San Juan Mountains

San Juan Mountains
San Juan Mountains: Grenadier Range

Friday, April 4, 2014

High Frequency Trading Witch Hunt

The words "high frequency trading" are suddenly on everyone's lips.  Some financial fellow wrote a book about the topic and managed to get on the television show 60 Minutes last Sunday.  His thesis is that high frequency traders are engaging in an immoral legal activity that must be stopped.  After the interview aired the financial media was filled with reports about how the stock market is a "rigged game" that will destroy the wealth of any person foolish enough to purchase stocks.
I never ceased to be amazed at how people continually panic when they engage in foolish actions based upon things they know little to nothing about.  Someone grows up next to a nuclear reactor and then panic ensues when he,or his neighbor, contracts some type of cancer.  Suddenly the nuclear reactor is responsible for the cancer and everyone is going to die.  Other times a person might be able to ignite the water that is coming out of his kitchen faucet.  Any oil or gas drilling operation in the area is immediately blamed for what is in reality a naturally occurring phenomenon.  Now, foolish and ignorant people who attempt to time the stock market are losing money and suddenly high frequency traders are to blame.  In the words of John Stossel, give me a break!
In a classic case of a solution in search of a problem the FBI, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the federal Department of Injustice have all launched investigations into the practice of high frequency trading.  Their rent-seeking is obvious to all.  Career bureaucrats looking to make a name for themselves with a high profile case are salivating at the opportunity to seek out and destroy some hapless trader who never saw it coming and never had a chance.  The DOJ sees another opportunity to extort millions of dollars from financial firms which are only following the rules as they are presently written.  It should not be this way but when politics are involved all rational thought goes flying out the window.  Let's talk about this thing called high frequency trading for a minute, shall we?
High frequency trading is simply that, trading stocks very often.  And I do mean often.  The trading is all computerized and high frequency firms will engage in trades that take only a fraction of a second.  They will buy and sell the same stock in less than a second and they will do this millions of times a day.  Now, you may be wondering, why would anyone ever want to trade stocks in this fashion?  Even more important, how is it possible to make a profit by trading stocks this frequently, especially given the fact that stock trading incurs costs that first must be overcome prior to making a profit?  The answer lies in how stock trades are processed.
High frequency traders have spent hundreds of millions of dollars placing fiber-optic lines around the country that allow them to execute their trades faster than many other stock traders.  This, along with the fact that they can see what other stock traders have issued in buy and sell orders prior to those orders being filled allows the high frequency firms to legally "front-run" a stock trade.  Front-running means going ahead of a proposed stock trade, buying/selling the desired stock prior to the receipt of that trade order and then making the trade from your own pool of stock for a profit.  It is a totally legal activity and, in addition to earning profits for those who do it well, it increases the overall efficiency of trade execution for stock traders around the world. 
Anyone with a lick of common sense can see that all the high frequency traders are doing is engaging in the practice of arbitrage.  Arbitrage has been going on in financial markets since the beginning of time.  Arbitragers are those folks who attempt to take advantage of tiny price disparities that are always roiling through financial markets.  If they are nimble enough and if they have sufficiently timely information, arbitragers are able to buy and sell large blocks of financial instruments while making miniscule profits on each transaction.  The huge volume of transactions undertaken can result in large profits.  Arbitrage has been going on in currency markets for as long as I can remember and nobody has ever thrown a fit about it.  In fact, just the opposite is the case.  All financial players who are not blinded by politician ambition and envy can see that the practice of arbitrage provides efficiency and liquidity to the financial markets that every player benefits from. 
There is nothing illegal or immoral about what the high frequency traders are doing.  There is nothing that they are doing that in any way endangers the stock markets of the world.  Yes, you might pay a penny per share more on an individual stock transaction that you execute with Scottrade today but the benefit, largely unseen and unexplained, that high frequency traders provide is enormous.  Does anybody remember the good old days when stock were traded in 1/8ths?  Does anybody remember the good old days when you might have to wait a day or more to get confirmation of your stock trade?  Does anyone know why stocks are traded today by the penny and transaction confirmations are practically immediate?  Does anybody remember that it was not possible to sit in the friendly confines of your home office and day trade stocks?  Yep, you used to have to go to a broker's office to execute a trade.  All of those things have changed.  A good deal of the trading efficiency and convenience that we experience today is a direct result of computerized trading, of which high frequency traders are a big part.
When I purchased a share of IBM thirty years ago I had to buy it in 1/8ths.  That means the most precise price I could get was only broken down to .125 cents per share.  That is a huge gap by today's standards.  Still nobody complained about it and the federal government did not come looking in search of financial villains to persecute.   As is always the case in a free market, other market observers noticed that the high frequency traders were making a pretty good profit.  The fact that profits were being made indicated to financial entrepreneurs that another opportunity to serve the public had arisen.  Many firms swept in to try and serve the financial public.  As they successfully did so the profits began to decline.  This is inevitable in a free market system. The decline in profits indicated that the consumers were being served extraordinary well and also signaled to other entrepreneurs that they might want to focus their efforts elsewhere.  Five years ago high frequency trading firms netted ~$7 billion.  In 2013 they netted ~$1 billion.  That is all of the story you need to know.
Skip forward to today and the federal government is going after high frequency traders because they can earn a penny per share or less on a transaction that greatly benefits all market participants.  Where is the sense in that?  The answer is that there is no sense in that.  But doing things that make no sense is the job of career politicians and bureaucrats.  Make no mistake, the federal government's involvement in the fabricated high frequency trading "scandal" is nothing more than political opportunism.  Careers of innocent people will be destroyed.  Profits earned by honest entrepreneurs will be transferred to the federal treasury.  Political careers will be advanced and the politicians involved in this immoral witch hunt will give each other plaques and praise each other for their dedicated public service.  That is, after all, what politicians do. 

