The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

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 sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means 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, 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.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-07-12 09:36 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 302 references
[Comments enabled]  

Ok folks, since there's still people who can't be bothered to read more than a short article, here is the short version.

California.  39.75 million population.  Their current delegation is 53.

That's roughly one representative for every 750,000 people.  Let's fact-check that.

There were 309 million people in the US in 2010. Divided by 435 = ~710,000.  Pretty close; within 5%, and the population has been going up about 1% a year so in the 10 years since the last Census.  Pretty much bang-on, I'd say.

Ok.

The Constitution requires apportionment for two things: Representatives in the US House and direct taxes.

The exception is an income tax, which required an Amendment (Amendment 16, to be precise); several previous attempts that Congress tried to impose were blatantly unconstitutional and struck down.

Apportionment means that the Government can, for example, lay a $25/per-person "head tax" because it's apportioned; that is, it falls on people in direct proportion to their presence in the nation.

(This, incidentally, is why the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare is fraudulent and John Roberts should be ejected from office and imprisoned for grand theft, fraud and sedition.  The "individual mandate" as a tax is not apportioned; that is, it varies in amount depending on circumstances but it is a direct tax as it is laid on your personhood, not an activity.  That's unconstitutional.  It would be constitutional if and only if it was unvarying irrespective of your actions or circumstances; then it would be apportioned and thus Constitutional.  It is not, therefore that decision is facially void.  The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution to suit a political desire; it lacks such power.)

Ok.

So let's look at the US House.  Let's also take California, which has a ~15% non-citizen ratio.  Remember, you have to have one House member for each 750,000 people who can vote for samewith the constraint that no State can have less than one member.  Therefore if you're sparsely-enough populated to not have more than ~750,000 people, you still get one House seat.

California's 39.75 million people are 15% non-citizens.  That means they have 33.79 million people who can or will be able to vote (including children who are not yet 18.)

This in turn means they have one representative for every 638,000 people; their citizen's votes count for more than those of a state that has no non-citizens in it.  Since a non-citizen cannot vote their representative "power" does not count.

The more non-citizens California can entice to live there and be "counted" the smaller the divisor.  The more lawbresking they suborn, support and give "sanctuary" to the more unlawful legislative power they gain.

The Constitution says you must have a fixed apportionment -- that is, the "weight" -- of people who can vote for a Representative excluding only those who have lost their right to vote due to criminal activity.  Amendment 14 provided that exemption, removing the former "weight" of slaves (which no longer existed) -- but no others.

Therefore California, and all other states with non-citizens in them, is unlawfully exerting more legislative power in the US House than they are entitled to.  That is a fraud upon all the people in the states who do not have any, or who have less, non-citizen presence.

The entire US House is unconstitutional as currently seated.  It violates the apportionment mandate in the Constitution.  By doing so, intentionally and maliciously, with knowledge aforethought, NANCY PELOSI has no right to preside over anything and the House has no right, legally, to do anything other than adjourn!  ALL such acts other than that are unlawful and subject her to immediate arrest, removal and incarceration.

A legislative body can suspend its rules via vote; this is done all the time.  If you watch legislative deliberation they regularly suspend their rules and vote on this or that.  But no legislative body can suspend The Constitution.  An attempt to do so, or to act outside it, is void and an act of tearing up the Constitution of the United States.

This isn't my opinion, it's the truth.  Norton .v. Shelby County, 1886:

An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

This not a point of debate; the Constitution requires that the apportionment of US House members -- that is, the number of people who can vote for a given seat in the US Congress must be equal across every State in the Union with exactly one exception: A state may not have less than one Representative.

It is clear that a non-citizens, legal or not, may not vote in a federal election.  Yet the pool of voters that choose a Representative within a given state must be a fixed number of people that does not vary from state to state.

This does not compel those who can vote to vote but it is absolutely binding on the division of House members among the several states.

THIS IS THE MATH AND A STATE OR POLITICIANS TAKING ACTIONS TO DO OTHERWISE BY ANY MEANS OTHER THAN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IS A LITERAL TEARING UP OF THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT FOR OUR ALLEGED "REPRESENTATIVE" GOVERNMENT.

The gravity of this cannot be overstated: The entirety of actions taken by the US House are void if this is not the case. 

ALL OF THEM.

Since the US House must both originate revenue and spending without a valid construction of the US House under the Constitution the Government is illegitimate and thus has voided its own ability to exist and to compel ANYONE to comply with ANYTHING it does.

