Author: VD

WND column

An Ugly Autumn

For more than two years, I have been tracking the fraud being committed on an ongoing basis by America’s largest banks. As I described in a June column titled “The bank-failure recovery,” all of America’s largest banks have been inaccurately reporting the value of their assets. Based on the information revealed by the FDIC regarding the 129 bank failures this year, it is safe to conclude that around 45 percent of the value of the financial assets reported by the banks are, in fact, completely worthless.

UPDATE: Karl Denninger has a lot more details on the burgeoning banking scandal I described in today’s column:

REMICS were newly invented in 1987 as a tax avoidance measure by Investment Banks. To file as a REMIC, and in order to avoid one hundred percent (100%) taxation by the IRS and the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet, an MBS REMIC could not engage in any prohibited action. The “Trustee” can not own the assets of the REMIC. A REMIC Trustee could never claim it owned a mortgage loan. Hence, it can never be the owner of a mortgage loan.

57. Additionally, and important to the issues presented with this particular action, is the fact that in order to keep its tax status and to fund the “Trust” and legally collect money from investors, who bought into the REMIC, the “Trustee” or the more properly named, Custodian of the REMIC, had to have possession of ALL the original blue ink Promissory Notes and original allonges and assignments of the Notes, showing a complete paper chain of title.

58. Most importantly for this action, the “Trustee”/Custodian MUST have the mortgages recorded in the investors name as the beneficiaries of a MBS in the year the MBS “closed.” Every mortgage in the MBS should have been publicly recorded in the Kentucky County where the property was located with a mortgage in the name similar to “2006 ABC REMIC Trust on behalf of the beneficiaries of the 2006 ABC REMIC Trust.” The mortgages in the referenced example would all have had to been publicly recorded in the year 2006.

59. As previously pointed out, the ¡°Trusts¡± were never set up or registered as Trusts. The Promissory Notes were never obtained and the mortgages never obtained or recorded.

60. The “Trust” engaged in a plethora of “prohibited activities” and sold the investors certificates and Bonds with phantom mortgage backed assets. There are now nationwide, numerous Class actions filed by the beneficiaries (the owners/investors) of the “Trusts” against the entities who sold the investments as REMICS based on a bogus prospectus.

61. In the above scenario, even if the attorney for the servicer who is foreclosing on behalf of the Trustee (who is in turn acting for the securitized trust) produces a copy of a note, or even an alleged original, the mortgage loan was not conveyed into the trust under the requirements of the prospectus for the trust or the REMIC requirements of the IRS.

62. As applied to the Class Members in this action, the end result would be that the required MBS asset, or any part thereof (mortgage note or security interest), would not have been legally transferred to the trust to allow the trust to ever even be considered a “holder” of a mortgage loan. Neither the “Trust” or the Servicer would ever be entitled to bring a foreclosure or declaratory action. The Trust will never have standing or be a real party in interest. They will never be the proper party to appear before the Court.

63. The transfer of mortgage loans into the trust after the “cut off date” (in the example 2006), destroys the trust’s REMIC tax exempt status, and these “Trusts” (and potentially the financial entities who created them) would owe millions of dollars to the IRS and the Kentucky Revenue Cabinet as the income would be taxed at of one hundred percent (100%).

This is really big and is likely to dwarf the Lehman Bros. collapse in terms of its consequent effects. While the federal government’s response is almost surely going to be an attempt to forgive all of the tax income owed and wave off all of the criminal violations, the desperate states whose laws were violated aren’t going to be easily persuaded to go along with the whitewashing and give up all of that legitimate tax income.

Global Warming Nazis

I had previously preferred the term “global warming fascists”, but the term simply doesn’t do justice to these twisted, human-hating idealogues.  It appears we may end up eventually having to go to war with the sick bastards should they take over a country or two just like we did with their German predecessors; as with the National Socialists, the global warming extremists genuinely believe that their mad pseudo-scientific myths justify killing people. 

Fortunately, given that their tanks will be solar-powered and their cruise missiles will be launched by turbine windmills, it should take a lot less than five years to defeat them and wipe them out.  And, seeing how they won’t be utilizing carbon anymore afterwards, it will be a win-win.

It’s clear that the pro-warming media has the vague idea that something has gone seriously wrong here, even if they don’t quite understand what the negative reaction is all about.