Thursday, April 3, 2014

Veterans Behave Like Spoiled Brats

For those of you (five or six people) who are regular readers of this blog what you are about to read will not surprise you.  For the three or four people who might stumble upon this blog post in the ensuing years I begin with a warning.  I am going to attack your most sacred icon....get prepared......I am going to attack the Amerikan solider.
A Washington Post poll taken last week revealed some fascinating things about the beliefs of soldiers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past twelve years.  Allow me to quote from the article below:
"More than half of the 2.6 million Americans dispatched to fight the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan struggle with physical or mental health problems stemming from their service, feel disconnected from civilian life and think the government is failing to meet the needs of this generations' veterans....One in two say they know a fellow service member who has attempted or committed suicide.  More than 1 million suffer from relationship problems and experience outbursts of anger -- two key indicators of post-traumatic stress....Almost 60 percent say the VA is doing an 'only fair' or 'poor' job in addressing the problems faced by veterans, and half say the military is lagging in its efforts to help them transition to civilian life, which has been difficult for 50 percent of those who have left active service.   Overall, nearly 1.5 million of those who served in the wars think the needs of their fellow vets are not being met by the government."
I think we all get the picture.  2.6 million people signed up to be a part of the military of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika fighting overseas.  They were shipped off to Iraq and Afghanistan to "defend our freedom" against the wiles of terrorists who were bent on killing us and destroying the Amerikan way of life all because we love freedom and they love tyranny.  At least that is what King George kept telling us when these wars were initiated.  Now, over a decade later, these soldiers are returning stateside and most of them think they are being treated unfairly when they return.  Here is what Army Staff Sergeant Chris Steavens had to say about his treatment since returning, "When I raised my right hand and said, 'I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America,' when I gave them everything I could, I expect the same in return."  So Chris expects the Amerikan taxpayers to "give him everything."  Let's look at what Chris, and others like him, presently get.
According to the Veterans Administration of the SDA, returning veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are entitled to the following benefits:
  1. The GI Bill gives all returning veterans a free four year education and a Bachelors degree if they earn it.  In addition they have a program entitled the "Veterans Retraining Assistance Program"  which allows them to obtain taxpayer funded vocational education to advance their civilian careers.  In addition they have a "Veterans Education Assistance Program."  I didn't bother checking to see what it provides.  Then, to top if off, they have a program called the "Survivors Education and Assistant Benefit" wherein the taxpayers will pay for a part of the education of veteran's children.
  2. Veterans have an entire federal bureaucracy that exists exclusively for the purpose of creating and granting them home mortgages at rates and terms more favorable than regular SDA citizens.  The costs for the program are borne by SDA taxpayers, of course.
  3. Veterans have taxpayer subsidized access to group life insurance, disability insurance and mortgage insurance.
  4. Veterans have access to taxpayer provided medical and dental care.  This includes treatment for all standard medical conditions plus treatment for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and other war-related maladies.  In addition, vets have access to monthly disability payments if they can prove their medical disability is a result of their service, which most of them have little to no problem accomplishing.
  5. Veterans have access to taxpayer funded pensions as well. There are about a dozen different ways to qualify for the pensions including being over age 65, being disabled and simply not making enough money in the job the vet takes when he gets home.  
