The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
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.


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.

2019-02-18 14:58 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 109 references
[Comments enabled]  


You pray to me yet you voted for that *******?

Go take care of the problem yourself -- you caused it and it's within your power to fix it.

By the way, just in case you seem to have some mis-perception about who you're holding your hands toward while issuing fervent requests: My memory extends further than the last episode you watched on Netfux, the last time you Twattered and the last ad Zuckerpig tried to scam you with.  Indeed, it extends back many thousands of years beyond the birth of the people who used to live where you are now -- a place those fine folks named "America" after they decided they'd had enough of exactly this same sort of crap.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-02-18 10:50 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 270 references
[Comments enabled]  

This weekend has certainly been interesting.

McCabe is on his "book tour"; the usual next act for someone who leaves a position of political power these days and a rank manifestation of the sleaze factor in modern "politics."

Never mind the unseemly act of a former Deputy FBI Director doing something like this.

Let's remember that McCabe was fired for lying, and not just once either.  His recent screamfest included the rank lie that he was fired "for opening an investigation against The President."  No, Andrew, you were fired for lying repeatedly -- and it wasn't Trump that made the determination either, it was the FBI's OPR.  You first leaked information related to the Clinton Foundation to a reporter (a violation of your oath of office and duties under your position), got caught and lied after being caught.

But what McCabe has claimed in his interview and presumably in print, in his book, is that there was a serious inquiry made toward a conspiracy to remove President Trump from office under the 25th Amendment along with covertly recording conversations with him in allegedly-secure areas by the people who, in no small part, are charged with that security.

Further, other contemporary reports now in the public domain prove that (1) the FBI knew the predicate for their "inquiry" into the President (alleged "Russian" connections) was a lie ginned up by Hillary's campaign, that (2) they intentionally lied to a federal judge not once but multiple times to get a warrant to search and seize communications (that's a felony) and (3) this was all known before Mueller was appointed and in fact before McCabe was fired.

In other words the people involved in this series of actions knew they had no factual or Constitutional basis on which to proceed at the time they took the actions in question.

You may not agree with the fact that removing a President from office has been deemed a political process available only through impeachment -- but it's a fact.  Under a Constitutional Republic you have only one lawful means to change a defined Constitutional process, and that is to amend the Constitution.

Attempting to overthrow a lawfully-elected President via any other means is not only corrupt it's the sort of thing that happens in banana republics.  While people can joke about this or that, or have a private conversation about it and that's their right this allegedly went well beyond that, into the realm of speaking of it in as a serious matter with the FBI's General Counsel!

Baker allegedly freaked out at the suggestion -- as well he should.  He and everyone involved in such an act could legitimately hang -- literally -- for it had it been attempted and failed.

That this, when brought to the attention of Congress, didn't result in the immediate demand for everyone involved to step down, face a full and public inquiry of their actions and, to the extent laws were violated, be indicted and tried on same is even more outrageous.

Not only do we no longer have an FBI that is worthy of any support by anyone, ever under any circumstances we also no longer have a Congress, on either side of the aisle, that is worthy of support or any act of obeyance with any alleged "law" it passes.

Simply put the entirety of the Washington DC apparatus has become so full of themselves that they no longer believe any portion of the Constitution constrains their actions in any way, shape or form.

It's over folks.

America, the vision of the founders and the shining beacon of the world, has died

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-02-18 08:55 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 181 references
[Comments enabled]  

Heh look what the cat dragged in....

Here's our resident jihadist sympathizer in the United States Congress who voted to actively protect those suicide bombers in Minnesota who, prior to committing their act of terrorism, take out a life insurance policy.

ST. PAUL, Minn. — On Thursday, members of the Minnesota House voted to pass H.F. 1397, a bill which would give life insurance companies the right to deny payouts to beneficiaries whose loved one died while committing an act of terrorism.

In a bipartisan effort, Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass the bill 127-2. Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minneapolis) and John Lesch (D-St.Paul) were the only two lawmakers who voted against the measure.

If you remember the Palestinians are known for essentially creating life insurance payouts to terrorists that kill Israelis.  It's one of the bones of contention that Israel has had for a long time with the Palestinian Authority as it gives someone hell-bent on terrorism and their own death a means to "pay their death forward" to their family members.

Well, Minnesota detected this potential problem and sought to stop it -- bit shock, given the number of Somalis in their state and the outrageously outsized representation those "immigrants" have in the number of people caught trying to travel to join Isis.

Omar voted no on the bill to kill that particular obscenity in her state -- an action prompted by the shooter in San Bernardino who did exactly that in California, naming his mother as beneficiary, before he went on his little "inspired" rage.

