I took a break from blogging and now I’m back. I decided to start with a new domain name though. I was doing a “no-no” by mixing politics, religion and my business on the previous site. I did move those posts over here (for the record).
In the 19th century, during that time when many scientific discoveries (such as dinosaur fossils) were made, the “world” was looking for answers to explain how there were so many signs that the Earth was really, really, REALLY old. One of the answers proposed was from someone very few have even heard of today. He was a contemporary to Darwin and postulated a completely different set of ideas to explain what looked like the “old age” of the earth.
MERS (The Mortgage Electronic registration System) is a system developed by the mortgage bankers that on its website states “MERS eliminates the need to prepare and record assignments when trading residential and commercial mortgage loans.”
As bad as I feel for the cat, even more my heart goes out for all the copy-cat (pun intended) victims that could be encouraged by them providing all the publicity about it.
This BBC article reports the following comment made by a “leader” of the republican party about Obama’s proposed infrastructure rebuilding plan -
Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said the plan “should be met with justifiable scepticism” because it would raise taxes.
Haha, excuse me Mr McConnell .. the Senate has approved upping the national debt ceiling at least 50 times in the last 50 years, effectively placing all the unpaid bills on future generations. Since you all have figured out how to increase spending without raising taxes (and thus get yourselves re-elected) you cannot possibly mean what you said, unless, of course, you figure that the debt burden now extends so far in the future that you mean it will raise taxes on our great-great grandkids?
The headline in the BBC article reads ”
Apparently our friends over there across the pond are just as much a delusional, lying, hypocritical bunch as we are here in the states when it comes to reducing government debt. Neither they nor us are EVER going to do anything about debt reduction – EVER for one simple reason …
We all live in “democracies” and the unborn can’t and don’t vote. Since the “living” have figured out they can promise the sweat off the unborn’s backs as collateral for their deficit spending there is no stopping the feeding frenzy on the flesh of the unborn. They will never muster the political will to end deficit spending and it will only be forced upon them by either the creditors no longer believing they will be able to collect from the as yet unborn (and thus they stop lending) or the public make the act of putting debt onto the unborn illegal and put the perpetrators of such acts behind bars. But again, since the unborn can’t vote it becomes the victim of the “living” majority.
But there is another option I failed to mention that will, I believe, be the most likely way this worldwide practice of consuming the prosperity of the unborn will be defeated. First, we must recognize that any debt we place on the unborn is illegal and unenforceable as a point of law. Second, we must make the next generation aware of that fact and aware that the previous generation is selling them out. Third, we get them to realize they simply have to refute that debt which would mean the creditors would have to go after the current generation to extract payment. Since they do not have that money, they are declared bankrupt and THAT generation loses its wealth but the future generations are set free from the debt.
I believe we will soon start to see tax revolts spreading as more and more youth recognize that they never contracted to repay that debt, were not part of its formation, and simply repudiate them. Everything comes to a screeching halt … and we all start again … debt free.
The announcement that scientists have created so-called “synthetic ” life are in the headlines but the claims are simply false. What the scientists have actually accomplished is synthetically creating the “code” that goes into a cell, the DNA. While life is not possible without DNA dna is not, in itself, “life”.
So while DNA is not alive, and creating it synthetically has been hailed as a huge scientific breakthrough are we closer or further from determining the origin of life? In a way, yes we are, because now scientists can see how one incredibly complex component of life can be created. Now they can perhaps come up with theories of ways that such could have been created in nature and not in a laboratory. In other words, now that they have an actual process that can create the component they can now formulate theories of how nature could, itself, create that component. I look forward to seeing those theories develop in the coming months and years.
But as such work relates to the origin of life they still have such a long, long way to go. The scientists injected the DNA into a cell, and the cell then used the DNA to start replicating itself. They had the corresponding component (the cell) to accompany their own, new component. The origin of life then, is intricately tied to both the cell and the DNA. Life cannot start unless both come together as one.
A theory for origin of life must therefore start from a point where DNA and the cell evolved separately. Such a proposition does seem quite absurd especially since evolutionary theory require huge amounts of time for random probability to enable such transformation. For DNA and cells to evolve (sans DNA) to have evolved separately the evidence should have both readily available and numerous througfhout nature in today’s environement as well. After all, they are the basic building block.
With “synthetic life” being all over the headlines these days the discussion usually includes the possibilty of ‘something’ escaping in a Frankenstein type way and causing “more” harm than good.
