Obama’s Consumer Protection Bureau

Welcome to the Obomination. Their motto: “We can do anything we damn well please, and you have to like it.”
Another executive branch organization or bureau has been created that has no congressional oversight. While it true that the results of congressional oversight are spotty at best, (Fannie Mae, or Freddie Mac) at least we the people have a chance for input. Theoretically we can force the government to respond to our needs/concerns because of the power of the vote.
This administration uses czars to bypass that modicum of control. The czars answer to
no one but the president. They are not approved by the Senate. Their budgets are not
controlled by the House. They doe to answer for their actions to the people.
In fact, congress has passed legislation that this bureau does not answer to them, that congress can do nothing about any of the rulings made. Congress cannot cut off funding to the bureau – it is funded by the Federal Reserve.
The head of the bureau, Elizabeth Warren, is another college professor with no experience in the real world other than an affinity for socialism and Marxism. It is extremely troubling for a person who does not have the best interests of the United States of America at heart to be in charge of a bureau that will have its fingers in almost every financial transaction we do. Your credit card purchases – she will track them. Consumer or other loans – she will track them. Your checking account activity – she will track them. Your savings account, your investments, almost everything will lie open and exposed to the federal government’s prying eyes.
Talk about invasion of our privacy!

We have to stand up and be heard. This has to stop.

WYSWYG Part 2

When are perceptions reality? When does what we witness, over-ride what we are told to believe? We are told that Americans do not rightly perceive Muslims as peaceful, that Islam is a peaceful faith. There are several articles in the local newspaper, the Zero, showing concern that our perceptions are wrong.

Is Islam a religion of peace? The answers are mixed based on the evidence available. It does seem that most of the Muslims you bump into, or work with, or walk the grocery store aisles with, are peaceful. They, just like you or me, want to live their lives, raise their kids, worship their god in peace and safety. They do not want to be hassled; they want to mind their own business and expect the non-Muslims to do the same.

Which brings us to the question: in the last 10 years, how many suicide terrorist bombers have been Hindu? Buddhist? Catholic? Baptist? Protestant of any persuasion? In the last five years, how many Christians have launched rockets loaded with explosives at villages, or cities to kill innocent civilians? In the last 30 years how many commercial airliners have been hijacked by Lutherans? Wiccans? Since 1972, when the Muslim terrorists kidnapped and killed the Israeli Olympic team, what is the percentage of terrorist acts done in the name of the Muslim’s god? There are terrorist acts perpetrated by communist insurgents in South America, Indonesia, etc., but these are in the minority.

This presents a dilemma: Is Islam a peaceful religion?
Yeah, but…the terrorists, suicide bombers, hijackers, rocket launchers are a radical minority, they don’t represent the majority. Okay, let’s say that’s true. Where is this ’majority’ in their denunciation of the ‘minority’ perpetrated atrocities? Those dancing in the streets when the Twin Towers fell – a minority? Show me any Christians celebrating when lives are lost in Muslim countries – either by Muslim-on-Muslim violence, or any other means. This one fact is illustrative. There is another not-small problem: when gun-toting, bomb-wearing nutjobs are all around you, of course discretion is required. You and your family can be killed, tortured, beheaded for mentioning you do not agree with the 'minority'. Again, what about those peaceful Muslims in America, why don't they speak up, speak out? They are not surrounded by crazies, are they? If they fear for their families here in America, then the crazies are everywhere and the peaceful Muslims are the minority, not the majority as we are led to believe.

When a nutball preacher in Florida threatened to burn the Koran, there was moral outrage from Christians all over the U.S. We received threats of violence, and got mob riots from the Muslims. One imam, or mullah, or whatever said that burning the Koran would cut the heart of Islam. Really? Islam is so weak, so fragile that one person can ruin the Islam faith? If we publicly destroyed thousands of Korans, would the whole theocratic Islamic empire collapse? I doubt it. The religion we see has a way to go to prove itself by its actions as peaceful.

***

WYSWYG

I was reading the local newspaper, oft-times referred to as “the Zero”, and found several seemingly unrelated articles. Therw was a link between them – “perception”. The first article was worried that the president is “perceived” to be a Muslim. The second article pondered the perception that Muslims are not peaceful or peace-loving. Another article wondered why the American people can’t perceive how great the economy is doing. There are other examples of things not perceived as the liberal progressives think we ought to do so – “the border is more secure than it has ever been”, “the Tea Party is populated by racist homophobe bigoted trailer trash red-neck fools”, etc.

Which brings me to What You See is What You Get: I don’t believe that we Americans are misunderstanding what we are seeing daily from our leaders, and the world around us. If perhaps we were discussing a fleeting incident, happening only once and flashing by at that, then maybe you could chalk it up to mis-perception. We have read, or seen, statistics that show for any group of witnesses to an event there are at least as many versions of the event as there are witnesses. But like watching a commercial on TV, or listening to a song; repetition begins to crystallize what is being seen or heard. With personal behavior, what is observed has more impact, than what is said. When a wife-beater says, “I love you,” but still smacks his wife around we conclude that perhaps he doesn’t, or has sick and twisted version of love. In any case, we don’t want any part of it. When a person says he is a Christian, but shows few outward signs (aka: hypocrite) we can doubt his salvation. Yes, I know that this is between him and God, and I am glad I do not have to make that judgment.

Is the president a Muslim or a Christian? I don’t know – but I have some observations. Based on his actions, I think perhaps he is a socialist, a secular humanist. He is a believer in social justice, a social gospel. His foundation, background, upbringing leads me to believe this. The church he 'attended' in Chicago preaches the social justice, liberation theology. Let me ask you: if your pastor spoke about the United States as did reverend Wright, would you sit there and say nothing? If you thought he was wrong, dead wrong, could you remain silent? Would you remain a member of that church? It seems more likely that Obama ‘joined’ the church to pad his resume, similar to joining Kiwanis or the Rotary – it looks good in the CVs. Listening to the several inflammatory statements from Wright, a person is rightly puzzled that the president ‘never heard these statements’. It makes more sense that the president is a ‘member’ of the church, but hardly ever attended. Many of the actions Obama has shown that he is happy “poking a finger in God’s eye”- he won’t participate in a National Day of Prayer (a nominal Christian event), but will participate in Ramadan; doesn’t attend church (too disruptive) but will play golf (not at all disruptive!) and so on.

His spiritual advisors are socialists. Reverend Wright is a liberation theology leader. Father Flagler ( a nominal catholic) is a socialist rabble-rouser. Obama’s latest spiritual advisor, Wallis, is a socialist. Remember Obama during the election campaign told us to judge him by the company he keeps, the people with which he surrounds himself.

When I was much younger, my friend (attended the University of Oregon, drove a psychedelic VW bus, wore long hair and a long mustache, tied-dyed clothes and sandals) could not understand why the State Police stopped him when he drove around. He wanted to know, “What was their problem? I don’t smoke pot. I’m not driving drunk, or stoned.”

My reply, “Why wouldn’t they think you might be a dope-smoking hippy? You look like a hippy. You drive a stereotypical hippy vehicle. Ninety-nine percent of the people they stop who look like you, dress like you, drive a bus like you are hippies, and have pot in the vehicle with them. ”

“Yeah, but…”

“But what? They have to get to know you to know that you aren’t what you seem. But they don’t have the time to do that, they have to make a judgment based on experience. If you don’t want them to stop you, don’t give them the reasonable cause.”

I think the president has the same problem. He wants us to accept what he says, but our experience with similar behaviors renders a different conclusion.