This is what we now have in the US House folks.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-02-17 08:55 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 927 references
[Comments enabled]  

You don't have to worry about intent any more.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday issued a warning to Republicans poised to support President Trump's decision to declare a national emergency at the southern border: the next Democratic president, she said, could do the same on guns.

There it is.

There is no Constitutional Right to enter the nation unlawfully.

There is a Constitutional Right to keep and bear arms.

Indeed, there's a specific place where the Constitution has a provision for executive action to revoke what is otherwise enumerated -- Habeas Corpus -- and habeas corpus is enumerated as a privilege, not a right.

Nancy Pelosi has put into words what many have suspected of the left for a very long time -- they're willing to literally kill you if you do not agree with their "programs", legal or not, Constitutional or not.  They simply do not care what the law -- or Constitution -- says.

They'll literally do anything, including arming drug cartels (ala "Fast - N - Furious") to get what they want and don't give a damn who dies in the process.

I have no idea how many people in this nation would react to a President attempting to void the Constitution en-masse with such a declaration, deciding that the President is serious.  But that Pelosi pulled that out as an example is clear evidence that were she, or others to the left of her in office, to be in power at the time they would not immediately impeach said President to stop him or her from doing so.

And that, friends, makes quite clear that Nancy Pelosi would not only approve of she would support and perhaps even cheer an open declaration of Civil War by a Democrat President.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

Democrats have attacked Kavanaugh replacement Neomi Rao for speaking the truth in a college student paper years ago.

As they often do with nominees with impeccable professional qualifications, Democrats have resorted to sifting through past writings -- even back to college. While at Yale, Rao chose to write a column for the student paper that expressed her opinion at that moment on gender politics and rape. Senate Democrats have latched onto the old opinion piece in which Rao suggested excessive alcohol use by both men and women made young women less safe from sexual assault. She wrote:

"I've been to a lot of fraternity parties on this campus. It has always seemed self-evident to me that even if I drank a lot, I would still be responsible for my actions. A man who rapes a drunk girl should be prosecuted. At the same time, a good way to avoid a potential date******is to stay reasonably sober."

Fox claims that this was "cringe-worthy" and "written without perspective, sensitivity and nuance."


Perpetrators are, well, perpetrators.

Getting blind drunk on purpose is not consent to sex but it is an intentional act of surrendering your consciousness and physical ability to fight back if it becomes necessary and if you choose to do that voluntarily in a circumstance where you are less than 100% certain of your personal safety then you have reduced the margin of safety in your life.

That doesn't make you the subject of "shame" or "to blame" if someone attacks you (whether sexually or not) but it is a voluntary decision and may have grave consequences.

In other words what Neomi wrote is 100% accurate -- and something that every young women should hear and understand, especially young women who are prone to attend frat parties where extreme amounts of alcohol are often consumed and the peer pressure to do so may be significant.

Indeed my daughter got the same speech a few times, especially in the latter phases of High School where the same sort of "drink yourself blind" behavior might take place. I got the rolled eyes response too -- but along with that speech was the companion one, which was that if she had consumed alcohol or anything else she was free to call me for a ride from wherever she might be at any hour of the day or night and so long as she did so rather than get into someone's car where safety was in question it was "no questions asked and no retribution or punishment" for having made the wise choice.

Yeah, I'd be annoyed at being woken up at 3:00 AM to come pick her up from some place.  But I'd be a lot less annoyed doing that then having the Sheriff come bang on my door at 3:00 AM to inform me that she was dead because she'd gotten into a car wreck and her brains were splattered all over Hwy 20.

While sexual assault is certainly one potential outcome of drinking oneself blind so is death and that's even more-final than being attacked.  The trashed sense of danger and willingness to take risk that comes with intoxication is also associated with doing things like getting into a car with an intoxicated driver, which is one of the leading ways young people die.

Neomi was excoriated, in short, for not only offering wise words that might reduce the risk of being sexually assaulted she was also offering wise words that reduce the risk of being dead.

For this Democrats wish to attack her?

Well, I guess so.  And you want to know why?  Because they're responsible for admitting tens if not hundreds of thousands of animals like this to our nation:

Three men and a teenage boy are in custody after police say they sexually assaulted an 18-year-old woman earlier this month.

Elias Lupango, 19, Rashidi Mulanga, 18 and Swedi Iyombelo, 18, all of Boise, were arrested on felony******charges and booked into the Ada County Jail Thursday. The juvenile suspect, a 16-year-old boy whose name has not been released, was arrested Friday morning, and is held in Ada County’s Juvenile Detention facility.

Of course telling your daughter that hanging out with imported animals from foreign lands that share nothing of American values with us is "bigoted" and "racist."

Uh huh.

The left puts political correctness ahead of not just safety but life itself and do not deserve to be in any government position, ever.


View this entry with comments (opens new window)