“While many people said they found the short an amusing way of addressing the issue of apathy towards climate change issues, others found it tasteless and unnecessarily violent.”

Yeah, that was just explosively hilarious, wasn’t it? I mean, about the only thing that would have made it funnier if the self-appointed climate saviors were murdering Jewish schoolchildren… no, make that gay Jewish schoolchildren. Ho, ho, ho.

Teachers is smart

Okay, so it appears I may have overestimated the average intelligence of teachers when I calculated it at around 90 IQ.  Mea culpa.  Now, here’s the damning quote: “Every other student in class accepted my lesson without argument….”  Keep in mind that’s almost surely true of your public-schooled children too, even when they are being taught that black is white and kilometers are longer than miles.

CGW request

If anyone has a collection of old Computer Gaming World magazines from the early 1990s, I am looking for an article written by Mike Weksler about 3D hardware that referenced both Chris Taylor and Ime. It probably mentioned a chip called 3GA as well and would have run sometime between 1992 and 1995. Unfortunately, I’m not sure what issue it was except that it was after the first 100 issues that are archived online at the CGW Museum. If you can tell me the issue, or better yet, scan the article and send it to me, I would appreciate it.

VPFL Week 3

84 Bane Sidhe (2-1)
57 Winston Reverends (2-1)

82 RR Redbeards (2-1)
63 Blackmouth Banksters (2-1)

76 Valders Quixotes (2-1)
73 Moundsview Meerkats (0-3)

68 Meigs Marauders (2-1)
54 MS Swamp Spartans (0-3)

57 Judean Rhyneaux (2-1)
55 Greenfield Grizzlies (1-2)

My two much ballyhooed young starting RBs, Shon Greene and Ryan Matthews, have cost me at least two games already. Here’s hoping that Pete Carroll has the brains to start handing the ball to the electric Leon Washington.

I tend to agree

The Ferenghi have abandoned literary capitalism:

“I’ve decided not to publish any more books in the traditional way. 12 for 12 and I’m done. I like the people, but I can’t abide the long wait, the filters, the big push at launch, the nudging to get people to go to a store they don’t usually visit to buy something they don’t usually buy, to get them to pay for an idea in a form that’s hard to spread … I really don’t think the process is worth the effort that it now takes to make it work. I can reach 10 or 50 times as many people electronically.

Granted, I appear to have skipped the whole “bestseller” bit unless you want to count a very specific and esoteric niche, but I am leaning more and more towards small publishing houses despite the various offers I have from traditional publishers. That being said, WND Books did a very nice job with RGD, so I’ll probably continue to do my non-fiction with them.

R.I.P. Joe Sobran

A great American has died. But we are fortunate in that his words remain with us. One of his more important articles was this one from 1999 on teaching your children about government.

Teach Your Children Well
by Joseph Sobran
Mises Daily, August 23, 1999

Because I write about politics, people are forever asking me the best way to teach children how our system of government works. I tell them that they can give their own children a basic civics course right in their own homes.

In my own experience as a father, I have discovered several simple devices that can illustrate to a child’s mind the principles on which the modern state deals with its citizens. You may find them helpful, too.

For example, I used to play the simple card game WAR with my son. After a while, when he thoroughly understood that the higher ranking cards beat the lower ranking ones, I created a new game I called GOVERNMENT. In this game, I was Government, and I won every trick, regardless of who had the better card. My boy soon lost interest in my new game, but I like to think it taught him a valuable lesson for later in life.

When your child is a little older, you can teach him about our tax system in a way that is easy to grasp. Offer him, say, $10 to mow the lawn. When he has mowed it and asks to be paid, withhold $5 and explain that this is income tax. Give $1 to his younger brother, and tell him that this is “fair”. Also, explain that you need the other $4 yourself to cover the administrative costs of dividing the money. When he cries, tell him he is being “selfish” and “greedy”. Later in life he will thank you.

Make as many rules as possible. Leave the reasons for them obscure. Enforce them arbitrarily. Accuse your child of breaking rules you have never told him about. Keep him anxious that he may be violating commands you haven’t yet issued. Instill in him the feeling that rules are utterly irrational. This will prepare him for living under democratic government.

When your child has matured sufficiently to understand how the judicial system works, set a bedtime for him and then send him to bed an hour early. When he tearfully accuses you of breaking the rules, explain that you made the rules and you can interpret them in any way that seems appropriate to you, according to changing conditions. This will prepare him for the Supreme Court’s concept of the U.S. Constitution as a “living document”.

