The Market Ticker - Cancelled
What 'They' Don't Want Published
Login or register to improve your experience
Main Navigation
Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog
Full-Text Search & Archives
Leverage, the book
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. For investment, legal or other professional advice specific to your situation contact a licensed professional in your jurisdiction.

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.

Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility; author(s) may have positions in any firm or security discussed here, and have no duty to disclose same.

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 be complete (NOT a "pitch"), include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. Pitch emails missing the above will be silently deleted. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2024-07-11 07:22 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 284 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Have a look at this tweet:

htps://x.com/HalSnarr/status/1805571973612716109

Humphrey–Hawkins Full Employment Law stipulates that inflation should be 0% but the @federalreserve has set its inflation target at 2%.

Humphrey-Hawkins was passed in 1978.  It amended The Federal Reserve Act to require semi-annual reports to Congress and explicitly calls out stable prices as part of The Fed's mandate.

Stable is not 2% inflation, it is zero inflation.  That is the legal mandate passed into law by Congress more than four decades ago.

Not only has it never been enforced The Fed explicitly brags that it intentionally violates said law each and every time they release a statement and have a press conference in which they tout their "intent" to target 2% inflation.  They literally have stuck the middle finger up in the face of the American people and Congress at every single meeting and press conference in the modern era without a single scintilla of punishment being leveled against any of the Fed Governors or the chair.

When I was on the Florida EC for the Libertarian Party we had a state party chairman who was very upset with the "Real ID" law.  He went on the radio and literally told everyone he considered the law unconstitutional and essentially dared the cops to cite him for refusing to renew his driver license.  While it is certainly true that many people drive without a license and if you're never stopped and checked you probably won't get caught announcing in public your intent to break the law usually draws a response.  It did, the local gendarme laid in wait for and stopped him with him ultimately abandoning his challenge (I presume he paid the fine and other costs associated) rather than appeal when he lost the original attempt in court.  (At the time I advised that I believed the argument he was raising to be fatally-flawed in that once you cede that driving is a privilege then the government has a reasonable argument in the necessity of forcing you to prove your identity but in fact there was a clear argument and case law that licensing drivers of non-commercial vehicles used for personal purpose was unconstitutional on its face as personal travel via means and methods common to people in a given time is in fact a protected right.  The case law establishing this was old but had stood unchallenged since but he decided to go the other way with his line of argument and lost.  Oh well.)

Note the difference; one is a law that might impact one or two people other than yourself if you, as an unlicensed driver, cause a wreck.  The other screws 99% of the public each and every day, with absolute certainty, with only a handful of people at the top of corporations and other "important" folks getting the benefits while you get hosed.  One was and is punished, the other ignored.

The recent Supreme Court decision to dismiss a lawsuit by state AGs over the Biden administration censorship drive during Covid, claiming that the states lacked standing, may be technically correct.  Standing has long held that individual and particularized injury and its connection to the conduct sued over (that is, the party sued must have done it) must be shown.  This isn't a new thing; it in fact underlies basically all of civil law.  If you fail there the actual conduct is never addressed because you haven't proved the entity you sued was the cause of the insult.  We can argue whether such should be an absolute requirement or not when it comes to the Constitution or whether, in the context of the government, intent is the point.  I'd argue it should be but that's not only not the world we live in today its not a recent change either.  This belies the limits of "sue sue sue" when it comes to going after the government, where injunctive relief (e.g. "stop doing that") rather than money (which is usually the goal of a lawsuit) is the point.  This decision ought to underline the limits of suing and make clear that other means of redress, which the courts can neither enforce OR ENJOIN, are the ONLY way you will get results in such cases.

