The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Corruption]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
Cut The Crap - NOW

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
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.

2019-02-15 09:32 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 1102 references
[Comments enabled]  

The "spending" bill, which Trump is going to sign at 1000 ET today and announce his "emergency" guarantees a flood of 50 million new invaders -- and permanently protects all 20+ million here now.

How?

Any "asylum seeker" or other person "desiring entry" who names as a potential or actual sponsor someone here, and unlike for existing other legal immigration said person does NOT have to be a citizen, results in said "named" sponsor or prospective sponsor being permanently barred from detainment or deportation.

The only exceptions are if the named "sponsor" has been convicted of or is under indictment for a short list of felonies (which do include murder, thankfully) or a handful of child labor and exploitation violations.

Every single illegal invader currently here in the United States will, upon signing this bill, instantly get in touch with all of their relatives who are not in the United States and urge them to come here immediately.  Not only will those people get in the named illegal already here will be permanently protected from being detained or deported by that act.

This is not only amnesty it's worse -- it will flood this nation with 50 million unskilled additional invaders who will all, along with those already here, be deemed legal with exactly zero protection against all of them becoming immediate and permanent public charges.

That's what's in there folks -- and that's just the first screwing.  Another is a permanent bar on any border structure in any of the land designated by Obama on the border as a "national park."

Another 1,000+ page bill that wasn't read before being voted on, passed and signed by the President.

President Trump just sold out the entire United States to the illegals and he's doing it on purpose.

All the strum and furor over his "emergency" declaration and "avoiding" a shutdown is a diversion from what's actually in the law he is signing.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



I mean it.

In another shocking example of Silicon Valley Sharia, Google and Apple have allowed for an app that lets Saudi Arabian men track their wives, to be featured and downloaded in the app store.

.....

As an app, Absher allows men in Saudi Arabia the opportunity to track and control where women travel, as it is Saudi law that every single woman must have a male “guardian” i.e a husband, father, or brother when she travels or goes out in public. Women are not allowed to travel alone in Saudi Arabia and many other Muslim countries because in Islam, under Sharia Law, women are dictated to have less rights than men.

How is this legal in a world where human trafficking and slavery are both supposed to be prohibited?

So we have two American firms that permit the distribution of an application that factually enslaves women and makes possible immediate enforcement of such slavery -- such as immediate revocation of the ability of a woman to travel.

These firms must be shut down and for those progressives who claim that women should have equal rights -- where are you in Congress, may I ask, with a bill declaring such corporate conduct to be felonious with each and every officer so-involved being locked up as accessories before the fact to human trafficking and exploitation?

Or is the real truth that it's perfectly ok so long as the persons doing the controlling are Muslim and anyone Muslim can not only engage in such conduct without consequence a Muslim can be elected to and sit in Congress despite directly advocating for leniency on behalf of terrorists in the past and, while sitting as a Congresswoman can issue multiple and repeated statements demonstrating racial and national-identity based bigotry without consequence?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-02-13 09:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 163 references
[Comments enabled]  

No, really?

What is Michael Horowitz, the inspector general of the Department of Justice, waiting for?

At least 80 young girls identified as victims of Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse.

A top federal prosecutor — at the time, Alex Acosta — lets Epstein’s attorneys call the shots.

Epstein goes to jail for just over a year — on two prostitution charges, instead of, possibly, for the rest of his life.

Now, supposedly, the DOJ will review this to see if any of its prosecutors "committed misconduct."

The Department of Justice has opened an investigation into Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta’s role in negotiating a controversial plea deal with a wealthy New York investor accused of molesting more than 100 underage girls in Palm Beach.

Of course the "motivation" is that Acosta is Trump's Secretary of Labor.  But just as occurred in Virginia the display of hubris here runs the risk of blowing open the truth much as it did in Virginia.  Oh, and may I note that the press seems to have "disappeared" on that story because the obvious conclusion, if you start running probabilities of all three of the top office-holders in the state being either rank racists or sexual predators by random chance rather than intentional design and selection of political candidates starts to make winning the lottery look like an odds-on play.

What did I just write the other day?  Nobody gets into high office without being able to be blackmailed.

What's better blackmail material than screwing young, under-age girls on a serial and predatory basis?

