The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets

One week in, this is what we appear to know.  

Please keep in mind that falsification of various records and items, including so-called "photographic evidence", is relatively common.  If you do not have an original digital image it can also be very difficult to detect -- but is usually not impossible.  I have caught a number of faked -- and false claims made from real -- images over the years on The Ticker, including the infamous one of a so-called "camera" over the shoulder of a man that was fired upon by a US Helicopter -- and which, upon closer examination, certainly looked like a RPG and not any camera I've ever seen.  Remember this?

inline

That was "Wikileaks" with a claim that we had fired on an "unarmed" set of dudes.  On examination of their video, however, the above was quite clear.  If you display that to me and I'm in a chopper I'm going to shoot you because that sure looks like an RPG, it's being handled like an RPG, and the sort of picture you're going to take of me with it is the type that makes me explode.  So with that out of the way, let's go down the bullet list....

  • MH17 appears to have been shot down by a surface-to-air missile.  The flight was operating at an altitude beyond the range of small, shoulder-fired weapons -- that much is known from public data.  Therefore, if it was hit by a missile the weapon had to be a relatively-sophisticated SAM weapon such as the SA-11.

  • Both the Ukraine and the "rebels" have or had SA-11 variants.  But the Ukraine military allegedly has none that are known in the area where the shot had to come from, simply on the distance from the target that is possible for such a weapon. This does not make it impossible that the Ukraine military fired, but it is highly unlikely.

  • A Ukraine military transport was downed a few days earlier by the separatists, presumably using the same weapon (and maybe literally the same launcher) as it too was flying above the range of shoulder-fired missiles.  This much we know as the separatists took credit for it and have not backed away from that claim.
  • The sky was quite clear at the time of the incident from public footage of the impact itself.  This strongly implies that multiple nations and certainly the US should have satellite footage of the incident.  If such a smoking gun does exist, however, it also almost-certainly came from a classified device (e.g. a spy satellite.)  The assumption has to be made that within the organs of the major nations involved they know, factually, exactly where the missile came from geographically.  Missiles leave a big trail of fire and (for solid-fuel ones) smoke, never mind the explosion on impact.

  • There are multiple reports of a BUK (SA-11) missile battery crossing back into Russia missing either one or two missiles.  There is what facially appears to be solid photographic evidence of said launcher missing said missiles.  There is enough background in such images that their actual location ought to be able to be determined with a high degree of confidence, as well as whether or not the image of the launcher has been tampered with.

  • Ukraine (the nation) does not have control over the territory on which the plane fell, the separatists do.  Therefore any claim that Ukraine's government "must allow {blah-blah-blah}" is nonsense and any nation or other organ speaking such needs to have a boot put up their ass as they are dissembing; the crash site evidence is not under the Ukranian government's control.

  • Those who have control over the crash site either directly or by proxy are the ones who must allow unfettered and unmolested access to it.  They have already failed to do so and further, have tampered with the site (rather than simply securing it.)  This is it not conjecture, it is fact as video evidence of said tampering is all over the world at this point.

  • There are reports that the ATC recordings (and presumably radar tracks as well) have been confiscated by the Ukraine government.  Is this true and if so why, where are they, and how do we know they've been forensically secured and not tampered with?

  • Irrespective of who fired and why (it's nearly-certain that whoever fired the missile they thought they were shooting at a military aircraft and not an airliner) the question remains why the airspace in the vicinity of the known presence of these missiles, especially after one was used to down a military transport, was considered open to civilian transit.  That's ****ing idiotic and the entire International community including the ICAO bears full responsibility for not issuing a strong warning to avoid transit of airspace known to be subject to the use of SAM batteries in a conflict.  The ICAO has tried to duck responsibility claiming it belongs solely to the various nations involved.  Bull****; to remain silent in the face of a known serious hazard is called negligence.  Ask GM how this is working out for them if you need an education on that principle.  It is a fact that misidentification of things flying around does happen, and it is also a fact that a civilian airliner has little to no defense against a SAM battery that is locked onto it; it is a sitting duck.

  • If you wish to argue that the Ukranian government shot this plane down then you are arguing that they did so intentionally since the separatists have had no air assets up in the sky that the government would be legitimately targeting -- in other words, it could not have been hit by mistake.  In effect you're arguing that the government took the plane down as a "false flag" operation and intentionally murdered nearly 300 people.  You better have some damn good evidence to back that one up.

If the weapon system in question was removed to Russia then Putin owns this shoot-down -- period.  That missile system could not cross the border without Russian consent; irrespective of what happened before by allowing it into his territory in an attempt to frustrate investigation he took responsibility for its use.

We'll see how this continues to develop, but this much is certain -- the so-called International Community pays exactly zero attention to closing airspace to civilian flights where it is known that unstable individuals and groups have access to and the knowledge to use highly-effective military weaponry capable of downing civilian aircraft at cruise altitudes.

In this case that hazard did not even quality as a "best guess"; it was a known fact given the very recent downing of a transport with what appears to have been same weapon system.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

I think you should back up your bull**** with a demonstration of your beliefs.

Or you could retract your lie.