Similarly enforcing 8 USC 1324 against all who aid, harbor or employ illegal immigrants will end illegal immigration and force those who are here to leave with those outcomes beginning in literally one day.  Within a very short period of time -- weeks to months -- there will be no illegal immigration or problem with it other than those who come with the express intent to break the law and those people we can easily deal with since by definition that's all who will be left.  Why?  Because nobody is going to do 10 years in federal prison to assuage their "feelings" about illegal immigrants or to assist them. Not one farmer will spend 10 years in the pokey so he can have cheaper labor, nor will one roofing company.  They'll either hire Americans or legal immigrants because the alternative is that they do 10 years in the Graybar Motel and their business is destroyed. Likewise every US based entity or person of a foreign entity who is here in the US will stop aiding these people with clothing, food and shelter because none of them are going to willing do 10 years in the slammer either, nor will they risk that becoming a life sentence if they choose poorly on who they help and that person kills an American.  These penalties, by the way, have been on the books since the 1950s and as such enforcement is all that is required to absolutely resolve the illegal immigration problem and remove every person who is here illegally as virtually all will, if this occurs, leave on their own.  Doing this would also instantly resolve the housing cost problem because it will put five years worth of housing supply into the market immediately.

Finally, enforcing 15 USC Chapter 1 will absolutely resolve the entire budget problem within months.  Why?  Because CMS, Medicare and Medicaid, are the entire problem and its not just a federal issue either as Medicaid is partially state-funded so the impact reaches into State budgets as well.  If you enforce that law then all disparate pricing between consumers of like kind and quantity and all insurance schemes that lead to 2x, 5x, 10x or more discrepancies in pricing and paid costs for one person .vs. another including drugs that are sold across national boundaries and are priced in some cases at 100x the price in other nations here in the US ends in an afternoon because all of it is illegal under that law and for those who claim there's an exemption due to insurance no there's not as that was decided in the late 1970s and early 1980s at the Supreme Court, twice in both Royal Drug and Maricopa County.  For those medical entities that have been buying up practices and then "consolidating" them, resulting in constrained supply and higher prices it will be reversed in one day because if they don't everyone involved, including the physicians themselves, does 10 years in the slammer.  The cost of medical care, all-in, will drop by 80% and the budget deficit will, as a result, be nearly zero.  (Yes, it will also be true that some "new and marvelous" things won't be offered unless you're very wealthy; but let's be frank here: The facts are that in nearly every case they don't work all that well in the first place and, if they do when the patent(s) expire they'll be cheap and available to everyone by which time there will be enough evidence to prove that.)

Now how about if we were to enforce the point of Hal's complaint, that is, that black-letter law requires The Fed to set policy that targets zero inflation and demand they unwind their abuses of the last, oh, 25 years?  What would that do?

Well, for one thing it would collapse all the various asset-stripping schemes at both the state and federal levels run by private parties.  If you couldn't get a cheap car loan or capitalize a cheap lease cars would have to dramatically come down in price which means all the expensive nanny crap would have to be an option that 1 or 2% of the population who could afford to pay for them in cash would have.  In fact that might not be enough market share for anyone but Porsche, for example, to offer it at all.  The price for the rest of us would plummet because we'd take a literal $5,000 off the price of a car simply by going back to halogen headlights and ordinary tail-lamp bulbs instead of $1,000 for each of the four assemblies!

All of the "roll-up" schemes in various parts of the economy such as AirBNB, PE buying up veterinary practices and housing along with the insane ramp in the cost of college (all caused by constraining supply and being able to wildly increase prices due to uneconomic "financing") would become instantly uneconomic, loss-making acts and thus would stop.  Prices would go back to where the market clears them in all those areas of business along with many moreThose who have feasted on these schemes would be damaged or even bankrupted but you, the common consumer, would no longer pay 3x as much for Fido to get his annual inspection at the vet and the peddling of "add-ons" you don't really need but are sold as "required" would cease.  So would the entire justification for so-called "pet health insurance" which is being driven by this illegal collusive practice.  Your kid's college education would cost one fifth of what it now costs and so would your doctor, hospital bills and medications, all of which you could buy for cash.  If you needed or wanted a house it would be one third of today's price as well and if you already own one no, you don't get "screwed" because while your current one is 1/3rd of its present value so is the new one when you move.  The younger generation, which currently does not own one, can buy and thus they can form families and between all this they can also afford to have and raise children.  All of this is wildly good for the vast majority but yes, it does force those who have been screwing you for decades to eat a big steaming pile of **** and will bankrupt many of them.

Contemplate this tweet for a minute or two that I aimed at Thomas Massie:

htps://x.com/tickerguy/status/1805942742024933850

So when do you demand that if the government wishes to continue to operate it actually enforce laws against everyone equally? You know, like 8 USC 1324 (ends illegal immigration in an hour) and 15 USC Ch 1 (ends the budget problem in a week.) Never, right Thomas?