  6. The VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 created numerous cash and tax subsidies to motivate employers to hire veterans rather than civilians.  Veterans are granted most preferred status when it comes time to find a job.  Those who made the rational and moral decision to not fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are left to flap in the breeze.  
  7. Ready for assisted living or a full time nursing home?  Veterans do not have to worry.  Taxpayer financed homes of both types are there for them to take advantage of.  
  8. The list goes on and on.  Veterans get federal income tax benefits not available to the average citizen.  Veterans who become farmers are given taxpayer financed subsidies not available to the regular Joe.  Veterans are given the fast-track with the Small Business Administration.  The list goes on and on.....
In addition to the taxpayer financed benefits and subsidies available to veterans through the government, veterans are also given many things by the private sector.  Veterans are given preferential treatment when they fly commercial airlines.  Veterans are given reduced ticket prices to sporting events, entertainment events and other social activities.  Veterans get reduced rates at hotels and motels.  Veterans are adored by the public with millions of spontaneous standing ovations breaking out whenever they are present.  Public adulation knows no bounds as veterans hands are worn weary by the constant expression of thanks given to them by SDA citizens who recognize them as heroes who are keeping us free.  Yet, despite all of this, 60 percent of them believe they are getting a raw deal when they return stateside.  Something is very wrong here.
You know how it is with a child who has been spoiled.  The more he gets the more he wants.  The more he gets the more he complains when he does not get even more.  The more he wants the less his parents are able to satisfy him.  He eventually becomes a little tyrant who demands the universe revolve around him.  There is something about spoiling someone that brings out his sinful nature in a way that is quite repulsive.   I believe the majority of our veterans have now attained most spoiled child status.  They are given taxpayer financed privileges, benefits, subsidies, cash, education, medical care and other assorted benefits, along with public adulation, and then they have the unmitigated gall to say that we are not doing enough for them.  I have had enough.  I am sick and tired of the whining of these spoiled little brats.
Hear Ye, Hear Ye, all military veterans:   Nobody forced you to sign up.  Despite what Chris had to say above, you are not entitled to anything more than what the contract said you were entitled to when you signed up, and that was already a lot of stuff.  If serving in the SDA military is the majestic and honorable thing you claim it to be, why do you not serve for free?  Why would you complain at all?  What a privilege it would be to serve your country for free.  When you return and are discharged from your service you should be entitled to nothing.  Nothing.  You are just like everyone else.  You are not special.  You should not be favored and I should not be discriminated against simply because you went to an immoral war and I did not.  Stop your incessant whining and get on with life, please!
Now that I have that off my chest, let me write one more thing.  I realize that many, if not most, of you probably did not realize when you signed up to go and fight terrorists that you were going to end up murdering innocents in an immoral war.  Maybe you did not murder anyone but you know you were at least an accessory to murder.  That type of activity takes a toll on the soul and the psyche.  I get it.  PTSD is just another phrase for trying to live with a guilty conscience that is driving you crazy because of the things that you did and the things that you saw done.  The fact that you feel horrible is a good sign.  It means that your conscience has not been entirely seared by statist propaganda designed to try and convince you that what you have done in the name of SDA imperialism is moral.  To you I have one word of advice.  Repent.  Repent of your sins now.  The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the imputation of His righteousness to you can cleanse you of those horrible scars and redeem your life today.  If you want relief from the guilt of what you have done, repent today.

