The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Politics]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
America Is DONE

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.

2019-03-08 13:50 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 127 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's really not complicated.

As is pointed out here one third of so-called "migrants" who happen to be female are sexually assaulted while on their way.

This has driven DHS to give pregnancy tests to essentially all females that are over the age of 10.

"The wall" and fixing our broken system so that those who come here and make false claims of asylum or who jump the border unlawfully cannot get into the US for one minute, say much less be "released" to never show up again, and that denied claims are a permanent bar to legal entry, would stop basically all of this -- because none of those women would make the trip.

We're in a situation here where this year, at present rates, close to 1 million so-called "migrants" will try to come into the US.  Nearly all of them will claim "asylum" and of those nearly all will have those claims denied because they are not legally entitled to it.

They don't come here for "asylum" they come because if we let them in they get tens of thousands of dollars a year for doing exactly nothing.

If half of those migrants are women and girls (about what you'd expect, right?) then we are talking about roughly 150,000 rapes each year that the Democrat Party, along with the Republicans, are endorsing.

LET ME POINT OUT THAT APPROXIMATELY 100,000 FORCIBLE RAPES TAKE PLACE IN THE US EVERY YEAR.  THUS THE US CONGRESS IS ENDORSING AND REFUSING TO STOP 150% AS MANY RAPES AS TAKE PLACE IN THE US AMONG ALL 330 MILLION PEOPLE AMONG A VULNERABLE POPULATION OF ABOUT A MILLION, OR A RATE OF******SOME TWO HUNDRED PLUS TIMES THE RISK OF******IN THE US AT-LARGE.

A******rate two hundred times that in the US with many victims being children, which our government is causing, isn't a crisis? 

What sort of ****ing monster are you if you claim to be an "American" yet allow this to continue?

Get that through your head folks: THE POLITICIANS IN WASHINGTON ARE ENDORSING AND SUPPORT THE******OF 150,000 WOMEN AND GIRLS THIS YEAR, HALF AGAIN AS MANY RAPES AS OCCUR IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, AND WILL FOR EVERY YEAR INTO THE FUTURE FOR AS LONG AS THIS BULLCRAP CONTINUES.

When you see them -- Democrat or Republican -- the proper means to address any member of either house of Congress is "DISHONORABLE******SUPPORTER AND PROMOTER" -- because THEY ARE.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 



2019-03-08 10:52 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 493 references
[Comments enabled]  

This may be the stuff of whispers in bars, but we need to have it come into the light of day and start discussing it openly.

I'm speaking as someone who does not want to see a "dirty" Civil War in this country, or any other sort of mass unrest.  Despite people invoking things like the Rodney King riots and Watts, the fact is that we haven't seen that sort of thing in this nation on a "for real" basis since 1776.

No, the Civil War wasn't -- that was a rather traditional war and if you weren't within a hundred or so miles of the Mason-Dixon line to your south you likely never saw a single person get shot nor one building torched.  If you were south of there you probably saw a bunch of people get shot and the odds you watched your entire town go up in flames were not insignificant.

There is nothing illegal about putting such "Red Lines" down in front of our government.  They are not threats legally.  This is not my opinion it is the Supreme Court's opinion (Watts .v. United States, 394 US 705)

Watts said, in a political context, "if this then that", and the "then that" was he would point a gun at (and presumably shoot) the President.  He was indicted and tried for a "threat against the President of the United States."  The Supreme Court reversed, with one of the key elements of said reversal being its expressly conditional nature.  Therefore, from that point forward, such discussions are perfectly Constitutional exercises of the First Amendment -- end of discussion.

With this as background let us begin in the comments -- what "Red Lines" do you propose which, if crossed, constitute the exact same offense as occurred in Concord and are worthy of the same response.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-03-07 08:28 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 270 references
[Comments enabled]  

This one is going to be amusing to watch -- they're

smiley

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is "taken aback" by the growing dissent and anger among rank-and-file Democrats over a possible resolution to formally condemn anti-Semitism, a Democratic source told Fox News on Wednesday -- highlighting Pelosi's tenuous grip on control over the House and underscoring the growing power of the party's nascent far-left progressive wing.

Pelosi even reportedly walked out of a meeting Wednesday with Democrat House members, setting down her microphone and telling attendees, “Well if you're not going to listen to me, I’m done talking."

May I remind you that American Jews typically vote Democrat?

Well, they did up until now!

I mean, realistically you're not going to see very many Jewish people vote for a party that is full of rabidly anti-Semitic jackwads!

Now granted Judaism is a small minority representation in America (about 5 million people, more-or-less) but when you lose a group that votes ~70% for your side you're talking about enough to move certain areas and states you absolutely have to have in order to win national elections.

