The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

In a word, crap.

A Turkish official told The Washington Post that the two bombers blew themselves up at the terminal entrance after police shot at them. Another official told Reuters that the bombers detonated their explosives prior to passing through a X-ray security checkpoint.

This of course is something that can happen anywhere and all the TSA "security lines" mean nothing.  After all the entire nation is a "grenade and bomb free zone" -- right?

In fact the longer and more-congested the lines the worse the impact of such an attack.

By concentrating people into an area for "screening" you have just increased the "attack surface" of a terrorist.  I pointed this out years ago in my The Sexual Assault articles, and now we've got the terrorists doing exactly that -- albeit in another nation.

Anyone who thinks this can't happen here has rocks in their head.  It both can and probably will.

Oh, by the way, anyone care to bet on the religious affiliation of the attackers?

I hate it when I'm right.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)


A hacker claims to be selling 655,000 alleged patient healthcare records on the dark web, containing information such as social security numbers, addresses, and insurance details.

This is what we deserve as citizens for allowing:

  • Health organizations, including insurers, to claim ownership of our medical records.  In short those records should be yours and nobody else's.

  • Refusing to hold health insurance and providers strictly liable for the loss of theft of said records.  If someone is a custodian under your permission for something that belongs to you then they should be held strictly liable with statutory penalties for breaches.

The simple fact of the matter is that from my personal and professional experience no health organization maintains anything approaching appropriate security measures when it comes to your personal health information.

Let me repeat that: None of the organizations that I have had contact with follow what I consider to be appropriate security measures in this regard.  Many willfully and intentionally take actions that are blatantly and outrageous unsound when it comes to data security and (even worse) refuse to act when they become aware of threats.

This sort of "sale offer" is not even slightly surprising to me and since utterly nobody is ever held to account for reckless and outrageous violations of security standards, even when they have agreed by contract or otherwise to maintain said standards (witness the various credit-card breaches, many of which, especially the "large" breaches you've heard of, should have put the firms in question out of business had the penalties in their agreements been enforced.) 

This leaves the only means by which you can protect yourself from same is to never visit any medical provider at all nor carry any form of health insurance.

Yes, I understand that's not a plausible response for many people.  But it's the only one you have left after you refuse to demand that the contractual and statutory penalties that already exist for these sorts of violations be enforced.  Since the various firms that have had gross and outrageous data breaches occur over the last few years while not one of them has had the full force of penalties available in both contract and law enforced against them this sort of ridiculous reckless disregard for the security of your personal information has and will continue -- and it will continue to screw you blind as well.

We, as a society deserve this for our own willful refusal to demand enforcement of these penalties against those firms that have said penetrations and thefts occur.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Let me preface this: Domestic violence -- actual, real violence -- is a monstrous problem.  It is a problem that has been with us since the early days of civilization and likely extends all the way back to the proto-human male that grabbed the closest "cute" female by the hair and dragged her back to his cave.

It will probably always be with us as a problem too, for this reason.  People are irrationally violent from time to time.  This is not a gender-biased phenomena either; there are plenty of women who have thrown pots of boiling water at their husbands or boyfriends and even those who have murdered or shot their children. The common chestnut of women being "superior" in their protective instinct toward their kids is just flat-out false and not borne out in the criminal statistics when it comes to child abuse.

With all that said we are once again witnessing the utter disregard for the 2nd Amendment by the SCOTUS and federal law in general.

In a major victory for domestic violence advocacy groups, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld the broad reach of a federal law that bans people convicted of domestic violence from owning guns.

In a 6-2 decision, the high court ruled that reckless domestic assaults can be considered misdemeanor crimes to restrict gun ownership.

Note carefully the issue here: This is not about barring someone from keeping and bearing arms during the punishment meted out for violating a law.  That is not only permissible it is part and parcel of what punishment is.

This is about something else entirely -- the permanent cancellation of a fundamental right post sentence.

This decision is blatantly unconstitutional.  It is unconstitutional because The Supreme Court has no power to re-write the Constitution itself, and the Constitution is clear on its face when it comes to keeping and bearing arms.  Such is a fundamental right recognized, but not granted, by the Second Amendment.

This decision is akin to ruling that if you were to yell "fire" in a crowded theater and be punished for the ensuing harm that came to the patrons as they tried to scramble out the exits you could then be compelled to wear a ball gag whenever out in public for the rest of your life, along with being legally prevented from owning or using a telephone, computer or other internet device because you might abuse any of the above in the future -- and if you were caught without said ball gag or a phone in your hand you would go to prison for a decade or more.