This renders all of the actions of our Government nothing more than a band of thugs with guns and natural law, which you cannot be dispossessed from nor can it be legislated away tell you what your range of permissible, ethical and moral actions are in regard to same.

Want a revolutionary war?

Going down this road is how you get one; it is in fact exactly identical to what the British Crown did in the years prior to 1776.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2019-07-12 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 495 references
[Comments enabled]  

Forbes is trying to walk back the billionaire claim for Epstein, but does it matter?  Not really.

Look folks, the only claimed source of funds this guy has ever had was a private "wealth management" firm in the US Virgin Islands.  As a private company it doesn't have to disclose anything publicly; he has to pay taxes, but that's it.

Nonetheless -- a billion dollars is a metric ****-ton of money.  Even $100 million is a crap-ton of money.  And let's cut the crap, eh, you don't have a $77 million NYC building, which he does have, at least two private jets (one of which was a 727 at at least one time; those things are both damned expensive and thirsty), a private island and a ~$12 million estate in Florida unless you can stomach the carrying costs which means you got a crap load of money you can blow on said things..

Maybe not nine figures, but the property taxes on that NY building are likely seven figures a year plus its operating expense.

Let's assume he's running money for a couple of billionaires.  Ok, so what?  What's that get him -- a few million a year from each?  At the burn rate this guy is going through he'd have to be running money for a whole list of said people, and may I remind you there aren't all that many of them worldwide; the "Forbes 400" list starts at something like $2 billion these days.

So where did the money come from originally and where's it coming from now for these operating expenses including property tax, aircraft maintenance and fuel, never mind staff (e.g. pilots, housekeeping, etc.)?

That's the biggest issue I have with all this.  Here's a guy who is allegedly a serious pervert, and got caught.  Ok; there are a lot of perverts.  You don't want to know how many.  I have a pretty decent idea, having run an Internet company, and taken calls on my ******* line from those who were pervs, found out our company didn't serve that crap, they got abusive with my staff and...... said staff member pushed the ******* button, transferring the call to my office.

But the alleged story of Eptstein, standing alone, doesn't make sense.  If you have a billion dollars, or even a tenth of that, if you make it known you like young pussy there would be a line out the door of 18 year old and fully legal young women willing to blow and **** you all day and night long, any time you want, in exchange for a line of coke or two and a flight to Paris for lunch!  I'm sure you can find 'em that look 15 but are 18 and thus your exploits are 100% legal without any trouble at all.

This guy's dick would have literally fallen off from all the sex he was getting and while there'd be a metric crap-ton of snickering thrown his way not a bit of it would be against the law.

There's more to this folks.

Never mind his black book which has been allegedly published and a whole bunch of other stuff (like aircraft logs.)

There's more here.

I don't know what it is but there's more.

Rumors are that there are plenty of high-level politicians in the US and foreign high-level people involved.  But again.... why?  Why with Epstein?  What, you really think any of those people can't find their own sweet young things and, like Epstein, couldn't toss a couple of lines on the coffee table and a plane ride to Paris for lunch into the deal and also have a line of extraordinarily cute 18 year old girls out the door, every one of them consenting and of legal age?

Bull****.

Never mind that I'll lay odds Epstein has video proof of every single person who banged any underage chick on that plane and anyone who did so on his private island or in any of his residences.  You don't really think he got his little deal down here in Florida without some pretty-serious leverage, do you?  You think calling one of the victims a prostitute was enough?  How dumb do you think I am?

Come down here where I live any weekend in the summer and there are a ****-ton of dudes with a lot less money than him -- just a couple million -- with nice-sized penis and "handsomeness" extenders (Cigarette-style boats) that are physically fat, balding, old and nasty -- with 18 to 21-year old chicks in the boat wearing little more than a pastie on their nipples, all of them obviously consenting to being there and everything they're doing with said dude.  How much money did that cost the dude?  Dinner, a penthouse with a nice view on the beach (even if rented for the weekend), blasting around in their couple-hundred-thousand dollar boat burning up $500 an hour in gas and maybe a trip in the Lear at the Executive Airport for grins and giggles?  Seriously.

The line forms here, and it's a long one -- on his zipper!

There's more here.

You think this is mostly about sex?  This is mostly about rape, and******of children at that. ******of those who cannot effectively fight back; they're young, they're girls, they're physically incapable of preventing the assault and they're scared out of their minds.

