal travails – now I will speak of another Leader, the man known as the Carpenter of Nazareth, Jesus Christ, who was strong enough and went a step further, than what is humanly possible: Jesus having not a single bone of vengeance in his body — asked his Father, our God, to do nothing more and nothing less to his assassins — but to forgive them.

Let’s place that story in context in our own Life, and feel pity for our Assassins this time of the year as we relive this year’s time of Repentance.

Put another way: There are always plenty of Trials and Tribulations to come at the beginning of Spring, the so called Period of Lent.

And this of course brings up a bunch of questions for me, because I have slowly become aware of what my Lenten practice might be…

Indeed my practice might be Spiritual Core Strengthening Exercises. In other words, it just might be the development of some type of studied indifference towards the many ignominies and attacks the “small minded people” out there throw at me.

Or it might be the reflection of maturity towards the many slights and assaults of the enemies of Liberty and Human Free Will towards my outspoken Civil Rights.

Or it might be the series of many inimical rejections by the haters and the fascists.

I was asking the other day in my meditations “Why the Racists from Microsoft attacked me?”

Why do the MicroSerfs attack a person that speaks of Liberty and Freedom to Innovate?

Is it an extreme example of the Socratic teaching that Plato described as the “Cave Paradox?”

Why?

Why is it that the chained to the wall slaves, attack to kill the person that brings Liberty, Freedom and the news about the bright Sunlight and the breath of Fresh Air, existing outside the bondage of the Cave?

And maybe this is Why I was attacked inside Microsoft when I was just speaking of Liberty, and helping people get it, and showing them the road to the sunny uplands to go to with their Startups.

I came to MicroSoft to teach, and support the Spirit of Innovation, in order to assist this once great company with regaining Innovation that is now as elusive as Unicorns and rainbows in that campus of the MS company now known simply as the evil empire residing in Redmond Washington.

But I always choose the High Road, and find the right questions to assist me in finding my true bearings, learning from both Caesar and the Carpenter of Nazareth.

And that’s the secret to avoiding being resentful…

Ask the right questions.

Here it goes…

I usually start with this one:

“Where is love leading you today?”

Who is hard for you to love?

Why?

Might there not be a way for you to love that person that “assassinated” You, anyway?

What is the difference between your attacker’s description of you, your highest values, and the way you actually live?

What unfinished spiritual business do you have that ought to be completed in light of the trauma this assassination has generated?

What are you running away from, and what would happen if you stopped avoiding it, and started healing from the PTSD that you suffered?

What exists below the surface of the image you present to the world, and the one your attackers present?

What are you hiding bellow the surface?

And what would happen if you revealed what exists below the surface?

What can you discover by taking time to keep silence?

What arises out of your meditations?

What have you wrought through the courage to look deep within?

So now pray tell: What is getting in love’s way, for you?

What kind of help do you need?

Are you willing to ask for it in prayer?

Are you open to receive it?

What gift do you have to give today to those others, the assassins of humanity and to your attackers?

How does your decision to forgive them, and all those others that you do not know — affect all those evil people you know, or even if you don’t know, and will never meet?

What can you do to make life better for those poor misguided folks, and the assassins, and all other inimical people bloodying our world as some drunken misguided vulnerable people usually do in the wider world?

What message do you need to share, but don’t feel ready to give?

What can you do to get ready to share it?

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

It is a mystery to me why People attack us with the express purpose of assassination.

Yet maybe all of this is the other side of the Socratic Cave paradox, where Free people are always attacked because Slaves begrudge their Freedom and the personal Liberty the Real Leaders exhibit in their Life and Work.

Case in point Jesus, Julius, Trump, and I would deign to humbly include myself in that list of Great Men.

But maybe there is an even deeper secret and a mystery difficult to understand if you are a non believer. And that is the mystery that as Christians we have no lasting place on this earth, and that only God loves us the way we want to be loved…

And maybe, just maybe, all these attacks and assassinations, are reminders and warnings, that we are all travelers on the way to a sacred place where God will hold us in the palm of his hand and will forever place us in the soft place of his heart…

And for that I am Grateful.

Grateful to my assassins, including the indignities and the sufferings I’ve had to go through, to get there.

Posted by: Dr Pano Kroko Churchill | March 2, 2017

Life

Somedays we meet with extreme hate, or ignorance, and right then we are faced with a choice…

Take the high road and turn the other cheek — or fight back and cause war, bloodshed, enmity, and chaos.