Do remember that Obama famously said when he signed the DACA E/O that he knew what he was doing was illegal as there was no governing law to permit it and Congress would have never passed it, which is why he didn't go that route.  His justification was that the number of people would be large enough that nobody would impose the penalty of deportation on them down the road.  Biden got told by the Supreme Court that he had no authority to force the taxpayer to eat college loans and he has now ignored that ruling and did it again anyway with the expectation that telling a couple million people that "oh, that notice you got that your debt was canceled - it was illegal and you still owe the money, pay up!" would generate such an outrage that nobody will do it, even though the act was blatantly against settled law. This equivalent to saying that because lots of gang-bangers shoot people in Chicago we won't bother enforcing the law against murder by gun in Chicago as we'd have to jail too many people and throwing them all in jail would generate outrage!

Once that sort of decision is taken by the government on a serial basis and neither the DOJ or Congress will put a stop to it how do you change it as a citizen?

You can't vote to change this because, as you can plainly see, we've tried that for decades and no matter who we elect, even those claiming to be "absolutely conservative" don't do anything other than fund-raise on it and then screw you themselves.  Note that Congress can always stop any agency from refusing to act in accordance with law by zeroing their appropriation and thus shutting them down, forcing all their employees to go unpaid until they comply and preventing them from doing literally anything including turning on the lights in their buildings.  There is no means within our Constitutional system for such an act of enforcement to be overridden yet Congress NEVER does it.

The government, in these cases, has told you in advance they don't believe they can take a given action by changing the law or they'd have done that and yet here we are four, five even ten decades later and the law has not been changed or repealed.  Therefore they know, by definition, that there is no stomach in the population nor among their colleagues to repeal or change said law.

Such rampant and malicious lawlessness has no answer within the boundaries of being "nice" nor is there a political answer any more than you can solve a problem with drug gangs shooting up neighborhoods by asking them nicely to stop -- or voting.

If there was never an arrest, by policy, of someone robbing a bank the only reasonable and immediately-effective way your local bank could defend against being robbed would be to shoot the first person who comes in the door and tries it.  If the cops unwisely attempt to detain the person who shoots the robber you make clear that the price of doing that is the cop will get shot too and his or her house will be burnt. The first time around robbers and DAs might not take that too seriously (especially when you've made a lot of noise for 50 years but never followed through) but after a few dead bodies minus the back half of their heads are dragged out onto the hot summer sidewalk to rot, and a plastic sheet is placed over the carpet in the bank to make cleanup easy so anyone in the vicinity knows what the price of trying to rob the bank is word would get around and your bank would not be robbed.  Soon public outrage would get to the point that the government would have to lock up bank robbers in accordance with said long-standing law because every other bank would start arming their tellers and inviting armed citizens into the bank to stand guard, since if they didn't they'd get robbed instead of yours and the ones that did so wouldn't, never mind the mess on the sidewalk and outrage not acting to stop it would generate for the local cops and DA.  You might get a few municipalities that would try to stop the dead-robber parade by arresting a teller but after the first two cops got added to the pile of bodies along with two smoking holes where their homes stood that strategy would be abandoned since there are always far more citizens than cops.

You might not like facts but it is a fact that the only way to stop someone intent on robbery, rape, murder or for that matter any other crime is to either instill in said person a legitimate fear of punishment that is both severe and certain enough that they judge the crime to not be worth the punishment risk and severity and, for those who are psychotic and don't care about being punished (yes, there are people who are that insane) stop them using whatever force is necessary, including permanently disabling their CPU, as soon as their intent and the fact that they don't give a crap if you jail them and will commit the offense anyway becomes clear.

Well?

Does this means there's no other option than violence?  Not at all.  There is another option I have advocated for years and as I pointed out up top there's no way for the courts to either reverse or enjoin it either.  You can eject anyone who is involved in, benefits from or promotes the conditions that lead to these problems from polite society.  Yeah, that includes your kids, your parents, your so-called friends and others.  If they got a "college loan" forgiveness slam the door in their face.  If they work in the medical system and take insurance at their employer write 'em out of your will and slam the door in their face and so on.  If you openly and freely associate with those who support or even worse are involved in or benefit from repeatedly ****ing you in the ass you have little room to complain when your butthole is full of bleeding hemorrhoids.

