The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Let me be clear: Obama is a terrorist sympathizer and so is Hillary Clinton.  I will explain.

We now know that the Orlando shooter was motivated by a strike on an ISIS commander:

In a newly released transcript of one of the calls with police made during his siege of the Pulse nightclub early on June 12, Omar Mateen said his massacre was retribution for the coalition strike that killed Abu Waheeb, a somewhat obscure executioner and propagandist with the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

“Yo, the airstrike that killed Abu Wahid [sic] a few weeks ago, that’s what triggered it, okay?” Mateen told a police negotiator in one of the multiple calls made while he was inside the nightclub.“They should have not bombed and killed Abu Wahid [sic].”

Now the facts.

Obama has denied that Islamic terrorism was responsible for the massacre.  He lied and he knew it.

And Hillary Clinton's State Department blocked an investigation into the mosque the killer attended because it "unfairly" singled out Muslims (Gee, you mean Muslims attend mosques, and nobody else does?)

Then the shooter's father, who is a supporter of hers, showed up at one of her campaign rallies.

Oh, by the way, where is the shooter's wife -- it does appear, does it not, that Obama's government, that is, HILLARY'S party, let her leave the country and of course she will never return to face the music as an apparent accomplice since there are reports in the media that she drove him to the club, heavily armed, to commit his massacre.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

My God, millennials are really this dumb?  Or is that post-millennials?  I can't keep track any more...

I was able to get a summer internship at a company that does work in the industry I want to work in after I graduate. Even though the division I was hired to work in doesn’t deal with clients or customers, there still was a very strict dress code. I felt the dress code was overly strict but I wasn’t going to say anything, until I noticed one of the workers always wore flat shoes that were made from a fabric other than leather, or running shoes, even though both of these things were contrary to the dress code.

I spoke with my manager about being allowed some leeway under the dress code and was told this was not possible, despite the other person being allowed to do it. I soon found out that many of the other interns felt the same way, and the ones who asked their managers about it were told the same thing as me. We decided to write a proposal stating why we should be allowed someone leeway under the dress code. We accompanied the proposal with a petition, signed by all of the interns (except for one who declined to sign it) and gave it to our managers to consider.


They all got canned the next day.

I would have fired every one of them (except the one who didn't sign) and I wouldn't have waited for the next day!

Look buttercups, employment is not a democracy.

I pointed this out a couple of times to my daughter when she was growing up, and I said it in much cruder terms -- in fact, I said it exactly like this:

"There will be things your boss tells you to do that you think are stupid.  You may think certain policies are stupid, the way things are done are stupid in some fashion, or that some aspect of how the business is being run is stupid.  As a worker rather than a boss the successful way to think about this is that you have to figuratively blow some people you don't want to.  Not literally -- that's illegal -- but figuratively.  If you really believe you have a better idea you can try to ask your boss, but simply asking is likely to be ineffective because it shows you're reacting to a situation instead of thinking toward the furtherance of the firm's interests.  Instead, if you really believe you have a better way to accomplish something or a change that should be made, first take the time to do your damndest to understand why it currently is the way it is -- there is a reason.  Then figure out how and why you would change it, and if your change is accepted how that change will improve the company's efficiency, profitability or (even better) both.  Then, and only then, take the whole thing, including your analysis, to your direct supervisor in private.  If you get nowhere with that then see the first part of what I explained -- working for someone else sometimes means doing things that you think are dumb or worse, but unless they're criminal you're the subordinate and the other person is the boss!"

In short even when you're pretty sure you're right you won't always win.  In fact you'll probably lose more often than you'll win and some of the time even when you win your boss will steal the credit for it!

But if you try to foment any sort of uprising among the staff I supervise unless I'm legally barred from canning you for doing it (and there are only a few ways you can do it where that prohibition exists) you and everyone else involved are going to be instantly fired -- and I don't care if doing it means I have to call a temp agency and fill the damn building with temporary workers an hour later.




A workplace is not a democracy.  It is (at best) a benevolent dictatorship where ideas, properly formed and presented in a helpful, not threatening manner, will (if your boss has any brains) be analyzed, passed up the chain and perhaps implemented.  In a well-functioning company those who do pass up such ideas often get not only recognized they get promoted.  There was one person of particular note at my company who started at the very bottom and wound up running a department with a private office -- all because she had brains and even better, knew how to pass things up the chain of command in a way that made sense without threatening the stability of the company or its employees.

The minute you decide that you have the power in such an organization when you do not if the firm if functioning properly everyone involved in same is going to immediately be fired because that act by definition threatens the proper, legitimate and orderly functioning of the firm.

It's that simple.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

What do you do to a parasite?

You kill it.

Well, how about this?

California's last nuclear power plant will close by 2025 under an accord announced Tuesday, ending three decades of safety debates that helped fuel the national anti-nuclear power movement.

The state's largest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., and environmental groups reached an agreement to replace production at Diablo Canyon nuclear plant with solar power and other energy sources that do not produce climate-changing greenhouse gases.

