The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

Still think Trump is full of crap on blocking Islamic Migration and entry until we can reliably figure out who is a radical Islamist and who is not?

The gunman, whose identity was not immediately released, “may have leanings” toward radical Islam, FBI Special Agent in Charge Ron Harper said when asked whether the suspect had ties to Jihadist terror groups. Harper said the investigation is looking into possible threats made previously by the suspect in connection to radical Islam groups. He said the agency is still investigating and has yet to confirm any role a terror group may have played in the mass shooting.

“There are allegations the individual made threats in the past to having ties to terrorist organizations,” Harper told Fox News.

Islam teaches that homosexuality is to be punished by death.

Radical islamists have repeatedly, on a world-wide basis, cut the heads off gay people, stoned them, hung them and thrown them from buildings.  Most nations with formal Islamic governments (e.g. Saudi Arabia) imprison people for being gay and more than a few impose the death penalty.

Some head-in-the-sand LGBT whackjobs point to a handful of Muslim countries where being gay is not a crime.  There are also many in which muslims are the majority, but Islamic law is not part of the national legal code, where being gay is (formally) legal, but that's being too cute by half.

Not having no criminal sanction does not mean you're safe in a majority-muslim nation.  Iraq, for example, has no formal law against being gay but there are roving death squads that will murder you if you're suspected of being homosexual, often by outrageously disgusting means.  At least where being gay is illegal you get a show trial first.

Saudi Arabia will stone you to death for "sodomy" if you are married or engage in sodomy with a Muslim.   Of course they extend no such criminal sanction if you sodomize a non-Muslim!  Gee, isn't that special?  I wonder what they think of Christian boys being raped?  Oh, we know what the Muslim view is on that from Afghanistan, don't we?

Iran will hang you for homosexuality.  Of course we think this is all perfectly fine in that we billions in oil from said nations and sell Saudi Arabia billions more in weapons.

To those on the left who bleat "can't we all just get along?"

No, we can't.  There are people who refuse, and they don't refuse with harsh language that is a "micro-assault", they refuse through the use of whatever weapons and devices they can get their hands on, killing those who will not conform to their views.  Banning guns will do nothing either as a man hellbent on mass-murder does not care if it's illegal to have a gun or not.  The only way to improve your odds against such a nutjob is to be armed yourself, which I remind you is illegal in a drinking establishment, so if you wish to murder a bunch of gay people you'll find a lot of them unarmed and unable to return fire in an establishment like this.

Let me summarize:

The liberal left and its open-borders appeasement just got 20 50 of their most-ardent supporters killed and we have funded this crap for decades.


View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-06-12 04:00 by Karl Denninger
in Social Issues , 185 references

Gee, who could have seen this coming...

The interim director of the Georgia chapter of the American Civil Liberties has resigned from her position following her daughters’ “frightened” reaction to biological males using the women’s restroom,LifeSiteNews reports.

“I have shared my personal experience of having taken my elementary school age daughters into a women’s restroom when shortly after three transgender young adults, over six feet [tall] with deep voices, entered,” Maya Dillard Smith wrote in a statement.

“My children were visibly frightened, concerned about their safety and left asking lots of questions for which I, like many parents, was ill-prepared to answer,” she continued.

Here's my basic view on such things: If you're good enough at <X> that nobody can tell during the routine act you're undertaking then it does not matter.

As soon as that line is crossed it does.

This means that if you're a cross-dressing man and it's obvious that's what you are by your appearance and/or speech, and you go into the woman's restroom, you've fundamentally failed at your claim of being "trans" (you're not) and you have no right to be there.

Likewise there is no case to be made for a man -- that is, a person possessing a penis, entering or being in a woman's locker room.

I don't care whether you have fake***** stuffed in your shirt or taped your dick down, if you have a penis there is no way to evade this display in a locker room, just as there is no way to evade the presence of breasts or a vagina on a woman in the men's locker room.

You are free to hold any delusion you wish about yourself.  You are free to dislike your lot in life.  In fact, virtually everyone dislikes something about their genetic draw, whether it be their teeth, their hair (amount and location, "wirelike" quality or lack thereof, color, etc) skin color or.... genitals.