This is mostly about power -- raw, abusive, power.  The power to take.  The look of fear in the victim's eyes as penetration is about to, and does, occur.  The continuing look of fear later on, knowing you are the reason it's there.  Then there's the next time; the fear in her eyes when she sees you.  She knows what's coming when your pants come off, and you tell her to remove hers.  It's not sex; there's no passion, there's no desire, there's no lust -- at least not on her part.

Just FEAR and POWER.

And so it is with the rest who engaged in this too, and there's evidence that there were many other men.  They think they're powerful, and they do this.  They enjoy the look of fear in that girl's eyes.  The feeling of power.  Then they discover fear.  They're sent a picture of a wall with paintings on it they recognize, with the camera they didn't know was there circled.  Now they are in fear.  Now they do what the people behind all of this want.  Now they get to feel what that girl felt as they violated her.

Now that powerful man does their bidding, always looking over his shoulder.  He's always on call and whatever they want, they get from him.  Maybe he's a sitting Senator or member of the US House.  Maybe a President.  Maybe a Prince, or even a King.  Maybe a well-respected Judge, an attorney, or a very wealthy businessman.  They all have things they can do and those with the tape want that person to do some of them and not to do other things.  That man now takes their orders, because that video could show up on the nightly news, and if it does, all of that power he had disappears and he spends years, or even the rest of his life, in a 100 square foot cell with a bed and a stainless-steel toilet.  The entirety of his wealth and power -- all of it -- rests on him doing whatever that voice on the phone tells him to for the rest of his life.

Was Epstein's "plea deal" a warning?  Was he given just a taste of what spending the rest of his life in the joint would be like?  Maybe he got a bit uppity, and was a bit slow to do something he was told, or someone thought he would roll over on someone and all those tapes would show up in an inconvenient place -- like the newsroom of The Miami Herald or The Palm Beach Post.

There are plenty of rumors as to exactly who has pulled this guy's strings and for what, but that's all they are -- rumors.  Nonetheless the facts are out there and money flows of that size are traceable -- always.  In addition money flows of that sort and size are nearly-always permitted to continue by national authorities of some description.

So let's have the rest of the story, SDNY.

You put the cuffs on him, which is good.  If even a tenth of what he's accused of is true he deserves something truly medieval; sadly the worst our justice system permits for such offenses is life in prison.

But you know damn well there's more to this, and I want it all out in the open -- including where the ****ing money is coming from and why.  I'm not the only one asking the question either; the "BS" alarm is ringing in more than a few heads about right now, including some who think the "genesis" of all of this was his involvement in a Ponzi scheme -- which if true raises even more questions -- like, for example, who was protecting him and why?  You think billionaires are stupid and going to let a guy who allegedly swindled people and got caught, charged or not, run their money?  You think anyone with a billion dollars doesn't check out the people who he's considering having run his or her money?  Bull****ing****.

SDNY swung the door open on this and I, and many other Americans, want to know everything that's inside.

No more bull****.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-07-11 09:59 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 108 references
[Comments enabled]  

"PBM" stocks are soaring today as White Rape withdrew its plan to stop you from being dicked by drug prices.

The Trump administration will no longer move forward on a proposed rule to eliminate the arcane rebates that flow from drugmakers to middleman pharmacy benefit managers, a significant reversal on one of the White House’s Opens a New Window. most sweeping actions to-date to curb rising treatment costs.

“Based on careful analysis and thorough consideration, the President has decided to withdraw the rebate rule," said White House spokesman Judd Deere. "President Trump will consider using any and all tools to ensure that prescription drug costs will continue to decline.”

Sure.

Except, of course, any moves that would actually work.

Like prosecuting them under 15 USC Chapter 1, a known-to-work way to get people to actually obey the law, and a law the drug companies ARE subject to as they tried to get declared exempt in the late 1970s (Royal Drug), went to the Supreme Court, and lost.

Our President is perfectly happy to see you get financially raped so long as the stock market goes up.  Where do you think that money comes from?  You -- and you get it up the ass.

Go buy another tube of KY at the drugstore; you're going to need it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-07-09 12:04 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 353 references
[Comments enabled]  

We have an outright fraud in the White House.

On essentially every single issue that Trump pandered to his base on when campaigning he has either intentionally thrown the issue in a way that is guaranteed to result in a loss or failed to prosecute the issue in the first place.

The latest is his "HHS requirement" for drug companies to post prices in TV ads.