There is no such source that (1) is available all the time and (2) can and will actually replace said energy source.

In point of fact California isn't and hasn't been either net electricity neutral or a net producer for a very long time.  Enron was, to a large degree, all about trying to manipulate California wholesale energy prices -- for power sold by other state's producers.

I remind you that behind every unit of GDP is a unit of energy.  For a state to claim to be a "powerhouse" of economic activity while it is a parasite, and a damaging one at that when it comes to net electricity production is a monstrosity that we must not tolerate.

In short California is practicing the exact sort of nonsense that corporations are when they offshore -- they want all the filth they produce to go poison someone else while they get the benefits.

What should result from such a demand?

Refusal, in short, coupled with a nice open knife switch on the power lines at the state border until and unless the state becomes net energy neutral or better.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

You're flat-out insane, Tim.

WASHINGTON –  Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine is predicting that the Roman Catholic Church may eventually change its opposition to gay marriage.

Kaine is a Roman Catholic as well as a U.S. senator from Virginia and a former governor of that state. He told the Human Rights Campaign during its national dinner Saturday in Washington that he had changed his mind about gay marriage and that his church may follow suit one day.

"I think it's going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator who, in the first chapter of Genesis, surveyed the entire world, including mankind, and said, 'It is very good,'" Kaine said. He then recalled Pope Francis' remark that "who am I to judge?" in reference to gay priests.

No it won't, and no it shouldn't.

Indeed, if it does then the Catholic Church will cease to exist at that instant in time and will become something else -- and that, my friends, is exactly what Tim Kaine and many others want.

You can disagree with Catholic theology all you'd like.  There are some 5,000 religious paths available to you today, and if you don't like any of those you can go create your own and the government is required to leave you alone.  So says the US Constitution.

But Catholic theology isn't formed from public opinion, nor should it ever be subject to same. As for Pope Francis and his view on gay priests let me remind you that priests, gay or otherwise, are required by the Church to take a vow of celibacy.

In other words irrespective of how you feel you are required to conform to a particular standard when it comes to what you do.

The Church, and indeed nearly all Christian faiths, teach that humans are inherently sinful. That is, we're imperfect; we err both in thought and deed.  But such are in fact errors when it comes to that path, and the Church does not, and indeed cannot without destroying itself confer upon that which is claims to be error a blessing.

Marriage is a sacrament, not a civil act.  The conflation of the two is one of the worst errors the Church has undertaken, and ought to be corrected.  As I have written on many occasions, including for many years before starting The Ticker, if you want a civil contract of some sort then you should go see a JP.

If you want a sacrament to be performed then go see a priest.

The two ought to be disjoint acts.  Why?

It's simple, when you get down to it: A Catholic sacramental marriage is irrevocable until death of at least one of the parties unless originally formed under false pretense -- that is, invalid at the time it was originally undertaken, not at some point later.  This is not unique to marriage as a sacrament -- you cannot be baptized twice either.  If baptized by anyone, in the Catholic Church or not, you cannot have the ceremony performed in the Catholic faith as you're already baptized.

Sacraments are not civil obligations and conflating the two when they do not represent the same set of conditions is open, rank hypocrisy and in this case an intentional lie told before God in a sacramental context.  Such an act is quite-arguably the most-serious of sin because it not only evidences intent to deceive it is undertaken as a direct part of a sacrament that requires taking an oath as to your intentions before God.  

In short civil marriages are subject to termination any time either party wants them to be, and this is in direct conflict with the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage as a sacrament.

Therefore, by definition the presentation of a state-issued marriage license to a Catholic priest and his signature on same is a per-se act that invalidates the sacrament itself as the moment you do so you have presented a written document bearing your signature under oath -- that is, under penalty of perjury -- which directly contradicts the oath you are required to take in order for the sacrament to be performed!

You can't have this one both ways folks and Tim Kaine has obviously never actually studied Catholic theology.  He was probably confirmed as an adolescent and thus lacked the capacity or incentive to do so, but it doesn't matter. Theology just is, and if you accept that a Catholic sacramental marriage is what the theology claims it to be and the grounds for annulment (one of them being the lack of intent, at the time of contraction of the marriage, for it to be for life) then the very act of presenting a state document that by the controlling law for same leaves either party the option of voiding their marriage at any time, for any reason or no reason at all is a per-se act of fraud upon God and the Church with the willful and intentional complicity of the priest who countersigns same!

In short all such marriages are void ab-initio and subject to annulment under Catholic theology -- that is, Canon Law.

This is theology, not politics.  I have no quarrel with gay people who wish to do whatever, including getting married in any religious path that has no problem with it, or through some civil ceremony.  But the Catholic Church, should it "allow" what Kaine claims, will cease to be the Catholic Church.  I don't believe that will happen, nor that it should.  Diversity of paths in faith is good, not bad.