Promise often to take him to the movies or the zoo, and then, at the appointed hour, recline in an easy chair with a newspaper and tell him you have changed your plans. When he screams, “But you promised!”, explain to him that it was a campaign promise.

Every now and then, without warning, slap your child. Then explain that this is defense. Tell him that you must be vigilant at all times to stop any potential enemy before he gets big enough to hurt you. This, too, your child will appreciate, not right at that moment, maybe, but later in life.

At times your child will naturally express discontent with your methods. He may even give voice to a petulant wish that he lived with another family. To forestall and minimize this reaction, tell him how lucky he is to be with you the most loving and indulgent parent in the world, and recount lurid stories of the cruelties of other parents. This will make him loyal to you and, later, receptive to schoolroom claims that the America of the postmodern welfare state is still the best and freest country on Earth.

This brings me to the most important child-rearing technique of all: lying. Lie to your child constantly. Teach him that words mean nothing–or rather that the meanings of words are continually “evolving”, and may be tomorrow the opposite of what they are today.

Some readers may object that this is a poor way to raise a child. A few may even call it child abuse. But that’s the whole point: Child abuse is the best preparation for adult life under our form of GOVERNMENT.

Joseph Sobran
February 23, 1946 – September 30, 2010
Reactionary Utopian Archive

That didn’t take long

When I saw that a number of hypersensitive orientationally-challenged individuals in faux mourning for someone they never met were visiting in order to emote in their inimitably dramatic fashion over my dispassionate observations on the Clementi suicide, my first thought was, “I wonder how long it will take before someone sees fit to strike a blow for truth, justice, and the Sodomite Way by vandalizing Wikipedia?” It turns out the answer was 19 hours and 46 minutes. It was surprisingly calm and measured in comparison with the militant New Atheists, actually.

“…according to this ethic, “only a woman who is not entertaining the possibility of sex with a man can be considered a wholly innocent victim”, rape is nevertheless “really fun,” and that “[n]either the Jew nor the Christian need hesitate before asserting the act of rape to be just totally awesome and justly giving the rapist bitchin’ high fives.”

I rather like that version; pity someone has already reverted it. But to paraphrase Norman Mailer, thank you, predictable bitches! I note that despite 300+ comments still no one has yet managed to answer the perfectly straightforward question: by what recognized moral or ethic does one conclude that a) homosexual activity is moral, and b) rape is immoral?

I ask merely for informationpersonal amusement, you understand.

Mailvox: an atheist on the religion survey

S contemplates the Pew quiz:

I read with considerable interest your post earlier today about the Pew religious knowledge quiz. I took the test and was surprised to discover that even though I’m an atheist (and am apparently rather unusual in professing that I don’t really hate religion and have no particular desire to destroy the concept of God), I scored 73%. So, not great, but not bad either. By way of background, I’ve got an undergraduate degree in Maths and Economics, and a Master’s in financial Mathematics. I seemed to do pretty well compared to both believers and non-believers from all backgrounds.

The reason I write today about this is that I just finished watching Bill Maher “debating” Bill O’Reilly on the Factor tonight after taking that quiz and was appalled by the immaturity and folly of a supposedly “enlightened” atheist. Now I’m not a big fan of O’Reilly’s, but I was stunned to see just how utterly ignorant a militant atheist like Bill Maher is about Christianity, which he apparently hates with a vengeance. He seems to think that the Bible is the literal word of God, when even an atheist like me understands that this is not the way the Bible is written, nor is it the way the Bible is canonically interpreted. He thinks that Christian scripture and law is derived from the Old Testament- he quoted from Deuteronomy stating the Mosaic law that he who breaks the Sabbath shall be killed, even though the actual quote is from Exodus, and Maher quoted it out of context. He seems to believe that Christianity and science are incompatible, but I’ve accepted for a long time now that the Enlightenment simply could not have happened without Judeo-Christian tradition, law, and science.

Vox, I doubt you and I will ever agree about the existence or nature of God. However, I find myself strongly agreeing with you about these pinheads (to coin a phrase) who call themselves atheists but who are little more than “social autists” with little understanding of what they criticise. And even where we inevitably disagree, I suspect that our disagreements will generally be far more genial and fair-minded than anything that atheists like Bill Maher are capable of. Thanks for the great writing; I certainly look forward to reading a lot more of it to come.