You do not have to follow the Supreme Court's rules on "standing"; if someone is contributing to your butt****ing in a diffuse and indistinct manner, but clearly is involved in the various rackets and abusive schemes since association is a voluntary act you can choose not to, and, I remind you, you don't have to be quiet about it either.  Blackball them in all respects, blackball their family members and yes, this includes their children.  It is their choice to screw you so why would you associate with someone who has clearly demonstrated that they hate you and wish to, will and have, repeatedly screw you?

The only difference between sex and******is consent and since petitioning our government has proved to be of no use our choices are to either re-instill the fear of consequence in all involved in these unlawful schemes and those in the various organs of government who deliberately stand aside despite long-standing laws and thus directly enable and in fact both solicit and profit from such conduct or accept that we are consenting and thus there is no offense to be pissed off about in the first place since you can't rape, rob or murder those consenting to said event.

Which shall it be, America?

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2024-07-10 09:43 by Karl Denninger
in Musings , 347 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Let's cut the crap ok?

Houston is in a tropical weather zone.  It is not a surprise that hurricanes will strike the area.

I lived in one of those zones -- specifically, NW FL -- for 20 years.  Historically the area where I resided was hit by a strong Tropical Storm or Cat 1 hurricane every year or two.  Historically-speaking about every ten years the area got hit by a nasty hurricane, defined as Strong 2 or better, frequently Cat 3s.

It rains a lot in a short period of time when tropical weather shows up.  You had better figure out how you're going to drain the water that falls from the sky or you will get flooding.  Adding hard surfaces and especially destroying wetlands and other low-lying areas that are natural buffers for said water without replacing them with some other means of conducting that water toward either a useful goal (e.g. irrigating something) or draining it somewhere safe (e.g. the sea, which is where it evaporated from in the first place) is stupid.

In my 20 years of living there we got hit with storms of this magnitude a bunch of times, and one real bastard (Ivan.)  Not all that far away Michael came to play over in Panama City, but it was small enough that the few dozen miles away where I was when it showed up it rained, and not even very much.  Ditto for Dennis which was a similarly-small but nasty SOB of a storm; it rained at my house but over in Navarre, not far away at all, they got it in the face.

Tropical Storms and Cat 1 hits were no big deal and I didn't expect to lose power or other basic utilities during and after them -- and very rarely was there any material disruption at all.  Yeah, the big bastards are a different story, and some elements have no defense other than "don't build where it can happen" such as surge -- if you have insufficient elevation to avoid it that's on you because you knowingly built where surge can happen and didn't elevate the structure above the reasonably-expected inundation level.

Building and maintaining things to laugh at routinely expected levels of wind and rain that is reasonably expected to show up every couple years, and a strong Tropical Storm or Cat 1 hurricane is within that realm of expectation anywhere near the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts is another matter.  If you can't build infrastructure and housing expected to withstand that without material amounts of damage you are incompetent, PERIOD, you deserve it in the ass and exactly ZERO federal taxpayer dollars should be spent to cover any such damage.  You knew it was going to happen (but not exactly when of course) and deliberately didn't plan for and execute against that so YOU OUGHT TO HAVE TO ****ING EAT IT.

Not pruning back or removing trees that are within the fall radius of your infrastructure, such as power lines, or your house is even more-stupid.  No house will withstand a tree falling on its roof without severe damage and neither will your infrastructure.  You either remove them from the radius in which they can impact same if they come down or you suffer the consequences when the inevitable storm does come.

Never mind engineering that isn't being done properly either.  Houston has a nice and quite-new covered stadium.  The roof was apparently not engineered to take 70mph wind loads -- a modest Cat 1 storm of which on reasonable expectation will hit Houston every few years.  The county and city signed off on this, obviously, and now the roof has been damaged as a result of something that is expected to occur every few years and yet nobody enforced any sort of engineering standard to prevent that damage.

It is always cheaper to skimp on or not even bother in the first place with said engineering and maintenance so long as the storm never comes.  But of course the storm will come, because your city is where that's an expected risk and all these dickheads pocketed the money they "saved" by not doing the work.

