The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets
2015-07-04 07:10 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 401 references

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Frankly Mary, you're out of your ****ing mind. And I'm being polite today.

In light of various global changes, I note the need to update teaching about Catholic sacramental theology in two simple but important ways. I urge us to implement these changes ahead of official reworkings that may be some decades away. Catholic theology is done by a variety of laborers in the vineyards: some who are part of the institutional church and others in the larger Catholic community. These observations come from the latter with the hope that the former might also implement them.

Urge eh?  Let me guess -- that "urging" will come with a bunch of torch-bearing harpies of various sorts screaming for government intervention and calling names?

Ah yes, that has already started over on Facebook, where this was posted.

So let's step back for a second, because there's a wee problem here.  See, marriage as the Catholic Church defines it happens to be the same way that virtually everyone else defined it too for the previous 5,000 years or so of recorded history.  In other words there is no such thing as "heterosexual marriage" because under Catholic doctrine there never was any other sort; the word "marriage" is defined as the union of one man and one woman and from a Catholic perspective is defined as that sacrament -- not a secular arrangement.  Now it just so happens that the Catholics made a rather grievous error and slept with the Devil, in this case the State, by adding a legal stamp to their sacrament that didn't actually comport with what they taught.  Specifically, the Catholic Church only allows you one valid heterosexual marriage in your lifetime as long as both of you are alive.  Claiming mere mistake is not sufficient to get a "do-over"; you must be able to document defect at the time you contracted it.  The State, on the other hand, will grant you as many times through the divorce court grinder as you're willing to tolerate before blowing your own head off.

By profaning a sacrament in this fashion one might think that God could get*****ed off.  I have no idea if he did or didn't; I'll leave debate on that point to those who are arrogant enough to believe they can speak for him.  But the fact remains that the recent Supreme Court decision amused me greatly in this regard, because ever since the advent of divorce on demand, a feature of the so-called "rise of feminism", the Church has been profaning itself in the United States millions of times a year on a quite-literal basis and the irony of such -- and what happened -- is obvious.

You may call anything whatever you wish but you may not arrogate to yourself the power to define away the meaning of words that have held fast for over 5,000 years.  And incidentally, you may wish to pay close attention to what the Supreme Court actually held, for in the future you're unlikely to prefer the state you're now in.  I speak specifically of the fact that the Supreme Court turned what was formerly an unalienable human right into a mere privilege through the demand that one be issued a license.  Rights require no license; they create no affirmative obligation except to be left alone and they cannot be conditioned on burdening another, as that is in fact enslavement of the other person.  Gay and straight people alike had that available to them prior to this ruling; as a consequence of your petitioning and screaming that has now been destroyed for everyone, gay or straight.

You'll discover the foolishness of your celebration soon enough; I'm sure of it, given what just happened to the Christians that got in bed with the Devil of the State on this issue.  I will be chortling when you find that said "license terms" become more and more constrained but are perfectly fine under the very demands you raised so long as everyone is equally-burdened.  "One Child" policy anyone?  Oh yes, that and more just became explicitly Constitutional thanks to that decision and the fun is already starting with a polygamous set attempting to argue for a three-way.  It'll get better from there given Kennedy's opinion, I assure you.  You're welcome.

As for Holy Orders you're free to disagree with the Church there too.  But you're not free to demand, or try to organize a lynch mob to demand, that they change.  You may not understand it and you may not care but the Church believes there is a fairly solid theological basis for the constraint that has much to do with the gender of the person that got nailed on a tree quite some time ago along with the nature of transubstantiation.  If you don't believe in transubstantiation you're not Catholic; it is the primary dividing distinction between Protestant and Catholic faiths.  While there is debate about Holy Orders once again you're not free to demand that the Church's doctrine comply with your beliefs.  You are free to set forth and establish your own church if you cannot find one that suits your needs, although with dozens of nominally-Christian sects in the United States alone I suspect that simply looking a bit harder would bring you somewhere in alignment with your views.

Why do I bring all this up at all, given that I rarely go into the theological world in this column?

Quite simply it's because the so-called "movement" that pushed for Gay Marriage is not about tolerance.  It's about demands -- specifically, demands that are direct violations of what 230-odd years ago a small cadre of brave men signed their own death warrants to deliver to us in the nascent nation called America.

The First Amendment, without which this nation would not have been formed, guarantees not only the right to speak freely, including most-notably speech you find offensive (nobody ever tries to censor speech that they don't disagree with), it also guarantees the right to freedom of religion.  The First Amendment was first for a reason; without it none of the other recognized rights exist.

The First Amendment means that religious orders of various sorts are all free to exist side-by-side and they're also free to both have whatever beliefs and constraints on their sacraments that they wish while both speaking and acting on them.  You, for your part just as I for mine, are free to choose that which most-closely aligns with our own personal belief system, and if we cannot find a match that is acceptable we're even free to go start our own, new religion.