U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta in Washington, D.C.Opens a New Window., sided with drugmakers Merck & Co Inc, Eli Lilly and Co and Amgen Inc by halting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) rule from taking effect on Tuesday as planned.

The judge, an Obama appointee who was not even born in the United States, ruled that HHS doesn't have the authority to issue such an order, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has previously ruled in 1985 that administrative actions can, as a matter of public policy, require the disclosure of material facts in advertising.

President Trump is the head of the Executive.  The Executive is the co-equal branch of the government responsible for enforcing laws.  The DOJ and FBI operate under the Executive; the President is the ultimate "boss" of both.

Since 1890 there has been a wide-reaching body of law codified under 15 USC Chapter 1.  It is commonly known as The Sherman and Clayton Acts, and was later joined by Robinson-Patman.  Various parts of the medical and health insurance industry have twice gone all the way to the Supreme Court in a bid to have those laws declared invalid in regard to their operation in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Royal Drug and Maricopa County.)  They lost both cases.

It is therefore clear and in fact beyond review, absent the Supreme Court overturning their previous decisions, that the entirety of 15 USC Chapter 1 applies.

President Trump could therefore direct Attorney General Barr to bring criminal charges for price-fixing against the drug companies.  There is no Congressional Act that has been passed to make such actions legal, and 15 USC Chapter 1 applies not only to Interstate Commerce, that is, price discrimination where goods and/or services travel across state lines but also is explicitly declared to apply in instances of International Commerce.

Judge Mehta stated in his order that Congress had to impose such a requirement, not HHS.

President Trump knows this.  So does Health and Human Services.  So do his "top advisers."

They intentionally took this action with Health and Human Services because they knew it could be challenged, would be challenged as the threat was made before the order issued, AND that the challenging parties would select a venue where the odds are high they'd get an Obama judge.

In other words Trump intentionally threw the issue instead of resolving it.

Oh, and just in case you didn't notice, it was an Obama appointee who ruled that drug companies can screw you up the ass with impunity.  Got that?  A Democrat.  So stop with the bullcrap about how either party intends to do anything about the medical scam.

The only way that problem is going to get resolved is a citizen revolt; both parties are 100% involved in using the full force of government to insure that you get screwed out of not only every nickel you have but your health as well.

He did the same thing with the Census question on citizenship.

The 1990 and 2000 Census both included a question on citizenship.  The 2010 one did not; Obama unconstitutionally removed it.  The 14th Amendment requires that question because it also requires the those ineligible to vote, by virtue of non-citizen status, whether in the US lawfully or not, be removed from the count of persons before US House representation is determined.  The language is clear and unambiguous, having modified the previous original language in the Constitution itself.

There should have been a revolution the next morning in 2010.

President Trump again intentionally threw this decision when he went to the Supreme Court.  His solicitor's arguments did not include reference to the text of the 14th Amendment which makes clear that the Census is required to deduct non-eligible persons from the count prior to apportionment being determined.  Nancy Pelosi knows this too and she's lying about the "motive"; she in fact knew damn well when Obama removed the question why he did it -- that his action would result in her state gaining "representation" it was not entitled to and that his action and the result would be and was unconstitutional on its face.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 makes criminal the hiring of persons who do not have a legal right to work in the United States.  Ronald Reagan signed said bill on November 6th of that year.  President Trump is, once again, as the head of the Executive, required under the Constitution to faithfully execute the laws of the land.

He therefore not only can require E-Verify as a matter of rule-making he can and must authorize the federal arrest and prosecution of any person employing an illegal alien or other person present in the United States who does not have the legal right to work here in this country.

He has not done so because once again he never had, and still does not have, any intention of actually enforcing ANY of the promises he made during his campaign.

Every Executive Order, no matter the President who issues it contains the following text at the end:

This order is intended only to improve the internal management of the executive branch and does not create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers or employees, or any person.

EVERY.

SINGLE.

ONE.

When Trump was "sued" over rescinding DACA he did not cite this language.  Nor has he told the Judiciary to stuff it despite the fact that said language is in every single Executive Order.

It has been the case literally since the first Executive Orders that their validity expires upon the whim of whoever happens to be in the Oval Office at any given point in time.  President Carter, for example, issued an Executive Order banning commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing.  President Ronald Reagan, almost-literally as his first act in office, rescinded that Executive Order.  There was no debate or judicial review over whether Reagan could do that as the text of the order itself made clear, as with all Executive Orders, that they are non-reviewable and create no right or benefit, including due process rights, enforceable either at law or equity.