EXCLUSIVE: RINCON PENINSULA, Texas -- U.S. Border Patrol agents on the American side of the Rio Grande were forced to take cover Friday night when high-caliber weaponry was fired at them from the Mexican side of the river, sources told FoxNews.com.

The weapons were fired at the U.S. side of the riverbank in the area of the Rincon Peninsula across the Rio Grande from Reynosa, Mexico, at about 8:30 p.m., sources said. Bullets ricocheted into an area where Border Patrol agents were positioned, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas, told FoxNews.com.

The Border Patrol agents believe the rounds are .50 cal too, and given the range involved there, that well might be the case.

Good thing the shooters are pretty bad shots or we'd have some dead agents.

Further, as soon as the shooting stopped a few dozen "people" (note the word invaders is not used) came out on the US side and turned themselves in -- so it appears the intention of the barrage was suppressive fire (that is, to make the agents put their head down so they can't see) while the invaders came across.

Yes, folks, invaders.

What do you call it when an armed force lays down suppressive fire across a border so that their people can come in?  That is an act of war (shooting) and an invasion.

Quit mincing words folks and call this crap what it is.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

The hypocrisy meter is off the scale with this clown.

After the collapse of the regime and the introduction of representative government, the tables were turned on the Sunnis and the Shia. The Shia, who were poorly treated under Saddam Hussein, were easily able to dominate the new, constitutionally-elected Iraqi government.

So we respect the constitutionally-elected government and will of the people, right?

Wrong.

The time is now to put pressure on the Iraqi government to change. Maliki must go. A change in Iraq’s government is our only hope.

Write a Constitution, live to it, and then when we don't like the outcome we'll dictate to you what has to happen anyway.

Oh Mike!  MIKE YOU ****ING NITWIT!

This is exactly what is wrong with America -- and our government.

We have no right to interfere with a lawfully-elected government.  We can preach and we can set an example, but that's it.

And as for setting an example Mike you could start by respecting the rule of law and demanding that we do it here.  You know, perhaps when it comes to things like our President and Congress in regard to, oh, the border, the 4th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, you know, those little things?

Yeah, that.

But -- that's not going to happen, is it Mike?

As for Iraq, leave 'em alone.  We thought we were smarter than them more than once -- first with Saddam who was our "Best Buddy" that wound up with us invading their nation twice (after standing him up as our puppet in the first place!) and now you wish to do it again.

FAIL!

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

America was founded on two basic principles, when you boil it all down:

  • Each person has unalienable rights, among them life, liberty (including the freedom to choose where to be, when and how, along with ownership of property necessary and incidental to that choice) and the pursuit (but not guarantee of attainment) of happiness.

  • Each person has the right to expect that the law shall apply equally to all, so as not to prejudice outcomes for or against any individual (or group) predicated on who they are rather than their conduct.  Conduct, voluntarily engaged in, is a proper reason for people to choose to associate or not with an individual or group.

The rest of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the Amendments that came after it, are about recognizing and protecting those two principles.  They flow from a belief that it is the inherent property of being human that endows one with these rights; no government and no person can grant them, because you cannot grant to another that which you first do not rightfully possess.

Our nation is disintegrating because we refuse to demand that these rights be enforced, backing said demand with whatever we must in order to obtain it.

You'd think that people would figure out that refusing to deal with this issue head-on or granting exceptions to it is an inherently bad thing.  You'd be wrong, in the general case, and that's most unfortunate.

It is this willingness to allow and even endorse exceptions when one doesn't like a particular law or outcome that leads to the injustices this nation is flooded with today. 

Let's list a few:

  • It is against the law (Sherman and Clayton Acts, along with Robinson-Patman) to attempt to form monopolies, price-fix and otherwise interfere with free intercourse between buyers and sellers.  These laws were passed as a consequence of various companies forming said monopolies, including for essential goods and services such as energy and food.  Your right as a manufacturer to control pricing and distribution inherently ends with the first sale to someone else, whether that "someone else" is a distributor, retailer or an end consumer.  This is a function of natural property rights -- what I own and have paid for I have the right to dispose of as I wish.  It is a rank violation of this principle to prohibit you from buying a product sold in Mexico (or Somalia for that matter) and bringing it back to the United States, provided the product is genuine (not counterfeited.)  Yet it is a felony to do so if that "product" is a drug.  Were I to have colluded with my competitors when I ran an Internet company to set prices I could have been imprisoned, yet this collusion takes place openly and notoriously in the medical field every single day.  But for the protection of the government, threatening to imprison anyone who breaks these monopolies, they could never exist.  You have about 15% of your gross income stolen from you, literally at gunpoint, as a consequence of this one area of commerce and its rank violation of the above fundamental principles alone, yet you not only allow it many of you cheer it on! 