Like, for instance, Florida.

It's literally beyond belief that we have a rabidly anti-Semitic Representative not only in Congress (certainly possible; any group that has supermajority status in a given district can elect someone who believes as they do) but that the Speaker of the House has put that person on the Foreign Affairs Committee and has refused, following her rank racist statements, to remove her.

Good luck Nancy -- you're gonna need it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-03-04 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 146 references
[Comments enabled]  

Since nobody at CPAC wants to talk about it.... I will.

The bill is really quite simple:

  • No person shall be entitled to any public funds or federally-funded government services unless they are a United States Citizen, Lawful Permanent Resident, or explicitly admitted under a formal refugee resettlement agreement.  No person admitted under such a formal refugee resettlement agreement may receive any federally-funded service or public funds beyond the term of five years, which may not be extended.  (In other words you either qualify for lawful permanent residence during that five years, including integrating and learning English, or get the hell out.)

  • No person or organ of government may obligate any private party to provide any form of federally-sponsored benefit or mandate to any person not a Lawful Permanent Resident, Citizen or explicitly-admitted refugee during the above five-year period where said benefit, mandate or enterprise operates with any material connection to or with supplies procured in interstate commerce.

  • No person who is not a citizen or lawful permanent resident may obtain any personal or financial benefit from federally-sponsored or funded benefits or mandates through a claim of familial or custodial relationship with a citizen or lawful permanent resident.

  • Any person violating this statute shall be criminally liable under the crime of fraud for the full amount of such benefit, the full cost of any such mandate they access imposed upon the party who provides it and shall be ordered, upon conviction, to pay all such costs, expenses, court and attorney fees incurred by the party so impacted.  In addition any person violating this statute shall suffer a permanent inability to enter or remain within the United States with any future attempt to so enter being a separate and distinct criminal offense carrying a penalty of not less than one and not more than five years, with the costs of said incarceration billed to said illegal entrant.

  • All persons desiring to claim asylum in the United States must do so in the first contiguous nation they reach after leaving the nation or nations that give rise to their claim at a US Consulate or Embassy in said nation and they must remain outside the United States while their claim is adjudicated.  Claims of asylum cannot be made nor processed by any person who is a citizen of a US-contiguous nation with which the United States has a formal trading and visitation relationship (that would be Canada and Mexico.)  Any act of illegal entry, past or present, to the United States permanently voids all privilege of asylum.

  • All employers shall transmit with each 941 tax filing the E-Verify control number for each person so-employed.  All new hires must have E-Verify run prior to hiring and all currently employed persons must have same run within six months of the date of this legislation.  Failure to include a valid E-Verify control number on a 941 transmission, forgery of said number or willful omission of any employee from said form is declared a federal felony offense carrying a mandatory 5 year prison term and $100,000 fine for each person so-omitted with all persons having constructive or actual knowledge of said omission or fraud jointly and severably liable for same.

That stops the influx.

No "free" education, health care, housing, food stamps or anything else -- either directly or indirectly.  You cannot poop out a child on US soil and have their presence create an obligation to you -- not for your birth expenses, not for your housing expenses, nor for your food, utility or other expenses.  While a State could fund whatever it wants it cannot use any federal funds for such a program, including Medicaid, public schools (which obtain federal funding), food stamps or similar.

If you come here under a resettlement arrangement you have five years to show that (1) you intend to assimilate and (2) you are willing and able to both work and meet all other criteria for lawful permanent residence.  If not you're cut off -- period.  No more Little Mogadishu nonsense that has produced a crazy number of jihadi wannabes.

If you employ an illegal invader and get caught everyone with actual or constructive knowledge of it goes to prison.  It does not matter who you are -- whether you're a CEO, Controller, Payroll Clerk, farm owner or someone hiring a nanny.  Period.

Do the above as a simple bill and the entire illegal invader problem disappears overnight.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2019-03-03 08:26 by Karl Denninger
in Politics , 395 references
[Comments enabled]  

There is a growing belief among Republicans -- and policy wonks -- that the insanity coming from people like Occasional Kotex will doom the Democrats in 2020, as their "base" has gone so far left that it bears a striking resemblance to Mao -- or worse.

Interestingly enough part of the debate is over this specific policy shift:

New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, one of half a dozen Democratic senators running for the White House, is reintroducing a bill on Thursday that would fundamentally end the federal government's prohibition on marijuana.

The Marijuana Justice Act, which was first introduced by Booker in August of 2017, seeks to make marijuana legal at the federal level by removing it from the list of controlled substances, while also expunging the convictions of previous marijuana drug offenders and reinvesting in low-income and minority communities that were particularly hard hit by the federal government's war on drugs.