Now you have a couple of million people in hot weather (gee, big shock, its hot in the summertime) with no power and thus no air conditioning, never mind all the Karens who scream about the "pretty trees" in neighborhoods that are now in the middle of your living room because you didn't remove them and the storm knocked them over on your house.

Civilization was nice and you lose it when engineering gets trumped by DEI and other Karen-style bull**** such as "green energy" -- of course those windmills cannot withstand that sort of wind loading from said storms and most designs for solar can't either.  And while you might think putting electrical underground is a panacea it is not; if you don't maintain it then water gets in there and shorts it out which is just as bad as having a tree fall on it.  In both cases the problem is that you have your head up your ass because the 115 IQ+ people who can build and maintain this stuff have been fired, forced out or have quit because they refuse to put up with the **** coming from all you ******n *******s who think DIEEEEEEEVVVEEERRRRSSHHHHITTY is more important than competence and not doing the work on purpose or fraudulently signing off on code requirements which are not actually met, which is also part of it, is not punished with CRIMINAL sanction EVER and of course its CHEAPER to leave out the important stuff that makes a thing resistant to and thus allows it to survive reasonably-expected environmental conditions.

Those of us who are (1) still around and (2) capable of said engineering, construction and maintenance should triple our salary demands; if you want to hire incompetent people and play dieeeeevvvveeerrrr****tty go right ahead but I'll be goody-******ned if I'm covering for it and everyone else who remains alive and can also do the work ought to shove this up everyone else's ass.  Get the incompetents out or pay triple because if I gotta do the work of three people because you insist on hiring based on "gender identity" and skin color instead of competence by God you're going to pay me three times as much.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2024-07-10 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 376 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Insurance companies have their margins regulated by state law.  All of them.

As a result efficiency does not help their bottom line since increasing operating margin by being more efficient (better) means the state forces you to lower premiums.  They are thus intentionally inefficient to whatever level they can get away with.

The only way to grow as an insurer due to this is to have more claims or have more-expensive claims.

That's it.

Well?

Gloria Lee was perplexed when the phone calls started coming in from a representative of her Medicare insurer. Could a nurse stop by her Boston home to give her a quick checkup? It was a helpful perk. No cost. In fact, she’d get a $50 gift card.

After several such calls in 2022, Lee agreed. A nurse showed up, checked her over, asked her questions, then diagnosed her with diabetic cataracts. 

The finding was good news for Lee’s insurer, a unit of UnitedHealth Group UNH -0.11%decrease; red down pointing triangle. Medicare pays insurers more for sicker patients. In the case of someone like Lee with diabetic cataracts, up to about $2,700 more a year at that time. 

But it was fraud.

She was neither diabetic nor did she have cataracts.

$450 billion a year flows through this system, roughly a quarter of all CMS spending, and since CMS is only about 20% funded by current taxes the rest goes directly on the federal deficit.  The government will not stop it, obviously, or they would have.  Audits would catch this and fraud is a felony, which if convicted bars you from federal contracting, so if there was any enforcement at all this **** would stop immediately because losing the ability to write said policies against Medicare, which is a federal program, is a literal business death penalty offense.

Of course nobody in the corporate world ever pays that penalty, do they?  No; they hive things off in such a way, or evade the penalty entirely.  They "plead" with some sort of conditions that prevent them from being blackballed.

You, on the other hand, get no such consideration ever.

Oh, and they bribe people too:

The insurers make new diagnoses after reviewing medical charts, sometimes using artificial intelligence, and sending nurses to visit patients in their homes. They pay doctors for access to patient records, and reward patients who agree to home visits with gift cards and other financial benefits.

Legal bribery?  Good question.  Wasn't the same thing exposed with the Covid shots?  It sure was, and we know that doctors have this same coercion applied to them when it comes to childhood vaccines.

Of course the company disputes the Journal's reporting, so I'll be fair and include their statement:

UnitedHealth spokesman Matthew Wiggin said the Journal’s analysis is “inaccurate and biased,” and that Medicare Advantage “provides better health outcomes and more affordable healthcare for millions of seniors” than traditional Medicare.