Not much.

Ok, maybe if you're doing it to young boys.

Let me remind you that Bill Clinton rode on that plane, and in several instances ditched his Secret Service detail while doing so.  Why?  What did he not want them to see?

It's not like Bill didn't have a history of young (legal age, but still young) interns blowing him under the desk in the Oval Office while on official business, right?  Oh wait.....

Simply put we no longer have a "government" that is in any way responsive to the people folks.  It does not matter who you vote for if all of them can be blackmailed and thus won't do what they claimed or what you want anyway.  We haven't had a government that wasn't polluted in this fashion for quite some time -- going all the way back to the Clinton years and probably before that.  It's a fact.  If we had such a government then Epstein would be locked up in a cage right now and so would everyone who was a part of that crap, including Bill Clinton.

I assert that you cannot ascend to any sort of high state or federal office without being able to be blackmailed.  The major parties gatekeep their nomination and ballot access to prevent anyone who is "clean" from being able to run, and if they try to get by that process in some form or fashion they make something up to destroy them (e.g. Roy Moore), even going so far as to fabricate evidence of a felony offense.

Have you noticed that despite Roy Moore being accused of said felony no follow-up was ever performed once the election was over and, I might note, nobody was prosecuted on either side -- not Roy for committing the act and not the people who I argue falsified the evidence either, despite the fact that both are serious offenses and one of them has to be true.  As soon as he lost the election nobody cared anymore in our government as to whether he really was a creep or whether he was framed despite the fact that the allegation and way it was presented made clear that there was indeed a felony offense somewhere; either in his acts or those of his accusers.

Likewise Kavanaugh was accused of multiple serious, decades-long prison-term felonies in sworn statements and in sworn personal testimony before Congress.  A false allegation of same, made in an official manner, is also a felony (perjury.)  Yet despite multiple criminal referrals nobody has been charged either way -- not Kavanaugh nor his accusers.  As soon as the ability to actually deny him a seat was over so was any interest in making sure that the certain felony (by one party or the other) resulted in prosecution and imprisonment.

Does this mean Kavanaugh can't be blackmailed?  Of course not, and one must assume there is something that can in fact be used for exactly that purpose -- and will be.

Witness Roberts' insane contortions with the ACA, ruling the "penalty" unconstitutional and then recasting it into a direct tax -- ignoring the fact that direct taxes, other than on income as permitted in the 16th Amendment, are also unconstitutional.  The rumor at the time was that there was some sort of irregularity with his family and adopted children -- which if exposed could lead to them being deported.  I have no idea whether that's true or not but if it is do you really think that wouldn't be sufficient blackmail leverage?

There's no way to fix this by voting; both major political parties sufficiently block ballot access (and even rig primaries, as we saw with Hillary in 2016) to prevent anyone who isn't compromised from appearing on the ballots in sufficient numbers to do anything about this.  They do the same with appointments (e.g. cabinet officials, judges, etc) to any sort of high office.  Back to the instant case in question -- Acosta anyone?

This leaves as the only lawful means of putting a stop to this crap a mass cultural change in America, where the people decide as a body politic that they're not going to tolerate this any longer and will withdraw their consent to be governed by said jackwads, enforcing same through peaceful and lawful mass-action (e.g. a general strike) until all of this garbage is forced out into the open and everyone so-involved resigns and is replaced.

I don't think there's a snowball's chance in Hell that the people of this nation will execute such a cultural change any time soon -- if ever.  But I do remind you that simply on the numbers we're very close to being out of time to do so, as there is a fiscal detonation on the horizon which is likely to occur by 2024 -- just six short years from now -- if we do not, or worse, if we allow those who are lying and "serving" under blackmail to try to conflate that which is the cause (the medical and health "insurance" industries, and thus Medicare and Medicaid) with that which is not (Social Security and other government programs.)

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-02-09 10:00 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 185 references
[Comments enabled]  

There is no Constitutional Right to vote.

There are constraints on conditioning voting on sex, race and age (over 18), and abolishing poll taxes.

However, it would be Constitutional to condition voting on an ownership interest in Real Estate, for example.

There is, however, a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms.