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Colorado's Escheatment Law Is Highway Robbery

Do you know what "escheat" means?  I had a vague notion of what the word meant but it did not really hit home until it suddenly applied to me.  Escheat is a legal term derived from English common law.  It hails from feudal times when the landlord would claim ownership of any land owned by someone who died without an heir.  I did a little historical checking and discovered that the concept had evolved from some ancient Norman conqueror who, upon arriving upon English soil,  had claimed all of England for himself.  He would then dole out parts of the land to his favorite people but reserved the right to take it back if he wanted to.  Fast forward a bunch of centuries and we discover that citizens of the Socialist Democracy of Amerika have inherited this same immoral system of ownership.
The idea that everything belongs to the government is dominant in the world today. That idea is the basis of all legal property contracts in the SDA.  You may think that you own the land your home is built upon but you do not.  You, just like a feudal slave, are actually only a tenant on that land.  The government actually owns the land and in exchange for the payment of an annual rent (known as "real estate tax" these days) you are permitted to stay in your home.  If you do not believe my analysis of the present situation is correct try this experiment.  Don't pay your real estate taxes this year and watch what happens.  Call me when you are evicted from what you thought was your property.
In a moral system of property ownership the government would own nothing but what it needs to conduct its very limited scope of activities.  All other property, both real and otherwise, would either by owned by the person who owns it (sounds a bit tautological does it not?) or it would remain unowned.  All unowned property would come to be owned property whenever somebody actually started using it. It is the use and improvement of property that brings about the condition of ownership.  This theory of property ownership was clearly elucidated by John Locke and it is an inherently moral system for the ownership of all things found in the world. 
Government, and the career politicians that populate it, rejects the Lockian theory of ownership.  Our rulers claim that they own everything that exists within their geo-political boundaries.  They further claim the right to dispense property rights to whomever they wish whenever they wish.  That, of course, is a claim to deity.  Immoral government (is there any other kind these days?) always makes claims to deity.  That is where the doctrine of escheat comes into play.  Government makes laws that determine when and where property has been abandoned and then they declare that it, via the law of escheat, is now the property of the government.  It used to be the case that the state would assume ownership of property only when someone died without a will and with no findable heirs.  Although that is not a good state of affairs to be in, I recognize why the state would claim escheat in those circumstances.  What I don't understand is how the law of escheat has been expanded in order to accomplish nothing more than to confiscate property and generate revenue for the state.  Let me tell you what happened to me yesterday.
I own a couple of mutual funds.  I received a letter from one of the funds that I own yesterday informing me that, as far as the fund company was aware, I no longer existed and my fund account was going to be given to the state of Colorado if I could not prove that I still exist.  As you might expect, that letter caused me some degree of emotional distress.  I know that I exist and, as far as I am aware, there is no reason for the fund company to believe that I have ceased to exist.  It seems downright unfair for the law to require me to continually prove that I exist just to avoid escheat.  But that is exactly what the law requires.
I contacted the fund company to investigate what was going on.  The pleasant person on the other end of the phone line informed me that Colorado law requires me to "make contact" with my fund company at least once every five years or my fund account is deemed to be escheated to the state of Colorado.  Technically if I don't "make contact" with the fund company at least once every five years I am declared to have abandoned my account and the state sweeps in to scoop it up.  I, of course, was never informed by anyone that this law exists.  I knew nothing about it until I received my letter yesterday threatening to give my fund account to the state.
I was perplexed by the requirement to "make contact" with the fund family.  I informed the representative from the fund that I have had the same mailing address for a long time now and I had no need to contact the fund to give them an address change.  He admitted that no mail had ever come back from my address to the fund.  I asked him how I could be technically in violation of the "make contact" rule when $100 is transferred from my checking account and deposited with my fund account every month.  This has been going on for years.  He informed me that a systematic investment program does not constitute a "contact" recognized by the state.  Now I was mad.  Not at the rep as he was only doing his job.  I was mad at the state.  How in the world could any rational person ever conclude that I had abandoned my account when I am making a deposit into it every single month?  No matter.  The law is the law and I must comply.
I asked the rep if my phone call to complain about having to prove that I exist constituted a legitimate contact with the fund company and he informed me that it did.  Whew!  I am safe for another five years.  But what of those poor folks who don't happen to get their letter informing them their accounts are about to be surrendered to the state under the escheatment laws?  What if someone is on vacation and does not get back in time to prevent the theft of his property?  What if someone mistakenly throws the letter away along with the other junk mail that regularly comes from mutual fund families?  Moreover, where does the state get the right to declare that I have to prove my existence every five years or I automatically surrender my property to it?  Why should I be forced to protect my property by proving my existence?  Should it not be the case that the state should first have to prove that I do not exist and that I do not have any heirs prior to seizing my property?  By putting the burden of proof on my back the state has committed another highly immoral action that is quite obviously designed to accomplish only one goal.....increase the revenue of the state.  I conclude that Colorado's escheatment law is  nothing more than highway robbery and I am nothing more than a feudal slave.

