In this page, we'll highlight three examples of character evidence. Not the courtroom type, but rather the everyday life examples. I'll tell you in advance that these three don't go together, but they clearly define integrity levels. We always learn more about people by their actions. As I've written before, our children do what they see us do, not what they hear us say. As their most important teacher, it's up to us to know the way, show the way, and go the way of truth and integrity.
The challenge in any web page is keeping the readers with us all the way through the page. I prefer the direct approach, so I'll ask you upfront to stay with us. I think you'll see some definite trends and some examples of character evidence that are shining in their sincerity and some that are sinister in their greed and disregard for doing what is right.
While two of the examples will present the negative side and one the concern for improving the lives of the citizens of the world, all three are tied together by one powerful result of previous actions. That result is called derivatives. Setting aside the very specific math definition, Merriam-Webster also defines derivatives as "something that comes from something else."
There are pros and cons for those of us living in our second half-century on earth. We have some new aches and pains at times. It takes a little longer to get over them now.
But hopefully we've also learned some things. Hopefully we've learned from history. I've learned that when people or companies have a past history of dishonesty and corruption, it's my fault if I believe them, not theirs. It's my fault if I don't ask questions and question answers.
Regular readers at books-empower.com know that I spent over a decade as a mortgage broker. That decade included the period where mortgage shops were springing up on every corner. Oversight was lax, to say the least. Here is the best example I can give you.
There was a program called a "stated income" loan. This was developed for self-employed people who utilized the income tax code to their advantage. Their adjusted gross income was lower because of completely legal tax deductions.
A person needed to have exceptional credit. They needed to verify that they had been self employed for a number of years and they needed a CPA letter documenting that they did indeed make a solid income-one that would actually cover their living expenses.
Character evidence was part of that CPA requirement. I'm not writing that all certified public accountants are above reproach. But the penalties were stiff enough that very few would risk losing their license by lying about one mortgage application. These types of loans hardly ever went bad. The borrowers were rock solid.
This is where the derivatives come into play. In this case, the math-related definition also enters into the equation, no pun intended. Since these stated loans worked so well, lenders wanted to increase their profits.
Hopefully you've checked out our resource library in the left margin. In there you'll find a series of videos from Mike Maloney. He gives a great explanation of how banks use fractional lending to leverage deposits.
Lenders decided to not only allow these stated loans for W2 employees, but they reduced the credit score requirement below 600. Far below. The income part wasn't a big problem, but approving loans to borrowers with low scores opened the door to completely predictable results. There was no way many of these borrowers would pay their mortgage. In too many instances, a low credit score indicates a problem with paying bills.
Then came the ultimate taxpayer ripoff. The "NINJA" loan. This little marketing gem was an acrostic for no income, no job, no asset. In other words, you were breathing, so you qualified. Many of us in the business refused to write all these loans as well as any "sub-prime" loan. We could see clearly what was going to happen.
The sub-prime loans get all the negative ink, but these other loans contributed to the problem. The loans were bundled up and sold as derivatives. Those selling them knew the deal was tainted. They knew many of these loans would go belly up. The also knew the federal government would bail the banks out. With taxpayer money. They learned from history. The saving and loan fiasco of the late 80's was their guide.
In his excellent book "Why "A" Students Work For "C" Students And "B" Students Work For The Government," Robert Kiyosaki quotes Warren Buffet as describing derivatives as "weapons of mass destruction." Of course, Mr. Buffet also made millions of dollars selling these derivatives down the line to someone else.
Sharyl Attkisson reveals an incredible example of the most egregious example of character evidence in her book titled "Stonewalled." How this type of action could ever be sanctioned by an executive branch of the United States is unimaginable.
"The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had, in essence, helped supply Mexico's killer drug cartels with fearsome weapons. Why would an agency that's supposed to do the opposite-stop the flow of weapons-engage in this kind of dangerous behavior for any reason?....
ATF secretly enlisted the help of licensed gun dealers in Arizona and encouraged them to do the unthinkable: sell AK-47 type semiautomatic assault rifles, .50-caliber guns capable of taking down an elephant, and other firearms to suspected traffickers for the cartels....ATF knew the guns would hit the streets and be used in crimes both north and south of the border. That was part of the plan. It's called letting guns "walk," and as an unintended consequence, people were dying...
The Fast and Furious weapons will be be turning up in crimes on both sides of the border for decades to come. That's why in law enforcement one of the cardinal rules is; never, ever let guns walk."
The derivative of this action is obvious. The body counts reveal the results. The character evidence revealed in this example is even worse than the one listed above. Even more is shown by the previous administration's refusal to allow any investigation into this incredible display of ineptitude and possible criminal activity sanctioned by the "justice" department.
Around the world, cities host a yearly "March On Monsanto." These events are designed to raise awareness to the long-term dangers presented by members of the Monsanto conspiracy.
This isn't just about genetically modified seeds. Monsanto isn't about genetically modified seeds. Those are just the ice breakers-the means to get inside the door. Their goal is complete domination of the food supply of the world.
The seed monopoly is really a small part of the problem. The derivatives are much more sinister. The seeds require massive doses of herbicides, also sold by the same seed conglomerates.
All the arguments put forward about GMO's are being exposed as incorrect. Yields have not increased. Water usage has not gone down. Pesticide usage has exploded as the weed killers lose effectiveness. The weeds are now tougher than the toxic killer.
Mono-culture farming is creating havoc with soil quality. But profits are going very well for Monsanto. As long as the bottom line remains sound, all is well in Monsanto land.
Being part of that group in our second half-century, I remember the lies from big tobacco. I remember the reports about the safety of trans fats. And I remember the rising body counts.
I remember the results of those "safe" PCB products and those dioxins. The people in Anniston Alabama and Nitro West Virginia are still living with the derivatives. Character evidence is revealed in the end results of those disasters.
As our children's most important teacher, we can teach them to stand up for what is right. Character evidence from a positive view shows up in the efforts of those who organize these marches around the world. It shows up in those who attend the events and in those who seek answers.
Nearly every action has some form of derivative. True character evidence is revealed by those actions. Are we standing up for what is right because it is right? Or are we taking the money and running, regardless of the derivative effect?