Hard as it is to resist the temptation to fight — we need to allow the proper authority and the divine law, to bring about Justice as befits the crime.

Hardships and suffering come to all. And they all come in different forms but all are as strong as the person can bear…

Just keep in mind that they are not meant to break you but to shape you.

And as for the singular lack of compassion some of our enemies exhibit — they are simply blind, because God is watching and he smites and blinds those he is willing to lose…

And then there is a word for it. Perdition. We suffer, yet our enemies are heading towards a fate far worse than anything we wish for them.

And never mind the darkness — because the morning dawn is never further than a few hours away.

We have just got to get through that, for if there is no dark night of the soul anymore — there can be no brilliant sunlit dawn to be found on the sunny uplands.

And if there is darkness that isn’t lit with the flickering light of the candle of faith, then there is no morning of hopefulness either.

Yet we all know that you never feel completely sad, completely indifferent, or completely happy — instead you just feel…

Yours,

Dr Churchill

PS:

And then you forgive and try to forget…

You’ll never discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore.

But if you have the courage to lose sight of the shore — I assure you there are no dragons, and you will discover new oceans, and maybe find some new shores and new lands to explore.

Yours,
Dr Churchill

PS:

Cheers to your new discoveries

Posted by: Dr Pano Kroko Churchill | February 14, 2017

Happy Valentine’s Day Mr President

screen-shot-2017-02-14-at-4-21-53-pm

Sure things happen rapidly with President Trump now, and the pundits and their heads are exploding all around us…

It happens because contrary to the long held and erroneous popular belief that the markets hate uncertainty — markets rally around uncertainty and that is what makes people profits.

So if people make profits, then people should learn to love “uncertainty” and that should be considered good for the markets.

So by extension we should turn the old saw around and let it be known that secretly Markets pine For Uncertainty, like a blonde bitchy beauty queen pines for a bad boy on a Harley, who will mistreat her, do drugs, rough her up, and generally cause her plenty of life affirming drama & heartache — all the while she’s finally happily validating her boring existence.

And so do the Markets. Being females of the puritan sort — they like a good thrashing in the barn with the other barn animals and thus they always choose to rally for the uncertainty that comes with a bad boy to the boring nice & steady certainty of the boy scouts.

Beautiful Markets, beautiful women — they are all the same.  Crazy, hot, ecstatic, and loving the bad boys that will thrash them around pulling their hair in the process. Sure they are also unstable, vulnerable, dramatic and erotic — but you would be hard pressed to describe whether I am talking about the Chicks or the Markets.

But take my word for it — I know both rather well in the Biblical sense, and they both like the Bad Boy induced uncertainty and drama, and that is the only thing that makes them tick. That is their reason for being. Their Raison D’ Etre. The bad boy uncertainty is what makes their pulse rise, and their blood pump, and what makes the wetness & the lovely mistiness to return to their nether southern parts.

And if you like the resultant fecundity that causes all of us to make money, from all the thrashing, the rising, and the rallying, going on — just remember that this happened because Bad Boy Trump has riled the Market’s ire…

Of course, lots of drama ensues… And we love it. The markets keep rising. Good job.

So if you happened around a television set after the Presidential elections that gave us Donald Trump as the President — you must not have escaped the litany of minions and pundits offering that tired cliche that “the Markets hate uncertainty.” It must have been unavoidable to escape hearing that red herring ad nauseam, because it was the pundits’ preferred proverb, and it could be heard throughout the Politically Correct Media on TV, on the newspapers, and on the radio, all over the land.

Yet apparently the Markets don’t own a television set, like yours truly — and thus having heard nothing of the “terribly tired Cliche” they did their own thing. The Markets did their thing and rallied. Rallied wildly according to my axiom that “Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

“Markets love Bad Boys in Charge” and thus the US & UK and the World Markets went crazy and rallied strong, like unpinned bulls. The Bulls have it, and the markets went higher and higher, conquering peak after elevated peak, breaking record after record, in session after session of Wall Street and the City — behaving appropriately like bitches in heat, runaway fillies, or better yet — a horny bulls let loose, in a china shop.

Through these bulls running on Wall Street we all make loads of money now.