This is black letter folks and has been since the foundation of the United States.

President Trump knows this for he has issued Executive Orders as well and the same language is at the end of each of them.

Read it right here from just a few days ago:

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

Notice the exact identical language?

Guess why.

Because the Constitution requires it; the President can issue an Executive Order to "improve" the process of the Executive.  However, the issuance of same, because it did not pass through the Congress, creates no due process right nor any right of review by any court, whether in law or equity, ever.

President Trump is intentionally throwing these alleged "decisions" and acting in a way that he knows will not actually result in any of the actions he promised to any of the people who voted for him.  Yet fully half the nation supports this son-of-a-bitch even when it is obvious to anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size that he is INTENTIONALLY throwing ALL such decisions and promises, intending that exactly NONE of them take effect.

It's not an accident, it's not "Obama Judges", it's not "Congressional obstruction."

HE'S A FRAUD, IS LYING, AND HAS BEEN SINCE HIS FIRST DAY IN OFFICE.

QUIT SLOBBERING THE PRESIDENT'S KNOB, "MAGA" PEOPLE.  PRESIDENT TRUMP IS IN FACT INTENTIONALLY AND WITH MALICE AFORETHOUGHT SCREWING YOU UP THE ASS ON EVERY SINGLE ISSUE THAT FORMED THE BASIS UPON WHICH YOU VOTED FOR HIM.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-07-07 10:58 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 590 references
[Comments enabled]  

The blowback -- and blowup -- is likely to be highly amusing on this one.

(CNN) Florida-based billionaire Jeffrey Epstein has been indicted on new charges related to alleged sex crimes involving minors, law enforcement sources told CNN on Saturday.

Epstein was arrested Saturday and is expected to appear in federal court in New York on Monday.

Epstein faces charges brought by US prosecutors in Manhattan, after previously evading similar charges when he secured a non-prosecution deal with federal prosecutors in Miami.

Note a couple of points here:

1. The non-prosecution agreement was ruled "egregious" after review (over a decade down the road!) itself.  Guess who was neck-deep in all of this at the time it was negotiated?  No, that wasn't Obama -- it was Bush, and, of course, ex-President Clinton.

2. Guess who effectively blocked review while he was in office?  That would be Obama, with, of course, heavy ties to Senator (and then Presidential candidate) Cankles, the "wife" of avowed serial philanderer Bill Clinton who we know, factually, solicited and obtained blowjobs from an intern in the White House.  She, however, was an adult and thus at least theoretically could legally consent.  Such is not the case for those under the age of consent in a given state and, in the context of federal law where movement across a state or national boundary is involved, under the age of 18.

While there is (not yet) proof that Clinton was involved in these alleged felonies there's plenty of circumstantial evidence.  There's also circumstantial evidence tying British Royalty and several high-powered legal folks in the US to these events as well, including direct accusations by some of the known victims.

Why is SDNY chasing this now?  Because they hate Trump, and Acosta, who was neck-deep as the prosecutor involved, works for Trump now.  Therefore, this is "get Acosta and hope Trump gets caught in the net."

If Trump is involved in this then he deserves to fry.  But I'll take the under on that one.  The record does show that he did boot Epstein from Mar-a-Largo for allegedly attempting solicitation of an under-age girl.

As for Clinton and those others, on the other hand, I'll go the other way.  One of the more-damning pieces of evidence is Epstein's aircraft logbook, which contains entries for the people on board; for what possible legitimate purpose were, for example, both Clinton and some underage girl -- or group of girls -- on the plane at the same time?

Note that while CNN is running a story on this, at the top of the page, in fact while Fox News has exactly nothing anywhere on their page at this time on the same subject.  Gee, I wonder why not?

The blowback on this is likely to get real interesting.  I note that the "deal" that Epstein cut does not exclude prosecution for any act that had a criminal element in another federal district, which would include New York.

It appears he simply thought that being rich, powerful and having the goods on a lot of well-connected people would be sufficient to keep some enterprising federal prosecutor from going after him.  After all, it's not like he didn't fly all over the damn country (and world!) in a plane that had the nickname Lolita Express.

It probably would have been sufficient too, if we had gotten President Cankles.

But we didn't, and the obsessive hatred of the partisan leftward arm of the so-called Just-Us department, hell-bent to get President Trump, has now chosen to perform the DOJ's equivalent of an old saying from wartime: We had to destroy the village to save it.

How's your blood pressure these days Mr. Clinton?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)