Tuesday, April 1, 2014

Heterophobic Bigots Practice Discrimination

I never cease to be amazed at how much I am discriminated against.  Being a combination of Welsh and Christian puts me in a position where I suffer discrimination on a daily basis.  Practically every television show I watch casts Christians as idiotic social misfits deserving of mockery, persecution, prosecution and death for their biblical beliefs about what is moral and what is not.  Hollywood produces a continual litany of movies designed to cast Christianity in a bad light.  The most recent effort, Noah, successfully portrays the God of the Bible as having more in common with Satan than with Himself.  Talk radio and cable television news, from both the left and the right, have no place for biblical ethics in their discussions.  There is one thing that everyone in the Socialist Democracy of Amerika seems to agree on and that is that Christians should have no voice in the public square.  Christians should always be discriminated against. 
Cindy Robertson of Denver is squarely in the camp of those who discriminate against me on a regular basis because of my views about homosexuality.  She wrote a letter to the editor of the Denver Post last week that was entitled, "Gay Rights Won't Make the Sky Fall."  Here is some of what she had to say:
"There are those who think that giving GLBT people equal rights will cause the sky to fall and that recognizing the conduct of these people will lead to eternal damnation.  The US and Europe may fall like Babylon and the Roman Empire, but it won't be because GLBT people can lead their lives telling the world whom they love and receiving equal rights under the US Constitution."
I am one of "those" people of whom Cindy writes.  I believe that the practice of homosexual behavior will lead to eternal damnation.  I believe that government endorsement of blatantly immoral behavior will result in the eventual destruction of our country and that that destruction will be a direct result of God's providential judgement upon us.  Clearly Cindy does not believe I am worthy to be a citizen of the SDA.  Clearly Cindy believes that my opinion about the issue of heterosexuality (I am in favor of it) should be suppressed in favor of her alternative opinions regarding homosexuality, lesbianism, transvestism and other sexual perversions.  Who is doing the discriminating here?  I never said she had no right to voice her opinion.  I never made fun of her for voicing her opinion.  I never asked the government to make laws criminalizing speech against heterosexuals.  I never asked the government to make laws endorsing homophobic speech.  I have never discriminated against her in any way.  Still, when it comes time to discuss the issue of heterosexuality (did I mention I am in favor of it?) she proves herself to be a bigoted heterophobic.
It gets worse.  Cindy discriminates based upon her heterophobia.  Cindy goes on to write that, "The US has been a world leader for centuries, recognizing that giving rights to people leads to a better society.  History has never been kind, not will it be, to those who discriminate against others for whatever reason."  Did you get all of that?  Cindy very carefully changes the terms of the debate in that sentence.  She makes some wild presuppositions and makes no attempt to justify them.  She then draws absurd conclusions from those presuppositions that have no basis in anything other than her own heterophobia.  Let me point out her problems.
Cindy believes that "giving rights to people leads to a better society," whatever that means.  Based upon the context of that sentence it is quite obvious that government is the storehouse of a thing called rights.  The US, according to Cindy, has been passing out these rights to various groups over the years and the mere act of passing these rights out to politically connected groups is what has made us a better society, whatever that means.  The lack of precision in Cindy's thinking is staggering.  If government has a storehouse of rights, where did those rights initially come from?  She does not say.  Did government create them out of nothing or did government take them from somewhere or someone else?  She does not tell us.  Furthermore, how can government give a person a thing called a "right"?  Is it not the case that, by definition, a right must be a right and, therefore, not subject to being given to anyone from anyone?  If something is mine by right, it is mine and it cannot be given to me or taken away from me.  My rights will always be my rights, regardless of what government does.