The Demoncrats scream "discrimination" when it comes to any sort of ID requirement for voting.  The United States is nearly-unique in the world in this regard, incidentally -- most nations not only require some sort of government-issued ID at a federal, nation-wide level to vote they also take strong action against voting twice, doing things like marking your hand with an indelible ink that won't wear off (and cannot be washed off) for several days, for example.

The claim by the Demoncrats is that voting fraud "doesn't happen" in the United States.

They're lying.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Friday that the state has discovered 95,000 non-citizens on the voter rolls going back to 1996, 58,000 of whom have voted in at least one Texas election  -- an announcement likely to raise fresh concerns about the prospect of voter fraud.

Texas has some of the toughest requirements on a state level in the nation, yet they still have non-citizens registered and the majority of them have actually voted.

Just in Texas?  Uh, no.  Pennsylvania says there are 11,000 non-citizens registered.

Gee, I wonder why none of the states wanted that audit on this matter done.... if you remember, Trump tried to do it during his first year in office and all the states pushed back.  Now you know why.

This is outright fraud and puts every single Demoncrat that has insisted on enabling even more of it in the position of having advocated for and supporting outright overthrow of our government by non-citizens.

That's a felony.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-02-08 09:15 by Karl Denninger
in Corruption , 220 references
[Comments enabled]  

Sweet Jesus, if we ever have to fight an actual war....

Take the time to read the linked document.  All of it.

Here is just what I recall from memory, without going back to check and see what I missed.

  • The primary search radar was inappropriately set for too long a range, and couldn't be easily changed at the watch-standers station because the control to do so was broken.  The ship left port without properly functioning navigational aids and this was not a combat sortie where they had to go or get blown up either.

  • There apparently wasn't a working secondary radar set that could cover this part of the environment around the ship either.  That unit was also compromised and effectively worthless.

  • The crew had nobody on the starboard side wing standing lookout.  The person on the port wing was supposed to check both sides, back and forth, but didn't because they were doing other things (training someone) while "standing lookout."  If you're standing lookout then that's your damn job!  If you know your electronics aren't working right what the hell are you doing not posting warm, breathing bodies with eyeballs to do the job instead?

  • They saw another vessel in the vicinity (which might have shadowed the lights of the Crystal, which was the ship in the collision) but judged it would pass 1500 meters astern.  Well, that one did.....

  • When they finally did see the vessel (in other words, they actually lookedthere was still sufficient time to stop the Fitzgerald.  It would have been damn close, but they could have stopped.  Instead the order from the OD was for all ahead flank and left full rudder -- given the capability of the vessel exactly the wrong move.

  • Oh, and the other vessel apparently didn't see them either -- but irrespective of that Crystal saw green and thus should have maintained course and speed, which she did -- right into the Fitzgerald.  Nonetheless the radar and lookout on Crystal should have both flagged the contact (military vessels do not transmit AIS, but do receive it and, in civilian areas under normal conditions do display normal navigational lighting) and when it became apparent Fitzgerald wasn't going to maneuver to pass safely behind they should have either raised hell or taken action themselves long before the collision occurred.  While this doesn't excuse Fitzgerald's maneuvering and culpability for the collision, as the give-way vessel, it does raise the question as to whether anyone was at the helm of Crystal, and whether she had a proper lookout posted as well.

The full article paints a picture that I'm not sure I believe.  A vessel in disrepair with critical navigational assets out of service or severely-compromised, an improper watch knowing that the electronic aids were compromised, and a complete breakdown of the chain of command on board.

It gets worse -- in the weeks beforehand the ship had two other near-misses due to previous failures to properly keep a lookout (which, irrespective of the size of your vessel, is your primary responsibility when it comes to safe navigation.)  

God forbid someone had actually took a shot at that ship -- or any of our other vessels out there on the high seas.  If this is their "best effort" just sailing the ship what do you expect would happen if they actually tried to fight with it?

Has any of this been corrected in the time since?  I doubt it.

This sort of corrosion in readiness doesn't happen in a day or a week and it doesn't get fixed in a short period of time either.

Anyone care to bet whether the Chinese and Russians are similarly incompetent?

I'll take the under on that - one of them shoots at us and there are going to be a lot of dead American Sailors on the bottom of the ocean.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)