And in order to entertain us — these bulls started attacking the pundits, the globalist bankers, the Hilbot Fake Media, and the self loathing hedgies,  in a head on jump on their startled faces. Clearly as the picture shows, that caused a lot of wet “accidents” down there, like in the instance pictured bellow:

screen-shot-2016-11-09-at-4-05-12-am

Apparently Wall Street has a sweet tooth for such stupid investing maxims like “The Markets Hate Uncertainty” but truth be told — they enjoy them a bit too much. Fully knowing them to be fake like the news they peddle. Yet because it is through these cliches that they manage to keep the green traders, the uneducated investors, and the investment advisors under control, they make sure to infect the trading community with that brand of PC trading agenda. And Politically Correct trading is just as bad as the PC talk, and the PC Media and the PC Cultural Marxism, because it enforces the herd mentality, by spreading wildly amongst all people, and all of the servants of the Markets, like influenza in December. And it enforces a uniformity that doesn’t not allow the Freedom of Belief and Action that people with Free Will know and enjoy. It is plain and simple propaganda, because after all, the pundits all know that if you repeat these mindless dictums of insanity and stupidity, ad nauseam, they could become the accepted wisdom.

That’s where the essence of the PC propaganda rests.

These pundits, like good modern puritans along with the banker wankers and their brethren — can’t very well say my Axion “Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty,” nor do they dare share it, without blushing and eating their words…

But You and I can. We are free people endowed with Free Will from our Creator.

So say it clearly so you remember it:

“Markets like Bitches like Uncertainty,” because “Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat, and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

It’s simple and a memorable Meme: “Markets like Bitches like Uncertainty.”

And we can go even further: “Markets love Bad Boys in Charge.”

“Markets Love Bad Boys on Top”

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

So don’t be afraid to be a contrarian and appropriate these new Memes that prove that markets rally upon uncertainty and they love the stuff like cats love catnip.

You’ve got to go against the mainstream PC line, because that’s the basic principle of this silly PC game. Cultural marxism expropriating the stage of any reasonable debate, thus resulting in prescribed actions that make people behave in a predictable drone way. 1984 all over. George Orwell warned us about this. And for the Banker Wankers and their candidates like Bill Clinton, George Busch, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton — it’s nice if you can get this obedience by the sheeple — until the proverbial bull’s dick comes to rest on your face, looking for an entry into your pie hole.

And that’s what happened to all the news pundits with the arrival of Donald Trump into the scene. They all lost their mind…

screen-shot-2017-01-16-at-9-01-17-pm

Because The Donald, blew all of that Political Correctness out of the window. And along must go these supposed eternal proverbs, like the fallacy that markets hate uncertainty, because the problem with these supposed truisms is they are no more accurate than the flip of a coin, that is double faced.  Because a closer look at this uncertainty meme reveals it to be a falseism — one of those emotionally appealing phrases that idiots ping around trading desks, because they like to stay bored and boring doing the steady same thing time after time again and again. In essence doing no work but repeating easily done machine like actions that produce the same results.They should all be replaced by automatic trading machines and Artificial Intelligence acting computers.

Because it is the lack of evidence supporting their steady same premise that seems to matter to me since I am a Big Believer in nature. Have you ever seen any kind of certainty in existence n nature?

Pray Tell…

So in order to recognize how meaningless these statements are, consider the opposite:

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

Otherwise think of this simple question: Could markets even function without uncertainty?

It takes only a little thought to realize that markets actually thrive on doubt, imperfect information, uncertainty, and a lack of consensus.

Uncertainty drives the market’s price-discovery mechanism.

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

Mark my words here because basic investing requires there to be differences of opinion. When there is broad consensus agreement as to an asset’s fair value, trading volume falls. Without any uncertainty, who would take the opposite side of your trade?

History teaches that whenever the opposite occurs — when certainty overwhelms uncertainty — the herd tends to be wrong.

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

The herd tends to be wrong of course most of the time, but that’s another story…

In many instances, when there is a near-total lack of uncertainty in the market, the outcome is usually a spectacular disaster.

But let’s see what happens when absolute Certainty Rules…

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

Recall the dotcom – dot bomb Era, when everyone knew that profits no longer mattered. Uncertainty seemed to be banished.

An epic crash followed.

You Remember well what happened next…

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

We — the Contrarians were the only ones making money.

Right?

screen-shot-2017-01-16-at-8-51-04-pm

After the Internet implosion, the opposite extreme was operational: Profitable, debt-free tech companies were being traded for less than book value. In a few rare instances, they were being sold for less than cash on hand. Investors had become certain that a dollar was worth only 75 cents.

