Then again, it may be because, if they were made a matter of public record, they would not do anything to maintain Obama's popularity among the left-wing Marxist liberals and the left-wing media who elected him.
Why is Obama moving to implement Marxist controls so quickly? Because if he slows down long enough for people to get a sense for the direction in which he is moving our country, he could find himself looking at impeachment proceedings. What exactly has he done? If you can't tell, then perhaps you should ask the Russians - they can see exactly where he's taking our country (see my blog entry, "When The Russians Can See Where We Are Headed, Why Can't Most Of Us See it?", June 4th, 2009).
Obama has, in any practical sense of the word, nationalized our automotive industry, and our major financial institutions.
1. He has placed Edward Whitaker jr., the former CEO of AT&T, at the helm of GM. Whitaker is a man who is on record as having said, "I don't know anything about cars. I do know about business and I know about big business." Knowing about business - and especially big business - may not be of much help as the Chairman and CEO of General Motors. Trading at under $1 per share, Government Motors barely qualifies as in business!
2. Next we have the appointments to Obama's cabinet posts -
a. Janet Napolitano, the Director of "Homeland Security" is a proponent of open borders! So much for protecting the homeland.
b. Tim Geithner, the Director of the IRS is, himself, a tax dodger! There's not much else one needs to say about that fact.
c. Strangely enough, Leon Panetta, the newly appointed Director of the CIA, seems to be more capable than one might have expected, given that he lacks any background at all in the intelligence field. At least he appears to be (publicly) defending his operatives and their integrity.
Then there's Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, who is on record with positions indicating she is not just sexist and racist ("I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."), but she apparently also believes that if a member of a minority group can't qualify for promotion, then you should promote nobody (see Ricci v. DeStefano), thereby punishing the successful candidate(s)! So much for "equal justice under the law".
And, where he can't get support from Congress for changes to the existing laws, he simply issues an Executive Order decreeing a change to be so. On June 10, I posted a blog noting that the administration had, through the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, reworded USC15, Chapter 29 (Sections 1241-1245, which defines "switchblade knives") to include in that definition any folding knife that could be opened using only one hand... which would include about 112 million thumb-operated, spring-assisted folding knives owned today throughout the USA. Add to that the fact that our State Department may be on the verge of cutting off all imports of certain calibers of firearms ammunition. Ammos listed for this rumored ban include the .50BMG, 7.62x39mm Soviet, 7.62x51mm NATO, .308 Winchester, 5.56 NATO and .223 Remington. Additionally, it's said that an expansion of this proposed ban might be broadened to include the 6.8mm SPC, 9mm Parabellum, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP - among others. In other words, State Department officials may be floating a trial balloon to see if there are howls of protest, or whimpers of compliance (as of this posting I have been unable to confirm this as having become law... yet). This could be seen as a backdoor method by which the government can manipulate its way around the Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) by controlling the availability of affordable practice ammunition.
You can now see how quickly the boots of tyranny can trample the rights of "free people"... and how little resistance there is to it. Not because we don't wish to resist, but because we are not informed that there is something which needs to be resisted.
"CONSTITUTION VOID WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW"
As usual, I suppose I could be wrong about this... and I hope I am!