The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]
2015-07-04 05:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 5 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.

Well?

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)
 

Well yes, that's what it is, you know...

Gruber became the center of a political storm in November 2014, when a video surfaced of him taking part in a 2013 panel discussion about ObamaCare. At one point, Gruber said the Obama administration wrote the bill "in a tortured way to make sure [the Congressional Budget Office] did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies ... Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."

All that mattered is that it pass, because the medical "industry" was reaching the end of the rope upon which you were being hung, and without the ability to force you to participate there was a severe problem brewing with consumer revolt.

Nobody knew (or knows now), of course, where the trigger for that revolt is or whether it would have been (or will now be) peaceful.  It might be but it also might involve pitchforks, torches and worse.  There is simply no way to know when it comes to such matters particularly if a critical mass of Americans were to find themselves ripped off to the point of abject destitution on a continual basis.

What is critical mass?  Nobody knows that either but from history we do know that's typically less than 10%, usually somewhere around the 7-8% threshold.

How close are we to this now with the scam-ridden medical crap in this country today?  Too close, I suspect, for those in that industry to sleep well....

PS: TPP is, as I've pointed out, part and parcel of their locust-like behavior -- now that America is being stripped bare they need more-fertile places to land where they can denude the economy of vitality.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

The "TPP" has been "negotiated" in secret; our government refuses to release what's in it and both Congress and President Rob-you-blindBama loves the complicity of both Congress and you.

Now Wikileaks has gotten their hands on the health care component.  Well, it's not called that, but it clearly is that.  Yes, this "trade agreement" is meant to, and will, prevent you from doing things like going to Mexico to get a medicine made there that sells for $100 instead of paying $30,000 for it here.

And how will it do that?  It will make the price $30,000 everywhere.

Ok, maybe that's a bit unfair.  Maybe it won't be $30,000.  But you can bet it won't be $100 either or anything close to it.

I've spent so much digital ink on this since 2009 because it was clear that unless stopped the medical and pharmaceutical industries, in concert with the so-called "insurance" business, was going to ruin federal, state and local budgets -- and you, personally.

I'll just stop here, because you're still in your chair and still making excuses, and my keyboard is well-worn.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

It's time to close NOAA, unfortunately.

Until last week, government data on climate change indicated that the Earth has warmed over the last century, but that the warming slowed dramatically and even stopped at points over the last 17 years.

But a paper released May 28 by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has readjusted the data in a way that makes the reduction in warming disappear, indicating a steady increase in temperature instead. But the study’s readjusted data conflict with many other climate measurements, including data taken by satellites, and some climate scientists aren’t buying the new claim.

Of course.

You see, the data says that over the last 20 years or so there has been no warming beyond instrument uncertainties at all.  Not in the ocean, not in the atmosphere, not anywhere.

The prediction was that warming would occur on an exponential basis.  It hasn't happened, and not one but two separate satellite data sets agree.  Further, floating buoys that are specifically intended to measure this sort of data confirm the satellite data.

So what did NOAA do?  They used engine intake temperatures from ships, which (of course) are subject to all sorts of errors, all in the warming direction.  The inside of a ship is probably going to be warmer than the intake water, which means that most of the time there will be a shift upward in temperature .vs. reality.

Take a modern car; it has an intake air temperature sensor because the density of air changes with temperature and when computing how much fuel to inject having a baseline is important.  But on my car, which I log data from in real time on a reasonably-regular basis during trips, the intake air temperature is frequently 10 or more degrees higher than the outside air temperature.  Indeed, the displayed temperature on most cars that have an outside air temperature display is usually higher than reality because that sensor is usually located where it is subject to heated air (e.g. close to the road surface, which is warmer than the air in the daytime due to absorbed heat.)

The same errors apply to ship cooling water intake temperatures.

It's utterly nuts to use such a temperature measurement for any scientific purpose as an absolute indicator.  Such data is very useful for the operator of the ship as a relative measurement; if the ship's engines are operating at 70% of output capacity and the expected delta between the intake and outlet temperatures is 10 degrees C, but the actual delta is 12 degrees then the maintenance staff may want to investigate whether there's a flow problem or the engine is otherwise malfunctioning.  That's why these sensors are in ship water intakes.

In other words we have yet another political "science paper" that intentionally omitted data the writers didn't like.

That's not science, it's politics and intentionally labeling it otherwise is fraud.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Grrrr...

The former House speaker was charged with illegally structuring a $3.5 million payoff to cover up past misconduct, but who was getting the cash? Leaks to the media said it involved past sexual abuse, but who was involved? Hastert wasn’t talking, he’d been out of power a long time, and the whole case seemed shrouded by fog.

But there was Jolene talking to ABC’s Brian Ross about her brother, Steve, and how Hastert had ruined his life. She said her brother told her that Hastert had abused him throughout his high school days back in Illinois. Jolene’s emotion filled the screen as she described confronting Hastert at Steve’s funeral and saying she knew the dark secret.

Now the scandal had a face. Steve was not the man receiving the hush money—he died of AIDS 20 years ago—but according to his sister, his teacher had betrayed his trust.

Oh, the scandal has a "face", waxes Fox News.

To be blunt: **** that.

I'll tell you what ought to have the entire nation literally up in arms: This "conduct" was known by the media nine years ago, according to this article, and of course it was known when it happened.

Hastert was the Speaker of the House, arguably the most-powerful individual in the country, even surpassing the President.  Why?  Because the Speaker has absolute control of the agenda of the House of Representatives; no bill gets to the floor without his or her consent.  (While technically this is not true as there is a thing called a "discharge petition", I challenge you to find the last time it was successfully used to actually bring a bill to the floor over the Speaker's objection.  I'll do it for you -- it was Campaign Finance and yes, it happened during his time as speaker.  Now find the next one: I'll save you the trouble as it hasn't happened since.)

So let's cut the crap, shall we?  How many bills came before The House and were arm-twisted into being voted on and passed without being read during Hastert's time in the House as Speaker?  In addition Hastert was the Speaker responsible for essentially destroying "regular order" in the House that, until his time, prevented the minority from being shut out of the deliberative and amendment process.

Specifically, the Patriot Act and other legislation in the wake of 9/11, including that which launched the TSA and shielded the airlines from liability along with the loosening of much of financial regulation and more, all passed under his time with the gavel.

So here's the question nobody is asking but we damn well deserve to know and, potentially, do something about: Was Hastert, as Speaker and in possession of a ton of classified information, blackmailed during this time and, if so, how much of our legislation from that time period was passed due to someone holding a hammer over Hastert's head?

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.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

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.