Why Is Obama Moving So Quickly To Implement His "Changes"?

There are many things changing under the Obama administration. A few may even be for the benefit of some of the people, but the majority of his changes aren't reported in the media. It may simply be because they are considered minor, or not particularly newsworthy.

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!

Motive For Ill. Church Killing Suspect Elusive

It's their job, I'm sure we all realize that. After the commission of a crime, it's the function of law enforcement to look for an understandable explanation of why the crime occurred in the first place. However, the more heinous the crime, the less likely there is to be any explanation. In the case cited in my title for this post, and any other case where people kill other people that they don't even know, and who presented no perceived threat to them, there are only two possible motivations:

1. Mental illness, or

2. the doer is the personification of evil

Mental illness - as a concept - is understood by most lay persons. What is not totally understood is the root causes of many kinds of mental illness. Most mental distress isn't the result of some physical illness or bacterial infection. It stems from a series of perceived wrongs or inequities, and their accumulation and storage. Frequently that is the result of chemical imbalances in the brain. The inability to discard such perceptions, after objectively evaluating and processing them, eventually creates more psychological "weight" than the individual can bear, resulting in mental collapse.

"Objectivity" is skewed in the mentally ill, and therefore perceptions are distorted, which results in skewed objectivity, which distorts perceptions, ad infinitum. We could easily get hung up on the "chicken-egg" argument here, but it really makes no difference in the outcome. We must also understand that perception creates our "personal reality." When several people witness the same event, they each process it in their own fashion and may perceive it as totally different events. Some processing is intellectual, but all processing is colored by cultural, emotional, political and spiritual influences. Thus is our personal reality formed.

An example of this would be the so-called "Extreme Fighting" matches. To most people from civilized backgrounds these physical confrontations - for the sake of feeding egos - are seen as barbarism. Two people enter a cage and proceed to beat one another senseless (my assumption here is that they had some sense to begin with). These matches always result in the victor injuring, sometimes in maiming, and, on rare occasions, killing their opponent. There are those others who see the same event as entertainment, fun, a test of skills, heroic personal combat, etc..

The key words in the preceding two paragraphs are "perceived" and "accumulation and storage". Most people are capable of observing, processing, evaluating, and then compartmentalizing events. Some compartments are for the purpose of recall at a later time, while others are for discards - things that the person has witnessed that are either neutral influences, or negative influences. These are events that have little or no positive influence on their life, and are otherwise just burdensome.

There is disagreement within the medical and psychological communities over the possibility of somebody being evil by nature. Arguments against an "evil nature" would fall short of explaining the "motives" of people like Adolf Hitler, Idi Amin, Papa Doc Duvalier, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacey, Richard Speck, the 9-11 terrorists, et al.

The motives behind the actions of others are not always visible to others, simply because others do not share the actors' personal reality - it's as foreign to them as Egyptian hieroglyphics would be to the vast majority of the worlds' people. Searching for motives created by a deranged mind, beyond the elimination of what the "normal mind" might see as motive, is generally a waste of time, effort and resources.

The willful taking of a human life, one that is otherwise unknown to you and presents no apparent threat to your life, is either an act of severe mental illness ... or evil personified.

I could be wrong about this, I suppose ... but you'd have to be insane to think so!