But what we're not free to do is issue demands to other faiths.  I have no more right to demand that Jewish people start eating ham sandwiches than you are free to demand that the Catholic church alter its catechism to suit your particular preferences.

Such arrogance is mentally deranged to put not too fine a point on it, for such demands are now being coupled with the use of force; a violation of the very precept when it comes to speech and religion on which this nation was founded, and, I might add, implicate the highest law of the land.

And that, my friends is where the bigotry comes in.  It's not in the Catholic Church, despite their views that some find arcane or even silly and offensive.  You're free to join, leave, or turn up your nose.  Nobody in the Catholic Church is trying to force you to come and supplicate yourself before the altar; that remains a choice and one that is respected by those inside the doors, whether you decide that is a path you wish to follow or not.

On the other hand those screaming about so-called "Gay Marriage" and similar are of an entirely different view.  They have demanded to change the meaning of words that have stood for thousands of years and now they have displayed what was only spoken of in hushed tones before the recent Supreme Court decision: They intend to try to force the Catholic Church, and others who are Christian, to honor and pay homage to their redefinition of these words by demanding modification of their sacraments and beliefs under pain of government sanction should those demands be refused.  In fact this has already begun in the form of said force being leveled against bakers of cakes and takers of photographs.  It will be mere months, if that, before a Catholic Church is attacked for its refusal to marry a gay couple.  Count on it.

That is not religious freedom, it is jackbooted tyranny and bigotry of the highest order.  It is what this nation was formed to explicitly stop, as such intrusions into the religious beliefs of the people were utterly common in the colonies, undertaken in the name of the King.  The arrogance and outrageous nature of these demands requires a response from those who believe that the sacrifice of our forefathers and those who founded this nation created something good, different and worth defending.

I'll be polite this time, although I'm not at all sure why I should:

Get off my lawn.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2015-07-04 05:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 213 references

No, not because she ran her own email server.

But rather, because it appears that she armed terrorists -- an act that is flatly unlawful.

This secret war and the criminal behavior that animated it was the product of conspirators in the White House, the State Department, the Treasury Department, the Justice Department, the CIA and a tight-knit group of members of Congress. Their conspiracy has now unraveled. Where is the outrage among the balance of Congress?

Hillary Clinton lied to Congress, gave arms to terrorists and destroyed her emails.

Bush lied, people died used to be the left's rallying cry.


Why isn't Hillary in the dock right now, facing a long prison term?

Cut the crap, America; this July 4th you must insist that Herr Clinton stand trial for these acts -- not only is this facially unlawful but Americans were murdered as a consequence, which makes the proper charge accessory to murder before the fact.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)


Netflix service in Chicago is about to get notably more expensive. On the hunt for new revenue, Chicago's Department of Finance is applying two new rules that would impact companies like Netflix and Spotify. One covers "electronically delivered amusements" and another covers "nonpossessory computer leases"; together they form a unique and troubling new attempt by cities to tax any city resident that interacts with "the cloud. According to the Chicago Tribune, streaming service providers need to start collecting the tax starting September 1.

Between the two it would total about 9% on gross sales.

"Amusement taxes" are nothing new; if you go into a bowling alley or similar and stick a couple of quarters in a pinball machine you'll see a tax sticker on there -- that's the licensing for them.  Those taxes have been around forever and are sort of a "sin tax."

The funny part of this is that "everyone knows" that the best and highest use for the Internet is to consume porn, so I guess the view of the city that this constitutes an electronically delivered amusement would arguably be correct.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

I hate when that happens.

The man arrested in connection with the seemingly random killing of a woman who was out for a stroll with her father along the San Francisco waterfront is an illegal immigrant who previously had been deported five times, federal immigration officials say. 

Further, immigration officials say San Francisco had him in their custody earlier this year but failed to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement when he was released. 

But they just want to come here for a "better life", right?

Yeah, and to commit murder, it would appear.

Further, our "catch and release" system, along with a refusal to put a stop to the invasion routinely leads to this sort of result.

On Friday, ICE revealed their records indicate the individual has been previously deported five times, most recently in 2009, and is from Mexico. 

"His criminal history includes seven prior felony convictions, four involving narcotics charges," ICE said in a statement. 

Oh, so Trump was right about him twice -- not only is he apparently a murderer but he's a convicted felon and drug dealer.

San Francisco, by the way, was the jurisdiction that let him go the last time.

Their so-called "justice department", mayor and chief of police all need to be indicted as accessories before the fact to murder.

Trump is right, and since we now have proof in the contemporary time I call for a boycott of every firm and organization that is ditching him as a result of his comments.

The list includes but is not limited to NBC, Macy's and Serta.

To all three, I say: You're fired!

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
If You're Older Than 40 And Reading This...

Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be reproduced or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media or for commercial use.

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.