  • It is against the law to knowingly deliver certain drugs and devices to anyone who is not the actual prescribed individual for same.  This law is an inherent violation of fundamental rights in that it is nobody's damn business what I put in my own body in the pursuit of an increase in my happiness.  It is a rank violation of this principle to declare a "war on (certain) drugs" and then prosecute people for non-violent acts in fulfillment of same.  But what's worse is supporting the granting of exceptions only to certain people and not others from the enforcement of this law.  Specifically there are those who support FedEx in their fight against the government -- they were indicted for knowingly distributing pharmaceuticals for "Internet pharmacies" that did not require prescriptions.  The test here is not whether FedEx did handle such packages, it is whether they knew and turned a blind eye to it.  If I cannot transport said drug from Mexico (where you need no prescription) to the United States on behalf of someone other than myself (that is, for end use by another person who does not have said prescription) then neither can FedEx!  The law is wrong, but allowing one entity or person to get away with it while others cannot simply screws certain people while others gain an advantage.  The Rule of Law is supposed to prohibit this, yet because certain people don't like the law or want the drugs themselves they support someone doing a blatantly and known illegal thing.  Sorry, but no.

  • The very same problem is why we had a housing bubble and crash, why we had an Internet bubble and crash, and why we now have HFT games going on that are blatantly illegal as well -- and why we will have another crash.  How many times do you have to get robbed economically before you cut that **** out?  If I sold "chocolates" in a box that my own internal memos disclosed were "vomit" I'd be in prison, and with good cause!  Yet this exact practice took place in the banking industry through the 2000s and not one person has gone to prison for it.  The Fed has a mandate for stable prices and yet they have tortured the language to be "2% inflation", a factual fraud against their statutory mandate.  Worse, their realized inflation rate has run about 3% over the same period, or 50% above their self-declared and fraudulent "target."  This has factually screwed you out somewhere between 40 and 60% of your purchasing power over the last 30 years and yet not one person has gone to prison for stealing what amounts to half of your standard of living!

  • Federal Deficit Spending is exactly the same scam as the above in terms of purchasing power.  You are sold the claim that this is to "help the poor" and "stimulate the economy", both are lies as the arithmetic says otherwise.  The poor in fact always get the purchasing power depreciation immediately and cannot offset it by playing in the market, as they have no surplus funds with which to do so.  The same is true for the lie told on countless thousands of occasions in state, county and local governments when bond issues are floated for this project or that, including schools and other public facilities -- bond issues that historically are never paid down but instead are refinanced time and time again.  In other words you never actually are done paying for that road, fire station or school despite the claim otherwise.  How many times does government get to lie and rob you -- again note that not one person has gone to prison for what is mathematically and provably an abject fraud, and if you work for these agencies you have probably advocated for said frauds!

  • The Real Estate business, banking business, insurance business and government all sell you on "home ownership."  Factually, you never own your house or the land it sits on; you are charged rent each and every year in the form of property taxes, and over the space of a human lifetime that typically exceeds the price of the house!  If I sell you something you don't actually own that is called fraud, yet all of these entities have and do act in concert to market to you something they know is a lie and not one of them has gone to prison for doing so.

I could write a literal book on the "special exceptions" to laws that permeate this nation, but the above is enough to make my point, as between these identified areas alone the average person has more than 20% of their gross income stolen off the top every year along with more than half of their net purchasing power through their working life.  

Exactly how much do you have taken from you by force before you stand up and demand that it stop?  Worse, if you're one of the people doing the stealing why shouldn't your neighbors demand you go to prison -- or worse?

We will never make progress as a society nor regain our freedom as a people until we stop allowing this sort of fraud to take place and it begins with cutting off those who argue for "exceptions" to the law that only apply to them, and not to you.  

Either a law is good or it is bad.  If it is bad then the solution is not to selectively enforce it, using it as a means to impoverish or imprison those out of favor, it is to repeal it.  If the law is good then it must be enforced equally against everyone.

To do otherwise is to surrender the two founding principles of this nation.  

You're free to argue that if you'd like as we have a First Amendment, but said First Amendment does not require that I pay for the storage and distribution ("amplification") of such opinions.

If that's your position you will find that on my private property, using my resources, you're simply not welcome.

View this entry with comments (registration required to post)
 

You can't handle the truth!

Nor can you speak it in the corporate-owned media.

“It has made the police officer’s job impossible and it has got to stop. The underlying cause of all of this, of course: young black men growing up without fathers. Unfortunately, no one in the news media has the courage to touch that subject.”

This is in reference to a "memorial" that was erected to a cop-killer.

The guy in question apparently intended to die by police -- and he also intended to ambush the cop he shot.  He allegedly told a witness to watch the news because he was "going to be famous."

Uh huh -- more like infamous.

His wife set up the memorial, which started a furor (as you might expect.)  However, that bit of "free expression" of course could not be allowed and was ordered removed.  (First Amendment?  What's that?)

No, we shouldn't celebrate people who kill cops in cold blood.  Then again we shouldn't celebrate anyone who kills people in cold blood no matter who they are nor should we "honor" officers who can't be bothered to do anything other than try to shoot a dog that comes up to them -- shooting a kid instead.  This is especially true given that were you or I to do the same thing we'd face criminal (and likely felony) charges for our outrageously negligent conduct with our weapon.

But in the meantime can we be bothered with this thing called The First Amendment -- because without that one -- the core right to free speech -- none of the others mean much of anything at all.

 

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.