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

There was little uncertainty heading into the March 2009 stock-market lows. Almost everyone was sure the world was falling into the abyss. In that massive and indiscriminate selling, it seemed almost certain that no one was ever going to buy another house or car, or send their kids to school, or for that matter, clothe or feed them.

How did the consensus work out in that instance?

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

There is No Reward from Certainty, so when we discuss uncertainty, what we are really discussing is risk. All unknown outcomes contain risk, and therein lies the possibility of loss. Risk is inherent in the concept of uncertainty. However, anyone looking for performance must embrace risk, for without it, there can be no reward.

Uncertainty is what makes alpha, or market-beating gains, possible. Smart traders know that uncertainty is where the money is. No uncertainty, no risk; no risk, no possibility of outperformance.

Want some certainty? Go buy yourself Treasuries. You can pick up a very lovely two-year bond yielding 0.41 percent. Good luck charging two and 20 on that…

Track Record, is all about the future, which, by definition, is unknowable. But on the basis of the past people choose to invest their Capital for the Future. Just think how crazy that sounds…

Investing involves making our best guesses about the value of an asset at some point after this moment in time. There will always be an element of uncertainty involved. We can discount various outcomes, engage in probabilistic analysis, but no one knows for certain what tomorrow will bring.

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

screen-shot-2017-01-16-at-8-27-46-pm

Because those “wise pundits” who claim to know it all — suffer from the “Fail Army” malady and completely fail to understand the most basic workings of the markets. Maybe because they are nice geek boys and have no working knowledge of women, or maybe because they have never talked to women before — whatever their problem — they don’t know jack shit about the markets. And we only need to consider the track record of Wall Street’s pundits & prognosticators, in order to see the truth in this statement. As much as the future is uncertain, the most likely outcomes are well understood.

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

As an example, consider the uncertainty of tax rates. The 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts will either be eliminated, or they won’t. Marginal rates will go up by three or four percentage points, or not; capital gains rates might revert to 20 percent from 15 percent, or not.

The impact on the economy isn’t all that difficult to discern, even for Wall Street economists. Thus, uncertainty is far less uncertain than you might have been led to believe if you paid any attention to the chattering classes. Even the tax on dividends — which might rise from 15 percent at present to a 39.6 percent rate in the worst-case scenario — is less uncertain than it looks. Many dividend-paying stocks are held in tax-free or tax-deferred accounts, or are owned by non-taxable pension plans, foundations and trusts. This mutes the impact of even this uncertain tax change.

Pundits may hate uncertainty, because it tends to makes them look foolish twice: Before and after the fact. Whichever way the market goes, they look like fools, coming and going — but markets harbor no such bias. In fact, markets thrive on uncertainty. It is their reason for being.

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

And so we have now to LOVE the uncertainty that the new President Trump has injected into the Markets.

And he understands that principle and that is why he makes it obvious that he likes to cultivate Uncertainty by the boatload.

Not only because he doesn’t want to telegraph his intentions to the world and to our enemies but because he is certain that the UNCERTAINTY IS ALL AROUND US.

Yet now it’s happening wholesale and bigly, and we all love it even though the pundits heads are exploding, and are all blaming the President for it.

So… “Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

screen-shot-2017-01-16-at-8-39-00-pm

It’s happening fast, and it’s happening for all the right reasons, now that Trump has pulled back the cloak of invisibility that the German EuroMasters thought that would forever cover their puppet management of the ECB and Draghi, and their minions inside the Brussels EU machine. And by the way he does the same with the Chinese and the other allies of this Globalization NeoNazi agenda.

And maybe now, the sheeple of Europe can finally wake up from the vivid nightmare they’ve been living into because one of the most common cognitive tricks we play on ourselves is our tendency to explain what just happened with a story line that seemingly makes sense out of randomness.

Nothing ever just “is,” and we fabricate a comforting tale that (of course!) accounts for the latest events, making it possible for us to imagine we know what is going to happen next.

And then we have the problem of suspension of disbelief when perceived Authority figures speak, like Mr Draghi and Mr Carney. That problem we should correct ourselves, lest we fail to heed the warnings of our perilous existence.

Simple really. “Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

Because uniform opinions and certainty leads to trouble when it comes to markets. And as usual, all too often, reality begs to differ. To wit: The post-election rally is an example of just that sort of story-telling.