You can change the appearance of any of those things but you cannot change the genetic code that caused them to be present.  Sex isn't appearance, it's a physical fact and the fact is that when you are in a place where you are intending to perform a private function at the point you make it a public spectacle you lose any claim of privilege.

Nobody cares if a man that is convincingly dressed as a woman and speaks like one is in a woman's restroom because women's restrooms are full of stalls with doors.  Nobody gets to see what's under your dress in such a setting.  At the point that you and your friend(s) destroy the illusion you have created that you are female by acting in a form or fashion that makes clear you're a man you are no longer entitled to be in a place designated for women.

This means that any such argument as pertains to locker rooms and similar is nonsense, since by definition the physical reality of your person -- that is, who you actually are -- cannot be avoided in a place where by definition you are wearing only your birthday suit.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

2016-06-11 04:00 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 742 references

This is likely clickbait, but on the chance it's not...

There is growing talk on the right of replacing Donald Trump, the Republican Party’s presumptive nominee for president, and even chatter about a possible alternative.

As Trump has floundered over the past week after questioning a federal judge’s impartiality because of his Mexican ancestry, Trump’s critics within the GOP have stepped up their efforts to thwart him. Some anti-Trump conservatives, who have tried for months to recruit an independent candidate, have begun looking more closely at attempting to persuade delegates at next month’s GOP convention to nominate someone other than Trump.


Go ahead, try it.

First, the latest is Trump's going after the judge in the supposed "class action" Trump University trial.  Here are the facts that support his charge of bias:

  • The lead plaintiff in the suit was forced to withdraw after both written and taped statements full of praise for the program surfaced.  Normally such a revelation would result in the instant dismissal of the suit, since the class lead had suddenly disqualified themself and branded the action as a fraud.  Not in this case; the Judge refused to dismiss the case.

  • The Judge is a member of La Raza Lawyers of San Diego.  This isn't a bare charge; it is a fact that he admitted to in his own original questionnaire for admission to the bench in 2011.  He has also served on the selection committee for its scholarship fund, with at least one of the recipients of same in 2014 self-described as "undocumented."

There is plenty of conflict over exactly how closely this organization is tied to other organizations with "La Raza" in their names, including some that can be reasonably claimed to be terrorist organizations (any organization that argues that they might need to "kill whites" to re-acquire territory from the United States they claim was stolen certainly fits that description!)

But that is immaterial to the point, which is that this Judge has of his own free will taken up politically-active positions that are in direct conflict with the laws of the United States: He has specifically advanced and promoted the actions of those people who are here illegally, including by voting to grant them money.

It is incomprehensible that any judge can advocate for or participate in granting any sort of support or funding, except perhaps to pay a lawyer for their defense against related charges, to someone who is clearly and by their own admission breaking the law by their mere presence in this nation.  Such an act is by definition a violation of one's oath of office to the bench and the public and that it has not resulted in immediate impeachment is an outrage.

Trump is right, in short, and he must not back down.

As for the Republican Party rather than call for this judge's impeachment and removal for his clear violation of the oath of office they instead wish to burn the guy calling him out at the stake.

What does that say about oath-breaking in the Republican Party?  It says that the party is full of those who are willing to countenance an invading army of foreign nationals and even hand them our nation, one dollar at a time.  There's a name for this in a time of war and if you think being invaded by foreigners doesn't define "war" then please explain what does?

If the Republican Party wishes to destroy itself it is free to do so; any move to attempt such chicanery as is being discussed in the linked article is likely to, and should, result in the party not only losing in November but being utterly destroyed literally plank-and-nail by plank-and-nail, with the remains used for campfire kindling and marshmallow roasting.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

Microsoft has thus far refused to address this after more than a year, going back to the first previews of Windows 10.  Post-release it has been raised as a serious issue by a number of people, and it's something you should be aware of.

Specifically, if you ever use your computer (e.g. laptop) "tethered" or otherwise on a mobile connection you have a big potential problem.  That problem comes from the fact that Windows 10 updates itself and has a lot of stuff (by default) running in the background, such as its "news" app.

These applications and this update paradigm are enormous data pigs; it is utterly trivial for them to consume a gigabyte of data within a few hours, especially if an update to Windows is published.