Some other senators running for president are co-sponsors of the legislation, including Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., as well as Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley, who is considering a bid.

And of course the screamfest from the right instantly commenced, complete with flat-out lies.

CBD (Cannabidiol), found in the flower of the cannabis plant, also has therapeutic effects that are currently being studied, including for treatment of epilepsy, anxiety, PTSD and insomnia. It is currently illegal federally, but legal in 34 states and with a prescription in the remaining 16 states for certain medical conditions such as intractable epilepsy.

Nope.  The farm bill effectively legalized CBD provided it is actually what it's claimed to be.

CBD does not cause the same intoxicating effects as the THC found in marijuana, nor does it have the same long-term side effects. And it is not combustible. For these reasons I am all for its federal legalization. This would subject CBD to more quality control by the FDA, which is a good thing since there are so many versions around.

That effectively already happened.

While non-THC-bearing CBD products must be produced in compliance with a host of regulations in order to be legal (with the intent and effect of insuring there is no more than 0.3% THC in same; thus, they cannot produce intoxication) the general explosion of those products in places where marijuana remains illegal is already taking place.  We're not talking about back-room, back-alley sales and such either; these products are now sold over-the-counter in virtually every state, and so long as they're produced in compliance -- and since we're talking about retail stores here it's not exactly difficult for a given state or local law enforcement community to figure out if they are.....

What the States have started enforcing (in some cases in earnest), and there will likely be federal enforcement on as well, is putting CBD in things and selling them as a "beneficial adjunct" (in other words, other than "the entire point") in a food or some health-related product (anything that makes health claims, basically.)  Unless you have the scientific studies and approvals that's not just illegal for CBD it's illegal for anything.

Leaving aside that CBD has no intoxicating qualities at all (and thus it was literal wide-eyed insane to legally prohibit it in the first place on a claim of it being a "dangerous drug") this is an incredibly good thing because truth in labeling is always good. 

One of the worst parts of prohibition wasn't the shooting and gangland activity that came with it, as most victims of that violence were involved (voluntarily) in the trade themselves: It was the accidentally-poisoned (or worse, intentionally adulterated) hooch made in clandestine stills with no quality or truth-in-labeling mandate that did permanent damage to unwitting consumers or even killed them.  This still happens where alcohol is so tightly-regulated as to render it profitable to cheat; witness in India where over 100 people were killed recently by methanol-adulterated booze. 

While the BBC implies that this is a function of poor temperature control (in other words, bad process control and an "inherent risk" of unregulated by government production of distilled spirits) that's bull****.

Methanol is a natural byproduct of fermentation in small amounts when pectins (e.g. fruits and berries) are present; grains and sugars do not produce methanol.  That small amount, even when concentrated by distillation, is not dangerous.  However, ciders (in particular) and similar preparations containing fruit must be clarified to remove the pectins before distillation.  If you don't you'll get a nasty hangover since even that tiny amount of methanol greatly enhances feeling like crap the next day.

But the sort of poisoning reported in India -- enough methanol in the booze to harm or kill -- is almost-certainly due to intentional adulteration that went overboard -- in other words the producer put the methanol in there on purpose to increase how "drunk" you get.  In small amounts it does exactly that but with the additional price being an insanely-nasty hangover.  The problem is that when methanol is metabolized you get formic acid, lactic acid and formaldehyde.  The latter attacks nerve cells and is what will make you go blind or kill you -- literally make you "blind drunk" permanently -- if present in excessive amounts.

The bottom line is this: Thumbs up for medical marijuana and CBD in all 50 states. Thumbs up for decriminalization of marijuana. But thumbs down for widespread unregulated recreational use.

It's time to cut the crap.

The question has now become whether people will vote Buds or Bangsticks in 2020 and the Republican party must take this issue off the table to reduce the margins the left has, and don't err on believing this won't sway votes -- it sure will, and that margin is broad-based too, not just among the millennial generation.

There's only one way to do that, and it fits with what America believes about cannabis at this point: A large majority want marijuana legalized (for adults on a discretionary-use basis) -- not just "decriminalized."

Why is it important to take issues off the table if they might be bad for your ballot performance?

Let me put it in BOLD for you:

If the Democrats get the Senate and Presidency in 2020 you can forget about guns -- that is, the Second Amendment.  Entirely.  The US Supreme Court has already ruled the existing, 85 year-old law on the books the Democrats will use to destroy the 2nd Amendment Constitutional and the Democrats have already announced their intent to use it for this purpose.

And no, they won't actually "ban guns"; they don't have to and the reason this can be done by the Democrats is that instead of stopping this crap decades ago the NRA literally endorsed at the time and does today a gun control law that enables forced registration and taxation of any firearm any list of legislators choose, which makes said law flatly unconstitutional "per se."