Do you recall the drama on election-night as the so-called impenetrable blue wall (another narrative fantasy) crumbled and the Liberals started crying crocodile tears and Crooked Hillary went blotto, and broke all the furniture in a drunken alcoholic temper tantrum because the Good people of the Midwest spat on her face?

Good you remember that the blue wall developed just enough cracks in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that resembled Aleppo in Syria, and that made it obvious that the lead will go to Donald Trump and lead the Conservative Leader into the White House.

And despite the closeness of the polling heading into the last few days of the campaign, the Banker Wanker were assured of Hillary’s victory and kept pumping millions and billions into the election of their servant Crooked Hillary. Even the Saudis who gave her a whooping Billion dollars went to the global markets to borrow this Capital and for a moment it seemed that everybody was unprepared for the lovely “No-Surprise” of the TRUMP PRESIDENCY. However the Markets in their wisdom had anticipated and priced this outcome, and although the reflective pessimism of the new Bears sell out helped them fall as much as 5 percent on the news — they immediately rebounded sky high.

After all — Perception is Reality.

screen-shot-2017-01-16-at-8-32-06-pm

The pundits after-the-fact explanation was that Trump was going to start a trade war or a currency war or an actual shooting war, any of which would be bad for business and corporate profits, and that is why everyone was recommending a sell off. A panic sell out followed that brought down 900 points in the futures markets overnight… Surely the sheeple followed that bad panic driven advise and along with the milennial traders crying over spilled milk of Hillary’s loss, and losing their shit – many others lost their shit and lost their shirt too. Hedgies like George Soros who is estimated to have lost a whooping Ten Billion Dollars acting out on bad advise of his own pessimism about Donald Trump, are now crying in their cups. Hillary Clinton’s losses and the Clnton’s wealth invested in her son in law Hedge Fund were so massive — that the Hedge Fund has to be shuttered. Along with the losses of the Clinton’s in the Free markets, the capital of the Clinton Global Initiative has flown the coop in these monumental Market Reversal and are now shutting down the whole CGI corruption outfit that was masquerading as a Charity for the benefit of the Clinton mafia alone.

Well deserved deserts for all concerned. As for George Soros losing his shirt from the Free markets reacting as Free and Brave People expressed themselves — that’s the cost of an old Nazi expressing his undying Love for Crooked Hillary, America the land of the Free and the brave. Well Done Moffos…. Ba-Ha, ba-ha, ba-ha…

These morons lost their shirts because even before the markets opened in the USA, their futures had already reversed as cool headed people celebrated Donald Trump’s Victory with an Optimistic and “Super Buy” mood. Markets kept rallying day after day and the Losers’ losses kept mounting. That’s why they unleashed the Riot Brigades to scare the Markets into submission by showing stupidly that the US was ungovernable…

Now questions have come up about the ties between Goldman Sachs and another member of the Clinton family: Hillary’s son-in-law Marc Mezvinsky. He worked at Goldman for eight years, then formed a hedge fund in part with help from Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein, and the money of the Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton’s private wealth… Marc Mezvinsky, the hedge fund manager son in law of Hillary Clinton, has now officially shut down his hedge fund after losing all of his investors money.

Chelsea Clinton’s husband, failed hedge fund manager Marc Mezvinsky, has closed his failed hedge fund, Eaglevale Partners, according to a Bloomberg report.

The hedge fund, which was launched in 2011 with the help of Goldman Sachs CEO and longtime Clinton supporter Lloyd Blankfein, shut down in December, and is in the process of returning money to investors.

Eaglevale Partners was not very successful. In May 2016, Mezvinsky announced the shutting down of a special Greece-focused investment fund that had lost nearly 90 percent of its value in two years.

Mezvinsky’s career in finance has been slightly more successful than that of his father, former Congressman Edward Mezvinsky, who served five years in jail for defrauded his friends and family members out of millions of dollars.

Like Father, like son…

Well they failed. They all failed. And they failed bigly. They failed big league. And they now officially populate the Fail Army and looking for a job as your next Financial Analyst. Let’s throw them a bone and hire them to clean the toilets.

So, the after-the-fact explanation requires a serious rewrite.

In my mind here are the three things that are the cause of the Markets’ Tremendous Upswing:

  1. Donald Trump
  2. Donald Trump
  3. Donald Trump  — The cause of all this Goodness is simply Donald Trump leading from the White House and working on behalf of Making America Great Again. Because those who thought that the simple expectations of the Markets, like the incoming big infrastructure stimulus, the future big tax cuts, and the broad deregulation for banks and industry that are all coming, would do the job alone — are fools. All of these things are now on the menu — simply because DONALD TRUMP became the 45th President of the United States. So because of him, all of the U.S. markets took off, rallying more than 12% during the course of the next month.