There are people who have abused the Internet, for example, that have been ordered to remain off it during some portion of their sentence -- including parole or probation.  That's constitutional as it is both individually imposed and the sanction expires along with the rest of the sentence.

This is not constitutional because it is not individually imposed (e.g. only on those who made a threat or caused harm involving a firearm) but because it extends on a blanket basis beyond the duration of one's sentence.

Anyone in support of same or who does not take the position that the Supreme Court must be vacated immediately and the justices replaced for their willful and intentional violation of their oath of office is in fact supporting an argument that we have no Constitutional Rights at all.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

The so-called "counter protesters" must be indicted and imprisoned.

The Traditionalist Worker Party, or TWP, whose leader describes it as a "white nationalist" group, had a permit for a noon rally near the state Capitol, said Officer George Granada, California Highway Patrol public information officer with the Capitol Protection Division. Another group showed up "to stop them from carrying on their permit," he said.

Now note that the so-called "TWP" folks are, by their own admission, "white nationalists."

So what?

We have a First Amendment in this country.  The "counter-protesters" intent was to prevent these people from being able to exercise their First Amendment rights, they initiated violence for that purpose which ultimately resulted in several serious knife wounds and they succeeded in destroying the TWP's First Amendment right to free speech.

These nazis made it to the capital steps and were attacked with sticks and concrete. #nonazisinsac


Yvette Felarca, who said she was a member of the group By Any Means Necessary, told CNN she came out to let people know that racist and anti-immigrant viewpoints would not be tolerated.

That is a clear declaration of both intent and execution of a plan to violate the First Amendment rights of a group that wanted to speak in a way the second group disagreed with.

The cops arrested.... nobody.

Folks, nobody ever tries to censor speech that isn't disagreeable.  The First Amendment was written specifically to protect speech that is disagreeable to those hearing it, because that's the only time it matters!

If we have no functional First Amendment and no functional Second Amendment we no longer have America.

The people who intended to and did prevent the exercise of the First Amendment have committed a federal offense and those police officers who have refused thus far to arrest said "counter-protesters" have blatantly violated both 18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1983.

All must be immediately held to account, and as citizens we all have an obligation to demand and back that demand up with boycotts and a general strike until said arrests and indictments issue.

The entirety of the Constitution has been under severe attack for decades and at this point it is approaching vestigial status.

We either act as citizens -- now -- to reverse this or we can kiss what we call America goodbye.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Let's talk for a bit about the so-called "narrow" and "common sense" compromise being put forward by Democrats -- and a few Republicans, notably Susan Collins (R-ME), to block people from buying guns if they're "on a terror watch list."

Sounds reasonable, right?

Well, it's not.

And the reason it's not has nothing to do with letting terrorists have guns.  Nobody in their right mind wants to have someone who is an actual terrorist walk into a gun store and buy a firearm -- or 10.

Rather, we blew it when we allowed the creation of "watch lists" that are (1) secret, (2) constrain people (e.g. "no-fly" lists) and (3) have no due process protections of any sort associated with them.

These are all unconstitutional, I remind you, to the extent they apply to American citizens.

Now it happens to be completely constitutional for The President (via the State Department) to bar anyone that is not a US Citizen from entering the country -- whether by air, train, boat, car, walking or teleportation.  Not only is there no Constitutional problem with doing so it is explicitly authorized by statute and no less than Jimmy Carter did exactly that during the Iranian Hostage Crisis (I'll bet you know what group of people he banned too, right?)

Today politicians on both sides of the aisle -- including Obama -- like to claim that this is not "who we are."  Did they forget Carter?

It sure sounds like it.

The problem with "Secret Lists" is that there is no way to know if you're on one up front and, if you discover you are (while trying to board a plane or buy a gun, for example) your liberties are infringed without due process of law and, often, without any means of challenge.

The government claims that disclosing this information means that their investigations may be "thwarted."  And?  The issue isn't that they have a list of people they're watching -- that's called investigation and is part and parcel of any legitimate law enforcement agency.  No, it's the disability they impose without due process, without trial and without, in many cases, anything that would be regarded as actionable evidence of a crime.

If the government wishes to conduct investigations before getting warrants, that's part of police work.

But imposing disabilities, including barring people from getting on a plane or buying a gun when you cannot make the case that a crime is in the process of being committed is unconstitutional, impermissible in a free society and must be stopped in its entirety.

Those who argue otherwise are IMHO not Americans and to the extent they're in positions of political power they are not only not American they're violating long-standing law (18 USC 242 and 42 USC 1983) and must be both civilly sued and criminally prosecuted for their crimes.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection:
You MUST Change Your Attitude

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.