Yes, they did exactly that and bragged about it in their own published, print magazine.

Get this through your heads folks: The NRA supports the very law (NFA) that can be used to force full, personal national registration of any firearm or type of firearms any majority group of legislators choose at any time now or in the future.  Said law has already been ruled Constitutional (Miller) so suing, no matter the court's composition, is a long-shot and you are odds-on to lose and go straight to prison.

IN SHORT THE SUPPOSED "GUARDIAN" OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT SOLD YOU OUT STARTING NEARLY 100 YEARS AGO AND HAS DONE SO CONTINUALLY SINCE WITH MANY OTHER GUN CONTROL LAWS.

If The Second Amendment can be constrained by the length of a barrel (never mind requiring a license to own a literal muffler for your gun) and type or presence of a stock (changing exactly nothing about the inherent mechanical function of the weapon) then it can also be constrained by things that make a gun "better" in any other way or which have no mechanical and functional impact whatsoever.

The record is clear that the 2020 hopeful Democrats -- all of them running to date -- want make any detachable-magazine firearm a NFA weapon, which requires only a literal one-sentence addition to existing law.  If they win they will do this.

That will be de-facto national firearms registration for what likely amounts to more than half of the weapons in America today, including every single pistol and most deer hunting rifles, say much less the lowly Ruger 10/22 or the garden-variety AR15.  Legal ownership transfers of any kind of anything listed as an NFA weapon require payment of a $400 tax, six+month (which will triple or more in time, if not become effectively infinite) wait time for the paperwork to come back before the transfer takes place and fingerprinting requirements for each weapon sold or transferred each time it is transferred. There are no exceptions to these requirements either -- even between immediate family members. And, by the way, for any NFA firearm or other NFA item you also must, as a person transporting your personal property, declare each item you intend to transport across a state line -- in advance and receive the permit back -- before you do so.  Any bet that the next act will be to add on to that form-filing requirement a nice, rapidly-escalating fee (tax)?

Any violation of that law is extraordinary serious (10 year federal felony!) too whether intentional (with intent to commit a robbery, for example) or simple lack of diligence.  The BATFE isn't playing around when it comes to anything NFA regulated.  If you have any common sense and want to own anything on that list you treat it like its radioactive -- because it pretty-much is and if that genie gets out of the bottle no matter the reason odds are your personal freedom, quite possibly for 10 or more years and any future capability to keeping and bearing arms is done as you will then have a federal felony conviction on your record.

The only alternative you will have left, if this happens, is to put the marker down on the table as was done at Concord.  Are you prepared to do that and take the consequences?

How do you like that consequence of the 2020 election?

Take the weed issue off the table and it gets less likely the Democrats can win as voting for them no longer changes anything when it comes to buds or bongs.

In other words Trump needs to tell McConnell to take and bring to the floor S.1689 and pass it right now with one important exception, which I'll get to below.  If he does, and the Democrats send him that very bill, not as some attachment but as a clean bill, he must commit to sign it and publicly state he'll do so in 72 hours.  In other words force McConnell to hold the vote to put everyone on record and pass the damn thing to take the issue off the table for 2020.

Here's the "gotcha" in that bill, incidentally, that must be removed:

(c) Use Of Fund Amounts.—Amounts in the Fund shall be available to the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to establish a grant program to reinvest in communities most affected by the war on drugs, which shall include providing grants to impacted communities for programs such as—

(1) job training;

(2) reentry services;

(3) expenses related to the expungement of convictions;

(4) public libraries;

(5) community centers;

(6) programs and opportunities dedicated to youth;

(7) the special purpose fund discussed below; and

(8) health education programs.

(d) Availability Of Fund Amounts.—Amounts in the Fund shall be available without fiscal year limitation.

(e) Authorization Of Appropriations.—There are authorized to be appropriated to the Fund $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2018 through 2040.

There is no special fund discussed below.  Where is that text and how is it that an officially filed bill is missing what else can be done with (any!) collection or appropriation of money?  Either get that out of there or define it in the "text below" and specifically reference what fund (if it's not a new one; it can't be the one enclosing it as that would be a circular reference and thus would make no sense) so we can see it more than 30 seconds before you vote -- hiding it, if intentional, is a declaration of an intent to commit fraud.

Pull the Democrats teeth one at a time; when you can take something they really want, has broad public support, and can remove it from consideration in the election without doing harm to core Constitutional principles (and, many will argue, protecting and restoring them) do it.

It's "free" to you and gives them one less issue to bash you over the head with.

This is one of the few issues that divide where the Republicans can do it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)