Incidentally many of these "diagnoses" were anatomically impossible -- such as "diagnosing" someone with diabetic cataracts who has already had cataract surgery and thus no longer has lenses in their eyes.  Obviously you can't get something in a particular part of the body if it has been replaced with plastic.

If you want to know why the Federal Government is going bankrupt and intentionally creating a roughly 6% monetary inflation rate which has not declined at all since the pandemic you need only look for instances like this.  This is just one and there almost-certainly thousands, but if you shut down the scams all the people who get paychecks from said scams become unemployed, including a crap-ton of government workers.

And spare me the bull**** about how doctors, nurses or both aren't involved in and profiting from this, or that its just "a few bad apples."  How many nurses do these insurance companies employ?  Thousands, and worse they know other nurses and doctors and nobody is blowing the whistle on it either so every one of them should be tagged with joint and several liability for all of it as the only reason a huge number of them are employed at all is these scams.

Think that's new?  How many nurses stuffed tubes down covid patient's throats? Plenty. How many times do you need to do that and watch the person die before its obvious to you that the "treatment" is worthless and might be killing the person? Now how many blew the whistle and said "I ain't doing that and if you keep that crap up I'm going to do what I can to make sure you go to prison!" instead of, at in the case of travel nurses, raking in a huge amount of money?

Incidentally none of this was hidden; that the government was paying money to medical providers simply because you "tested positive" for Covid no matter what brought you there originally (e.g. a car accident), they paid even more if you got Remdesivir shoved in your arm which we knew within months was worthless and very likely to destroy kidney function, they got an even bigger bonus if you got shoved in the ICU (gee, let's give you something that has a good probability of doing that by destroying kidney function), more if you were ventilated (even though we knew in April of 2020 it was worthless) and so on.  Exactly nobody has been charged and forced to pay the proper and ultimate price for what was factually a kill-him-for-money scheme and here, in my county, nearly nine out of ten people who went there with a covid positive test over one six month period, by official state data, LEFT IN A ****ING BOX.

Make sure you say "hi" to your family member or neighbor, and be very nice to them rather than ostracizing them from society or even locking them up even though they are in fact robbing you and it keeps happening because YOU ALLOW IT TO CONTINUE.

You must like all these wallet-sex; you're certainly not being raped as you ARE consenting.

How about auto insurance companies and the wild-eyed "nanny" and parts **** in modern vehicles (e.g. $2,000 for a headlight assembly) that has come from their collusion with Congress, the IIHS and of course the automakers themselves, all of which love the additional cashflow even though it gets you ****ed straight up the ass every month in much higher car insurance (e.g. property damage liability) costs whether you buy the newer car or not.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2024-07-08 10:40 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 1054 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Biden has sent a letter to Democrats in Congress (who were calling for him to step down from the race) defiantly telling them "its time to come together" and no, he won't (step down.)  In addition he directly calls out anyone demanding he step down as attacking democracy, stating that the voters chose him as the Democrat nominee and thus the case is closed.

He cites the alleged "primaries" he won.  Well, yes, he won them, but the existing two-party system is rigged to make losing almost-impossible for an incumbent.  It is policy that when President you are the head of your party and that's that.  This isn't law, its just how we do it, but it means that an incumbent President who isn't term-limited out is nearly-impossible to remove from that side of the ballot as they can rig the game, entirely within the party structure, and thus will not lose the nomination.

That doesn't mean an incumbent can't lose but if he loses it is the other party who has to beat him.

Agree or disagree with how the political system runs that's how it is and how its been pretty-much forever in the United States.

If Democrats want to cast blame on this they need to get off their fat asses and have a look in the mirror at the brain stem staring back at them.  Damn near all of them have known for years that Biden was mentally challenged and getting progressively worse.  They, and the media, both covered for him but it is the lawmakers and party apparatus in the DNC that is responsible for not only shutting up but getting in line to endorse and support what amounts to a potato!

Now Democrat donors can tell the party to******off and refuse to hand over any money.  Will they?  Well, that's an open question and we're about to find out.  In addition we're about to find out if the people will vote for a potato because they hate the alternative enough to put someone who is literally not there and, it is alleged, might have actually had a hallucinatory Parkinson's-style psychotic break in the last few days on Air Force One.