Instead of Kaine's insanity the Church should insist that its priests not execute any form of civil paperwork in the context of marriage.  There is not only no law requiring it to do so no law can be passed compelling it to do so due to the First Amendment's protections.  The Church should instead register Catholic marriages internally as it does for other sacramental rites and events, including births, baptisms, confirmations and deaths, practicing the faith as its theology directs.  If Catholic celebrants wish to have some sort of civil law registration of their commitment they should go handle that separately, preferably after their sacramental marriage.

The Catholic marriage sacrament is not "marriage" as defined by civil authorities or, for that matter, other religious faiths.  It is defined by the theological rules of the Church -- sacramental procedures, requirements and rites that the Church alone has the authority to determine.  We're long past the point where restoration of that split between church and state, which once existed when it came to marriage, ought to be vigorously pursued and enforced by the Church with regard to both its priests and celebrants.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-09-19 09:24 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 727 references

We are well-past the "use by" date of political correctness when it comes to Islamic Terrorism, alleged "islamophobia" and similar politically-correct nonsense.

It is a fact that just a few short years after our nation's founding this country faced a bunch of Islamic Pirates who were kidnapping our merchant ships' complement, burning their ships and stealing their cargoes.  They were also raiding villages for the purpose of taking people to be sold as slaves.  When pressed as to the justification for these actions, the response was: "You're not Muslim."

We didn't put a stop to that crap by taking in refugees and "understanding" those who declared that they hate us because we are not willing to kowtow to the demands of their alleged "faith", although there was an initial flirtation with paying their "tribute" -- a strategy that was quickly recognized as failed when the attacks did not cease.  We shortly thereafter insisted that they cut that crap out and, when they refused, we blew them to bits.

Now we have a named suspect who is alleged to not only have set off a bomb in NYC, appears to be connected to a second device that exploded in New Jersey, and a third device found unexploded (also in NYC) but, it appears, we have recovered a satchel containing additional devices.  We're seeking him now and you get two guesses as to his religious affiliation but you'll only need one.

At the same time we have a second person who showed up in a mall the other day and decided he was feeling stabby -- while screaming "Allah Akbar!"  You only get one guess as to his religious affiliation.  Oh, incidentally, he apparently is one of those 'refugees' (good vetting job there Mr. President and Ms. Clinton) and if reports in the press are to be believed his father, who is also here and has been naturalized, can't speak a word of English.  Exactly how did he take the oath of citizenship if he can't speak our common language?

A singular event?  Nope.  There are at least 800 of these people who we not only allowed to stay we granted them citizenship!  Was the father of Mr. Stabby one of them?

And, of course, let us not forget (although the media would like us to) the fine "quite recent" set of immigrants out west who decided that a young girl was to be their sexual plaything and when they were not capable of the act they intended (as they were too young!) they defiled her anyway.  This is what refusing to vet people not only for their beliefs but also for their willingness to assimilate into our culture and not allow into our nation those with any desire to turn our culture into theirs, which I remind you is marked by sexual brutality, throwing gays off buildings and similar acts akin to those of lower animals gets us.

Never forget that Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and the State Department is the part of the government that is explicitly responsible for vetting those who wish to come here whether to visit or stay and issuing them credentials to do so.  She is thus personally responsible, as the Secretary, for these failures.  I repeat: THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THESE FAILURES DOES NOT JUST REST WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA IT RESTS WITH HILLARY CLINTON PERSONALLY.

If you would like more of the weekends antics and more young girls sexually assaulted (just go ask Sweden about that!) then you can of course vote for the Presidential candidate that espouses "inclusiveness" and "understanding" -- of those who demonstrate, through their actions, that they intend to murder anyone who doesn't comply with their insane religious proscriptions. You can even go into a Catholic Church and put money in the plate to support a Pontiff who says the same things.  You can continue to support the clowncar brigade that has imported these people by the tens of thousands over the last many years and not only will our government not throw any of them out it will continue to bring more bombers and stabby-mad crazies into our towns and shopping malls.  That candidate for President is, incidentally, the same candidate who was personally responsible for the vetting of said immigrants as Secretary of State and thus is personally responsible for those failures -- her name is Hillary Clinton.

Or you can decide that you'd prefer to live in peace, you'd prefer if your daughter isn't raped and urinated upon, your son isn't stabbed in a mall by an allah-akhbar screaming islamic nutjob and you are not blown up while peacefully enjoying a nice evening out in New York City -- or any one of our other cities and towns across the country.  You can instead demand that our borders be closed until we can vet everyone who comes in this nation, we immediately expel those who we failed to vet and cannot pass said vetting now, and we cut the political-correctness crap and make it clear to all of these people around the world that we will not submit, we will not convert, and if they do not respect our right to worship and live as we wish then if it is war that they seek it is war they will find, they will lose, and the 27 virgins are all male gorillas who are the horniest creatures I've ever laid eyes on.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
The Rule Of Law

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 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, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

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.