Cindy, being a worshiper of government, believes that government gives and government takes away, praised be government.  She believes that society, whatever that is, is better off, whatever that means, when government gives rights to one group and not to another.  What she fails to assert, but must necessarily believe, is that whenever government gives a particular right to one group, it takes away a particular right from another group.  When government makes a law declaring that all homosexuals must be served by people who bake cakes for a living, then government has asserted the opposite that the right of a Christian baker to refuse to bake a cake for a homosexual has been taken away.  When government makes a law declaring that homosexuals must be served by people who take photographs for a living, then people who take photographs for a living who would rather not photograph lesbians have just had their right to not take those pictures taken away.  When government asserts that homosexual couples have the right to be married and receive taxpayer funded survivor social security benefits when one of them dies, then my right to keep my own money to provide for my own retirement has just been partially taken away.  Every time the government takes one of these rights out of its storehouse and bestows it upon a group of citizens, in exchange for a vote of course, someone else has just been discriminated against.
Cindy fails to realize, or refuses to admit, that there are only three rights in the world.  Each of us has a right to our lives, our freedom and our property.  Each of those three rights, when practiced in the real world, never results in an impingement upon the lives, freedom or property of our neighbors.  In contrast, the rights alleged by Cindy always result in an impingement upon the lives, freedom and property of the unfortunate victims of the government created civil rights.  It is necessarily the case that when government makes a law that creates a right for one group, another group will have a right taken away.  Whenever government makes a law to prevent an alleged act of discrimination against one politically favored group, it is the case that a real act of discrimination takes place against the politically unfavored group.  Cindy's heterophobia has blinded her to the fact that she is discriminating against me and my ilk every single day.
In the ultimate act of hypocrisy Cindy concludes her diatribe by informing the world that "history has never been kind to those who discriminate against others."  What she fails to note is who is actually doing the discriminating.  Anybody who is on the receiving end of government protection is really and necessarily practicing discrimination against everyone else who is not on the receiving end of that discrimination.  Every law created to protect anything other than my life, freedom and property results in someone being discriminated against.  By calling for more laws to protect homosexuals and stifle the opinions of heterosexuals (did I tell you I am in favor of it?) Cindy has become the perfect example of discrimination in action.  Only, in this case, it is mostly Christians who are being discriminated against and we all know that they have no voice in the SDA.  Cindy is correct, there will be judgement for discrimination.  Cindy is also incorrect, that judgement will be based upon God's morally perfect law, not an act of Congress that favors one group over another. 

Monday, March 31, 2014

There Is No Such Thing As The "International Community"