S understands, in a way that many do not, that I have absolutely no problem with atheists qua atheists. I was, after all, agnostic for a long time and I still find myself generally more comfortable in secular intellectual culture than in American evangelical culture. For example, if you peruse my reading list for 2010, you will look in vain for the religious self-help books and rehashed theological fiction that make up the vast majority of CBA publishing today. I’d much rather kick back in the Comfy Chair and read Balzac or Procopius than anything that is likely to appear in a Northwestern Bookstore.

The fact is that I neither despise nor pity those who don’t believe in God. My opinion about them is similar to what it would be of those who don’t believe in gravity because they cannot see it. (See the actual force, not its effects.) Because the effects of rejecting God are both clearly delineated and observable, I simply find it a little strange that some people cannot see those effects and on that basis deny the existence of the causal factor. But that doesn’t bother or upset me, it merely causes me to mentally shrug my shoulders and think, “well, good luck with that”.

On the other hand, having a very small degree of orange-green color blindness, I can completely understand the bewildered feeling of an individual who simply does not see the big orange letter on the green background to which another individual is pointing, wondering what on Earth he could possibly be seeing.

The atheists with whom I do have a problem, and for whom I regularly demonstrate a great deal of contempt, are the liars, the cheats, the deceivers, and the malicious. If one genuinely believes that religion is a crutch for the weak and psychologically needed, what does it say about those who are so eager to kick that crutch out from under those who clearly need its support? And, as an armchair intellectual, I find their willful ignorance of history, religion, and philosophy to be as astonishing as it is irksome. Intelligent? I don’t even consider them to be educated. To claim that religion either causes war or is an important strategic element of war is to be every bit as ignorant as the apocryphal Flat Earth proponents so often cited; the significant difference being that the Religion Causes War Society not only exists but is even willing to expound their ludicrous and historically illiterate arguments in public.

Anyhow, I very much welcome atheists of S’s stripe here. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me all the time about anything; my best and oldest friend has made a habit of playing Devil’s Advocate in our conversations for more than three decades. The reason I value the questions and the doubts of intelligent atheists who are more interested in rational debate than in exhibiting their psychological issues is because they help keep the Christians and other theists from lapsing into intellectual sloth and thereby prevent this blog from devolving into the sort of circle jerk that has rendered the New Atheism so toothless.

But speaking of the quiz, it is worth pointing out, as Bethyada noted yesterday, that the Pew Forum ignored its own definitions of “atheist” and “agnostic” in reporting the results. Whereas self-identified atheists and agnostics scored 20.9, the Pew Forum defined an atheist as “someone who does not believe in God” and an agnostic as “someone who is unsure that God exists”. Therefore, the “nothing in particular” crowd should have been included in the “atheists and agnostics” group – supporting the case made in TIA, these Low Church Atheists outnumber the self-identified High Church ones by a factor of 4.5 – which reduces the atheist and agnostic score to 17.4, below that of white evangelicals at 17.6.

Incompetent biologists

The butterfly collectors should probably leave the metaphysics and philosophy alone considering that they can’t even do their own jobs properly:

A study has found that a third of all mammal species declared extinct in the past few centuries have turned up alive and well. Some of the more reclusive creatures managed to hide from sight for 80 years only to reappear within four years of being officially named extinct in the wild….

Dr Diana Fisher, of the University of Queensland, Australia, compiled a list of all mammals declared extinct since the 16th century or which were flagged up as missing in scientific papers. ‘We identified 187 mammal species that have been missing since 1500,’ she wrote in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. ‘In the complete data-set, 67 species that were once missing have been rediscovered. More than a third of mammal species that have been classified as extinct or possibly extinct, or flagged as missing, have been rediscovered.’

That is a stunning record of professional incompetence, one that is surpassed only by Keynesian economists. Clearly one can safely ignore pretty much everything these intrepid scientists declare about one species magically transforming into another one as well, considering their proven inability to determine if a specific species even exists or not. And, needless to say, this raises some serious doubts about the assertion made by various members of the profession that God doesn’t exist either. If you’re not capable of correctly ascertaining the existence or not-existence of the Vanikoro Flying Fox of the Solomon Islands, then logic dictates you should steer very clear of the debate about the existence of God.