How is that not beautiful?

And given all of this, I have my own after-the-fact explanation: UNCERTAINTY RULES.

YES, uncertainty rules. Uncertainty, although not in the way you’ve been conditioned to think about it based on the widespread misuse of the term by too many market pundits and commentators, is a necessary ingredient of Life, Markets, & Nature.

A more appropriate definition of this concept probably can explain the market’s shift in sentiment: “Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

We have addressed the issue of uncertainty and why uncertainty is a necessary driver of markets. Yet for today’s exercise, let’s use “Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.” as an explanation of the difference between what is unknown and what is uncertain.

screen-shot-2017-01-16-at-9-06-13-pm

It’s something like this:

Unknown: We don’t know exactly what any specific outcome might be, but we do know the data set we are working with — the range of possible outcomes is limited.

Uncertain: We don’t know exactly what any specific outcome might be, and we also have an open data set — many outcomes are possible. The data set is unknown and unknowable.

For money managers, the difference between these two matters a great deal, as it significantly affects how they determine what the risk of any given investment or market or environment might be.

Consider various unknown but not uncertain events: Toss of a coin, roll of a dice, flip of a card from a deck — all of these are unknown outcomes within a very defined data set. Because of that, mathematicians can quantify the probabilities of these outcomes; we know what the distribution looks like. From that, gamblers can derive estimates of risk.

However, once we venture into the realm of the wholly unknown possible outcomes — e.g., building a border fence, imposing a huge tax on imports, shutting down immigration — calculating risk becomes from difficult to impossible.

Which brings us back to the period since the markets began to rally after the election: My thesis is that Trump has re-introduced true uncertainty into the equation. Many market participants are coming to realize they have no idea what is going to happen next. And that is helping Markets rally, because “Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

The PC media and the PC collective wishful thinking assumed Trump would pivot to the middle, to being presidential, to predictable professionalism, failing to really pay attention and hear the man himself speaking. They fail to hear President Trump and hear whatever it is they like to have heard. If that s not mass hysteria and massive illusion then I don’t know what that is. Because President Trump basically executes on what he promised to do on his pre-election program, on his promises, and on his agenda. Still idiotic people don’t believe him because they have never seen a Politician that carries on what they promise to the Office after they won.

screen-shot-2017-01-22-at-7-21-26-am

But the Donald, is not a politician and that is what throws the spanner in the works.

He does what he promised but uses reverse psychology on the Politically Correct Media and the Pundits and that has altered the mind of the Public to the point that they don’t believe what is happening. The PC brigade has seen their own heads explode, and we see that all over the Media.

And of course as a response the PC media and the PC pundits claim that all kinds of devilish scenarios are playing out, but it all turns out peachy. We win. Victories abound. Peaches and cream, along with flag and apple pie, and even the amazing Patriots win at the Super Bowl.

As for the apocalyptic end of the world scenarios that the Libtards have promised the Trump presidency will usher — none of that has happened, none of the panic is real, and the markets that according to pundits should have have been somewhat put off by the president’s erratic, even bizarre, behavior, have instead just rallied and rallied ahead breaking new and fresh records.

Apparently the sort of stability and certainty that is supposedly good for business has been notably absent, and the Markets love the uncertainty.

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

So to all the Casandras out there — I have one thing to say to you:

Pull up your panties high and tight, and let’s enjoy the ride.

Join up and enjoy the ride, because there is an after party for the Winners too.

After all, it’s the Chinese year of the Phoenix-Rooster, and that looks awfully like Donald Trump and the Year of Making America Great Again.

screen-shot-2017-02-06-at-8-03-37-pm

“Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

I know and speak from long experience with the extremely pretty women who are  vulnerable princesses and unstable ice queens, at the same time…

And we use women to spread this message around: “Markets, behave very much like Bitches in heat and Love the Bad Boy induced Uncertainty.”

Models, Actresses, and Pretty Women — please apply within, because we need all of you to spread this Meme in order to save you from imminent bankruptcy… and lack of a Valentine to save your life.

Cheers

Happy New Year and Happy New Life.

Your Happy Valentine will be delivered in person.

Older Posts »

Categories