But what if something escaped and wiped out a continent’s entire population? Should the world accept a simple “Oops, where sorry and we promise we won’t let it happen again” from the scientists involved or should they be charged with unleashing ‘wepaons of mass destruction’ and ‘crimes against humanity’ charges?
in my own family tree I have a grandmother that I never met that died from the flu in 1918. It may or may not have been the same strain that had wiped out millions a few years earlier, I don’t know, but the possibility is certainly there. A few years ago, Canadian scientists discovered a corpse in the permanently frozen areas of that country that had died from what has become known as the deadliest flu virus ever to rage through the planet. The scientist began to culture that virus AGAIN, supposedly in order to help us.
The basic question I am asking is whether science is truly worthy to receive carte blance to gamble with millions of lives (that would be the cost of their failure to keep the deadly agent contained) and not face consequences if they fail.
I believe they should face dire consequences if they fail. After all, if a person murders another they will get life in prison and/or the death penalty. What would a fitting penalty be for scientists that killed millions or more? In such a scenario it almost seems life in prison and even death does not serve as enough punishment.
It basically comes down to statistics and probability. The ‘chance’ or ‘odds’ of their work escaping is minuscule they will tell us. And the cure? Well, we can depend on them for that too, they will say, so again the ‘odds’ and ‘probability’ are minuscule that the escape could lead to catastrophe. But just like a gambler at a roulette table, the losing roll will come up. That is also odds and probability. So what do we do when that happens?
While dealing with the punishment when it happens or shortly after would be an emotionally charged time where reason would probably be put to the wayside, we can deliberate and discuss the possibility rationnally now so that, heaven forbid, the unlikely happens we have at done at least some preparation.
At the root of such a deliberation is the problem, I think, of coming up with a punishment fitting the crime.As stated earlier, a murder of one gets a sizeable penalty so a murderer of millions should get an even greater penalty. So could/should a punishment “worst than death” be devised for any scientists that let such a catastrophe happen?
Now, when I say that, I don’t mean the Federal Reserve doesn’t have the legal right to exist. No, that decision is left to the realm and the domain of lawyers and judges. Rather, I am talking again about the use of the word ‘dollar” by the Federal Reserve Note. The Federal Reserve NOTE has become known around the world as “the dollar” and what I want to show is that it (the FRN) is NOT a dollar but and is merely a usurper of that position
According to the Dictionary.com
u·surp means
1.
to seize and hold (a position, office, power, etc.) by force or without legal right: The pretender tried to usurp the throne.2.
to use without authority or right; employ wrongfully: The magazine usurped copyrighted material.–verb (used without object)
3.
to commit forcible or illegal seizure of an office, power, etc.; encroach.
Origin:
1275–1325; ME < L ?s?rp?re to take possession through use, equiv. to ?s? (abl. of ?sus use (n.)) + -rp-, reduced form of -rip-, comb. form of rapere to seize + -?re inf. ending—Related forms
u·surp·er, nounu·surp·ing·ly, adverbnon·u·surp·ing, adjectivenon·u·surp·ing·ly, adverbself-u·surp, verb (used without object)un·u·surped, adjectiveun·u·surp·ing, adjectiveDictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010.
Cite This Source
The attribute of a usurper I want to call attention to is the idea of it being “without legal right” to hold what it has. The FRN, no doubt, is used as if it is “a dollar” throughout the world but its very name “NOTE” is defined again by dictionary.com as
A note is security for a debt. The one in debt is the one on the face of the document. In this case the Federal Reserve Bank is in debt and is supposed to be paying what the note says it will pay. It used to be that they said “dollars” on their notes because they would pay real dollars to redeem them, sort of like “cashing” a check. But we all know that today you cannot redeem a FRN for one a damn thing so not only are they a usurper of the word ‘dollar” but they are also misrepresenting the idea of it even being a note. So while it calls itself a note it doesn’t pay anything and while it is called a “dollar” it is not.
Is there anything about the FRN that is REAL? I venture the answer to that is yes, there is something very real about the FRN and that is the idea that it is a usurper of the dollar, it is a fraud, and has no right to be used in exchange for a dollar. And if it cannot be exchanged for anything, even its claim of being a note is fraudulent.