The people of the United States have the right to destroy themselves and thus the nation.  Everyone has that right individually and if in the majority until and unless the remainder are willing to stop them with physical force, the majority has the right to do so electorally, fiscally and politically as well.

It is an extraordinarily grave decision to say "no mas" and put a stop to it; we did it almost 250 years ago but it was not cheap.  Plenty of the people who did so were rendered penniless, died outright or were hanged and if they had lost a lot more of them would have.  I argue that it most-certainly was worth it because we're still here 250 years later but the vapid nature of the vast majority of our population today, particularly when it comes to whatever version of "oh its all free and government can just make it appear out of thin air and give it to me" is being run this day or next, along with the rank robbery and racketeering that so many not only support they directly participate in that is at the core of the problem.  You need only look at Africa which had a higher per-capital GDP than most of Asia, they got drunk on that, declared "colonialism" bad and threw all the white people who had built all that "stuff" out, often at gunpoint.  In the ensuing years, unable to maintain what they had, say much less expand it, they're now way behind China and other Asian nations and in many cases basic infrastructure such as water and power is now failing or even threatening to collapse entirely.

America can go down that toilet folks.  Don't kid yourselves and if you think not you need only look at the demographics and the clear results of these "gimme" policies among those who must make a productive next generation with the intellectual capacity to maintain and improve said infrastructure or over the next several decades we will follow that path just as have dozens of other nations over the last thousand years.

And no, Trump isn't much -- if any -- better and neither are the people on the GOP side of the aisle.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)
 

2024-07-08 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 318 references
[Comments enabled]  
Category thumbnail

Just give up now folks.

That nobody forced Harris off the ticket four years ago, and now you're called "racist!" if you point out that she's ineligible, is proof.

Its an undisputed fact that neither of her parents were citizens when she was born.  Yes, she was born in the United States.  But the Constitution makes clear that there is a super-citizenship requirement of lineage for the Presidency.  The rules of Statutory Construction are clearEvery word has meaning and no word that is present may be disregarded.

The phrase "natural-born" appears in no other place than for the Presidency (and since the VP is the direct successor, the VP.)  It does not appear in the requirements for the Senate or House, nor for any appointed office.

Why there, but nowhere else?

Because otherwise Chairman Xi and his Wife, with her pregnant, or any other member of the Communist Party of China, could come into the US, drop a child, that child, being born in the US, would be a citizen, and then 35 years later that child could run for President.  If you allow a "President Harris" then you, by your actions, are stating quite-clearly that Chairman Xi or any other foreign leader could conspire to come here with his spouse or paramour and drop such a child for the explicit purpose of destroying our nation from the top and such an action would be, by your reasoning and argument, entirely legal.

Indeed Putin could decide to impregnate a woman, send her here while pregnant, she could enter whether legally or not, drop said kid in the United States and that child could run for and ascend to the Presidency 35 years later.

The President has unitary and nearly-unreviewable power both to set and direct foreign policy and to direct Acts of War as the Commander In Chief.

Would you expect that such a person would be unbiased with American interests first and only were the decision to have to be made to bomb China?

This is a singular problem for that office because of the President's unitary power in the context of foreign policy which is where the concentration of said risk resides in our system of government.

We can argue over whether being born on US soil even to non-citizen parents, either singularly or jointly, should confer citizenship.  I would argue that we should change our system such that entering the United States while pregnant, or if a non-citizen becomes pregnant while present in the United States on a non-resident visa, that circumstance should not confer citizenship -- but that's a debate over a change in current policy.  Further, the Constitution makes clear that such a person is eligible to be elected to the House or Senate -- or stand for appointment to some other federal office.

This isn't.  This is a debate over what the Constitution says and has since the founding of our nation and why it was written that way at the time, which remains as valid today as it was originally and if we wish to change it the proper way to do so is to strike the words "natural born" from that clause, not ignore it because someone finds those facts inconvenient.

Until we do there can be no legitimate President Harris because there can't be irrespective of any election.

PS: Spare me any lies about how I've not raised this before.  Yes I have -- in three separate articles from 2019-01-24, 2019-07-01 and 2020-11-03.  I still have them and have been consistent in all three.  Harris is ineligible, period.  So is Vivek but of course the GOP side of the aisle conveniently ignores that so **** the so-called "Conservatives" as well.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)