The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

And now, the admissions start to come out.

(Prosecutor) McCulloch said in a radio interview on Friday that some witnesses obviously lied to the grand jury.

Lying to a Grand Jury is perjury.  It is a crime.

So is suborning perjury; the persuading or allowing of someone to swear falsely under oath.

If McCulloch knew that this "witness" could not have actually witnessed the shooting and yet put her in front of the Grand Jury he committed a crime as well.

And now McCulloch has admitted he knew this to be the case:

He made reference to one woman who claimed to have seen the shooting. McCulloch said she "clearly wasn't present. She recounted a story right out of the newspaper" that backed up Wilson's version of events, he said.

This leaves only one question before a felony indictment must issue against McCulloch: When did he become aware of this -- before or after her testimony was given?  If before then as an officer of the court he must stand accused of suborning perjury, be tried and, upon conviction be imprisoned for, that offense.

Never mind the obvious false charge given to the Grand Jury that I have reported on before which is a separate and distinct offense.

If there is no Rule of Law observed and enforced on a consistent basis that leaves only The Law of the Jungle available to ordinary citizens as a means of redressing grievances.  The consequence of that is on display in our cities in the form of gang and drug-related shootings on a daily basis.

We either all stand and demand that this stop here and now or we all accept and in fact embrace The Law of the Jungle.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

This is amusing, given that the security problems in SS7 have been long known -- in fact, I knew about them in the 1990s!

German researchers have discovered security flaws that could let hackers, spies and criminals listen to private phone calls and intercept text messages on a potentially massive scale – even when cellular networks are using the most advanced encryption now available.

The problem with not running end-to-end encryption is that you are trusting everyone in the middle.  SS7 was designed for billing exchange more than anything else, and yet the phone companies don't give a damn about hardening it either -- despite the fact that it can be exploited to (and occasionally is) rig bills.

They just consider that a cost of doing business, which is a legitimate choice for them to make -- but the impact on you is that your information (e.g. location, who you communicate with and what you communicate) may be stolen as well.

Wake up America.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

I won't rip this off, but I damn well will link it.

And you should read it.  If this doesn't open your eyes nothing will.

....federal “gun control” law “was lifted, almost in its entirety, from Nazi legislation.” In “Gun Control: Gateway to Tyranny,” Zelman, with contributions by attorney Richard Stevens, presented “the Nazi weapons law of 1938 side-by-side with the U.S. Gun Control Act of 1968.”

Have a nice day.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

2014-12-20 06:15 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 110 references
 

You have to wonder these days....

A University of Michigan professor already known for her partisan views confirmed the suspicions of students when she penned a column for a non-profit magazine titled, "It's okay to hate Republicans."

So what happens when you pen a column titled It's ok to hate {muslims|******s|kikes|jews|democrats}?

Just curious, you see, because people have been expelled from academia (never mind everywhere else) for expressing anything that might offend anyone -- like, for instance, saying it's ok to hate some group.

Except for hating white people.

And especially except white republicans.

You really can't have this one both ways.  Either it's "ok" to hate one group of people or another, or it's not -- irrespective of the group.  

And that's the rub when you get down to it, isn't it?  After all this isn't really about race, religion, color, creed, national origin or political affiliation, is it?  It's simply about being a jackbooted thug, which is why these "standards" for what is considered "acceptable" speech apply only to some people -- and most-notably not to others.

This is what passes for a "college" these days. The University claims for its part that faculty members are free to express themselves and the school offers a place for diversity of opinion.

Some opinion, that is.  But not an opinion that is anti-gay, anti-black, anti-Jew, anti-Muslim, pro-Christian, pro-life or, I suspect, anti-Democrat.

And most-certainly, not Catholic opinion on gay marriage -- not even at a Catholic university!

I think that Republicans, and especially white republicans who own and operate businesses should return the favor and hate University of Michigan graduates.  And those who are Catholic should hate Marquette.

They can both express their opinion by refusing to recognize anything that UofM or Marquette issues as an alleged "degree", finding that it's highest and best use is found in the wiping of one's ass after using the restroom.

It's just freedom of speech, yanno....

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Who remembers Myspace?

A report today by Frank N. Magid Associates Inc. found that the portion of 13- to 17-year-old social-media users in the U.S. on Facebook slipped to 88 percent this year from 94 percent in 2013 and 95 percent in 2012. In the same period, Twitter Inc. and messaging applications rose in popularity in that age group, the study showed.

That's a fairly material drop, and it portends bad things.

Here's the thing -- what tends to happen with "social media" is that they appear to "plateau" in terms of daily active users but engagement falls -- and this is an easy metric to game for the company (thus they have every reason to do so.)

But the fade-to-black is in fact happening -- and is happening here too.  When you get into the single digits on "safe" or "trustworthy", well..... and Facebook has.

The happy face on people like Cramer who's spouting on CNBS this morning.... well, just remember his stellar record in the early part of 2000.

You have to look forward, and the reality of Facebook is that the lack of trust (earned by Zukerburglar, and justly so) will eventually blow up in his face.

It is simply a matter of time.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives
Archive Access
Get Adobe Flash player
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 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.