I keep hearing Peter Schiff (a famous author, economist, YouTube blogger, TV personality and now Republican candidate for the senate for the state of Connecticut) harp his opinion that the ‘right” thing to do regarding our national debt is for us to stop the overspending and to pay it off. He regularly jumps on the morality bandwagon and calls it the right thing to do. Well I think what he proposes is the complete opposite as it is based on a list of misrepresentations and out and out lies (I believe because he should know better) and here is why I say that:
Peter Schiff is well aware of the fraud that the Federal Reserve System is perpetrating on the world. He regularly and vehemently blasts the Federal Reserve using expressions such as “printing phony money” or ‘money out of thin air”. Those views about the Federal Reserve are 100% correct in my opinion and I agree with him totally on that.
But Peter Schiff’s proposed solution for our economic woes always includes the idea of preserving (not purging) the current evil system. How can he claim a high moral standard while trying to maintain the current corrupt system? How does he propose to keep the same problem from recurring in the future?
But his lack of moral standards gets even worse in my opinion because he is really trying to contract for future generation (which he has absolutely no right to do either legally or morally). He is, in essence, trying to sentence future generations to slavery in order to pay for the sins of his generation. That is the complete OPPOSITE of a high moral standard. If he were to say something to the tune of paying the national debt off in five years by the current generation (not just balancing the budget mind you but retiring the debt) then yes, that would be the moral thing to do.
As an economist Peter Schiff knows and teaches that printing money “out of thin air” causes inflation. It is, in fact, his favorite topic to bang his drum with. He regularly makes dire predictions of hyper-inflation and eventual collapse of the Federal Reserve system which he says would be far worse than us simply resolving to pay ‘our’ debt. I feel comfortable saying that it is not the future generations debt but the present generations debt and Peter Schiff needs to start acknowledging that.
But he also knows that when it comes to the effects of inflation there are winners and losers. In the days of double-digit inflation, while it was very difficult to get oneself in debt because interest rates were so high and lending standards were so strict (all things that Peter Schiff embraces), those that had accumulated debt already saw major portions of it wiped out by the inflation. In fact, one of the money management strategies in a inflationary wave is to actually borrow as much as one can because you “know” you can pay it back with cheaper “dollars” in the future.
Peter Schiff then fear mongers that inflating our money supply will scare our creditors away which, he claims, will all be part of what “makes it worse” for us. Well, it seems like we are going to stop spending more than what we earn either way, Mr Schiff, and the only issue on the table is whether we maintain the purchasing power of the currency as it stands (thus maintaining YOUR WEALTH) or we inflate the crap out of our currency, drive the creditors out of the country (which you SAY you are in favor of) and wipe the debt out ourselves and set the future generations free of the debt all at the same time. That cost of their freedom, however, is the loss of your generation’s current wealth because your “money” will become worthless
But the final nail in his high morality claim is the fact that all the creditors have known that we, the United States of America, can and do print our money out of thin air and that we have done so for FORTY YEARS! So, now that the current generation have made their fortunes as a result of our system printing it up for that long Peter Schiff is now being a rat ready to jump from a sinking ship. He wants to have his cake and eat it to. He wants to preserve the current corrupt system in order to maintain his and his client’s wealth but knows the system he used to accumulate it is fraudulent. But rather than giving the fraudulently obtained wealth (by that I mean all the wealth accumulated under a system of printing it out of thin air) he now wants to instill “discipline”on the current generation that his never exercised. He wants to prevent the current generation the same privilege of printing and inflating debt away that his generation enjoyed.
And who does this all protect? The Chinese who hold trillions of our debt. Did they not know we print that stuff out of thin air? Are they THAT STUPID? Peter Schiff regularly blasts the members of Congress as being stupid but I think the Chinese are far more stupid. In fact, we need to add the Central Bankers from all around the world as well because they all have been squirrelling away these worthless pieces of paper in their vaults. They all play this stupid game of “loaning” us the worthless paper in exchange for promises to pay them back even more worthless paper. And that, Mr Schiff is the bottom line. Our creditors all loaned us “money printed out of thin air” in exchange for promises to pay them back even more “money printed out of thin air”. Now you come along and want to change the terms of that deal and are willing to sacrifice the future generations of America to do that. As much as you rattle the “Constitution” and your aggrandizing of your own patriotism and morality you are the complete opposite. You are selling the future generations of Americans on the auction block of slavery to pay back something no one ever said they would pay. Our creditors loaned us phony money and expect to be paid back phoney money as well. For you to change the terms of that in the name of future generations is highly immoral, illegal, treasonous and shameful. You do not have power of attorney for the future generations, you do not even have broker status for them. Even if all the minors in the country signed documents granted you those powers they would be void or voidable.
How can you not see all this?