On wireless (but not wired) network connections you can set a "metered" switch that suspends that background activity as long as you're using that connection.  That's good.

This cannot be selected for either wired (plug-in Ethernet) or "dial-up" connections.

Bluetooth, "Aircards" (e.g. USB data sticks) and similar are all typically classed as "dial-up" connections because nearly all of them actually send a command (frequently #77#) as a "dial" command to initiate them.

Of course one feature that such mobile broadband connections all share is that they're metered in some form or fashion.  You have a data allocation after which you are either locked out, charged more or throttled!  Consuming any of that to download operating system updates and other background data involuntarily is outrageous.  Refusing to make this a system option for other than WiFi connections, when the most-common means of connection used by Mobile Broadband appears to be not WiFi to the system, is even more outrageous.

And oh by the way, if your laptop has bluetooth and you don't need the fastest possible performance you're far ahead security-wise to use Bluetooth to tether rather than your phone's WiFi "hotspot."  Bluetooth has positive authentication by both sides of a connection before it will permit pairing and it has much-shorter range than WiFi which means it's a hell of a lot harder for someone to "pick off" as opposed to a WiFi hotspot connection.  For this reason you ought to prefer -- by a lot -- the use of Bluetooth for this function but if your machine is Windows10 you can't without risking your entire data allocation being sucked off by Microscrewyou in the background.

Someone needs to pelt Microsoft executives with rotten eggs and tomatoes for this, or even better come after them legally for the parasitic consumption of paid-for resources that is being involuntarily shoved down consumer's throats with no ability to stop it.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)

At least one guy is willing to ridicule the emperor's micropenis...

ow fat diets and exercise are pointless for those wanting to lose weight and obese people should simply eat less, a former shadow health minister told the House of Lords yesterday.

Lord McColl, emeritus professor of surgery at Guys Hospital in London, warned that current health advice to avoid fat was ‘false and misleading’ and was fuelling the obesity epidemic.

Speaking at a House of Lords debate, the former surgeon warned that exercising was useless against the huge levels of calories from carbohydrates and sugars that people are now consuming.

Oh, someone bothered with basic arithmetic?

1 mile of running, one of the highest-caloric consuming exercises, only burns ~100-120 calories.  Since a pound of mass on the body is roughly 3,300 calories (give or take 10%) this means you'd have to run more than a marathon to drop one pound, and this assumes you don't compensate for the exercise by eating more!

Exercise is good for other reasons; increasing cardio-vascular capacity is never bad.  Not only does having a robust cardio system make tasks that would be arduous trivial or even enjoyable it's good from a general level of fitness to be physically active.

But being physically active will not result in material weight loss.

“One fact remains. It is impossible to be obese unless one is eating too many calories.”


Now go back and read my previous article, in which I discuss why I believe you want to eat too many calories.  And while doing so contemplate on the salient fact that this doc, and the rest, still refuse to address: To maintain body mass within a 1lb range over the course of a year, which I remind you would still turn you into a fat slob within 50 years, you would have to be able to voluntarily elect the volume of food you consume on a daily basis to within an accuracy of one Pringles potato chip per day.

You cannot do this outside of a literal lab environment where you are confined 24x7.  It's impossible; normal variation that comes about by preparing food even if you weigh everything you eat, and nobody will, exceeds this tolerance band.

Let's face reality -- exhorting people to "eat less" won't work; there is zero scientific or evolutionary evidence that supports the notion that the consumption of food is primarily a voluntary behavior.  Oh sure, you choose whether to open the fridge or order that burger but the process that drives you to do so is involuntary.

Therefore the only answer is to stop insulting your body's existing capability to autonomously regulate its desired level of caloric intake so you desire to eat when you need caloric intake, and stop eating when you do not.

All animal organisms have this regulatory capacity.  They must or the species would be extinct, either from starvation or extreme corpulence to the point of inability to function.  Remember that with very few exceptions animals are not self-aware and thus have utterly no concept of "fat" or "thin."  They only know the involuntary desire to consume things that taste good when they are hungry.

Want to understand this more-fully? Read here.  Then go grill any so-called "health professional" who can't be bothered to do simple arithmetic and apply logic to the only possible conclusion one could reach from the results of that analysis.

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.