I spent the last week wandering around the more remote corners of Death Valley National Park.  It was wonderful.  The spring flowers were blooming, the air was hot, we managed to get to the top of two beautiful desert peaks and we were treated to an occasional evening sandstorm.  Perhaps best of all I was far away from all electronic devices.  As a result I heard no news reports for an entire week.  Talk about relaxing!  Then, we drove home and I turned on the television just in time to see a report about how Prince Kerry had sternly lectured some political counterpart of his from Russia about how evil Putin is and why the "international community" considers Putin to be a lawbreaker.  How queer, I thought to myself.  Why would our Prince refer to something that clearly does not exist?
What is the international community?  Like practically everything that comes out of the mouth of a career politician it is never defined.  That, however, does not mean that there is no definition for the phrase.  At first glance it would seem to be the case that every country of the world makes up the international community.  But that cannot be true.  Russia is a country of the world.  So is Crimea.  So is China and Syria.  If the entire international community believes that Putin is a lawbreaking scum bag who should be drawn and quartered, why would those countries publicly announce their support for his most recent military and political machinations?  I conclude that it is not possible to define the international community as all of the nations of the world.
In reality, as we all know, the international community as referenced by Prince Kerry is made up of all the countries of the world that side with the Socialist Democracy of Amerika.  If the career politicians in other countries of the world take public stances in support of the SDA the SDA royalty includes them under the mantle of the international community.  If they disagree with the infallible pronouncements of our sovereign rulers they are classified as lawbreakers and worthy of invasion and death.  Nobody is foolish or stupid enough to believe that every country that sides with the SDA does so because it actually agrees with the sovereign decrees of King Obama and his royal court.  I think we all understand that many, if not most, of those sovereign nations only side with the SDA in order to keep the foreign aid funds flowing and to avoid a future invasion by SDA military forces. 
So, what did Prince Kerry mean when he said that Putin was in violation of the law created by the international community?  A little thought and common sense immediately reveals that all he was saying was that King Obama does not like Putin and has therefore decided to wage a propaganda war against him.  One of the major lines of attack in this war is to cast Putin as the villain and to declare that the entire world is against him.  It is not true, of course, because propaganda is never true.  But it does serve the purpose of once again declaring the doctrine of Amerikan Exceptionalism as well as informing other smaller countries around the world that they had better toe the SDA line or be attacked by the most powerful military force in the history of the world.
This practice of referring to groups of individual people as a homogenous unit that supports the agenda of some career politician is not restricted to the King and his Court.  It takes place at the lower levels of political royalty as well.  King Obama incessantly speaks of the "Amerikan people" and uses that concept to justify all of the socialistic programs he has rammed down our collective throats.  I have heard him tell me that Obamacare is nothing more than a response to the will of the Amerikan people for a program of socialized medicine and yet almost all of the Amerikan people I know do not want Obamacare.  I always wonder who these people are that he is referring to.  My best guess is they are made up of those folks who stand to be on the receiving end of the gigantic federal wealth transfer machine.  I have not heard of anyone who has seen his health insurance cancelled and his new policy subjected to a huge premium increase who is happy to be a part of Obama's Amerikan people.  On the other hand, all of those who are going to have their premiums paid via Obamacare's immoral and unconstitutional (despite what the Supreme Court has ruled) wealth transfer program of premium subsidies are happy to be a part of that group.  Based upon that reality I am driven to the conclusion that the best definition of "Amerikan people" is any Amerikan who wants to use the coercive power of the government to steal from his neighbor in order to pay bills that belong exclusively to himself.
This phenomena occurs at the state level as well.  I saw a political add for a Colorado career politician last night in which the man asserted several times that he is in line with "Coloradoans" whereas his opponent is not.  I live in Colorado.  That makes me a Coloradoan.  But I did not agree with a single thing this politician said.  He told me that Coloradoans support the idea that it should be legal for a woman to conspire with a government doctor to execute her baby.  I don't agree with that.  He told me that Coloradoans want federal government money to fight future forest fires.  I don't agree with that.  He told me that Coloradoans want federal government dollars to repair damage caused by previous floods.  I don't agree with that.  Still, he persisted in informing me that simply because I live in the geo-political entity known as Colorado I somehow mystically agree with everything he wants to do.
I am forced to a simple conclusion.  Every time a career politician refers to a group of people as a homogenous unit I must realize that I am about to be fleeced of my cash income.  Not surprisingly, no career politician I have ever heard has ever said that some particular group of people wants the government to do nothing and leave them alone.  Since I want the government to do nothing and leave me alone I find myself perpetually outside all of these groups of people.  That will not prevent my rulers from imputing membership status in these groups to me however.  They have to do so to justify their actions and assuage their guilty consciences, if they are not already seared to the point where they no longer have any idea of right or wrong whatsoever.