Post by Rob W. Case on Jan 29, 2010 23:29:35 GMT -6
Reality & Obama’s Reality:
In-Depth Analysis of the President’s First State of the Union Address
On January 27th, 2010 President Barack Obama delivered his first official State of the Union Address. The speech to me had both a campaign feel, and a Carter-esque “Malaise speech” feel to it. I will explain that later on. In watching Barack Obama’s speech, there was a certain feel to it. It was a very good speech …. But only if you live in a fool’s paradise.
In watching the speech, I thought that Barack Obama tried to re-ignite that almost “spiritual sensationalism” he inflicted in his most ardent supporters during the 2008 campaign. As someone who watched the speech, I thought he appeared collective and cool. But as I watched it and listened to the words, the substance and the truth not only spoiled the sensational feel to the speech, but it made me angry because it was totally disconnected from the truth. Again, I could not purchase what was being sold.
The first thing I had a problem with was the lie about the banks. President Obama said….
Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.
But I don’t think President Obama hated it as much as he said he did. After all, some of the banks that were offered bailout money who did not need bailout money tried to reject bailout money. As banks tried to reject bailout money, Obama would not allow it.
See Stories:
Some Banks, Feeling Chained, Want to Return Bailout Money (New York Times)
Excerpt from March 11th, 2009
www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/business/economy/11bailout.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print
By April of 2009, some banks tried to return the bailout money, but Obama refused to accept the returned bailout money…..
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
Of course many things are tied to banks. Every major purchase is for the most part financed by a bank. People’s homes and properties are bought through banks. People’s means of private transportation are commonly purchased through banks. If he was aiming to take control of every aspect of our lives, through a communist style takeover, you would start by taking over the banks first. If the banks refused to take money, but Obama made them take it anyway, I’m sure it could be accurately said that he didn’t really hate giving them the money. He had to force them to take the money in order to inflict control via all of the strings that were attached to taking the money.
Taxes:
Be prepared America, because this political maneuver is a maneuver most commonly used in my home state of Illinois. I call it “raising taxes without raising taxes.” This is a technicality that I think everybody should be aware of.
In the speech, Obama said, “….millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.”
By technicality that is true. But his taxes on businesses, further regulations (to add to the ones that have existed for decades) further litigations (to add to the numerous ones that have existed for years and decades), and so forth have been instrumental in raising prices at the grocery store, higher gas prices, and higher prices on necessities. Since a businesses’ existence is not granted, and government’s existence virtually is, a business has to do what it think in can to stay afloat if it is going to remain in existence. If it cannot maintain the economic weight inflicted on its shoulders, it crumbles and falls, and everybody who works for that business is all of a sudden out of a job. When Government inflicts that weight, the customer has to pay for it. If the customer did not pay for it, the business would not make money, and if the business does not make money, then there is no real reason for the business to exist since its sole purpose of existence is to make money and generate a profit. Now, there are those out there who will also say, “Well, what about the CEO’s of these businesses that make six figure incomes?” and yes, there are matters where companies waste money, and do extraordinarily stupid and wasteful things. But keep in mind the fact that it is their own money that they earned fair and square that they are throwing away, and that does not give the government the right to come in and “punish” them for spending their own money the way they see fit, because if they do, the first place big businesses will be doing the cutting is in employment, and as they cut jobs, they will continue to pay undeserving people six figure incomes and they will continue to throw away money on ideas that are in essence stupid and wasteful. Anyway, back to taxes. Taxes have been raised to record levels on the state level and houses have been re-assessed at higher values to justify a “percentage adjustment” which is another way of inflicting a tax increase without really calling it a tax increase. But I thought it was ironic when Obama said….
To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it.
In other words, to make matters worse brace yourselves for higher gas prices, higher prices on goods and services (and keep in mind the fact that investors have to show profits… or else they will stop investing and the company will not have the leverage they need behind them to keep going), and jobs to remain on the decline since small business owners (especially owners who own franchise chains and so forth) will have to lay people off and take those losses as opposed to working in an economy that isn’t working for them. That’s also not to mention the factor of inflation. Inflation is simply the devaluing of the U.S. dollar, and the U.S. dollar has lost at least 17% of its value in the last year. This is due to the reckless overspending that has occurred due to the so-called “stimulus bill” and the insane way we keep printing money (that is backed by nothing substantiated).
Spending:
After I just mentioned inflation, and the stimulus bill, what does Obama go and do? He tries to justify his reckless and out of control spending. In that he said….
From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious that such efforts would be too contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for awhile. For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China's not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany's not waiting. India's not waiting. These nations aren't standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.
This remark is very reminiscent of the lines he touted in his Inaugural address a year ago when after going through a laundry list of expensive things he wanted to do, he said….
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
This administration has effectively shrunken the economy. And when government grows to new heights, and spends far more than what they can produce, then that will cause hyperinflation, meaning that everything goes up so much that the economic state of the country and even the government is so brittle, it could break the country’s monetary system entirely. Of course, in the speech, Obama said that he was going to freeze domestic spending. But that doesn’t mean a hill of beans. Here is a very interesting article that explains Obama’s so-called “spending freeze.”
The Spending Freeze that Isn’t
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575028930349664448.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
I also find it vital and fitting to also mention that the day after the State of the Union was made, and before the new Republican Senator of Massachusetts Scott Brown had a chance to be seated to help stop the measure, the Democrats in Congress approved with the empty Senate seat that the national debt ceiling be raised to an additional $1.9 trillion.
Senate permits gov't to borrow an additional $1.9T
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DGSHEO0&show_article=1
On Jobs:
One of the issues that Barack Obama addressed was jobs. This was one of the reasons why his speech was the second most watched program of the night, next to American Idol. What is Obama going to do on jobs? Remember the “economic stimulus bill?” Well, it looks as if he is going to do a re-run of what he did in early 2009.
Do you remember how he worded the economic stimulus bill of 2009 when he made his address to the joint session of Congress (which had a feel of a State of the Union Address, but was not an Official State of the Union address)? In that February 24th, 2009 Speech, President Obama described the economic stimulus plan… technically referred to as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, he said…….
It’s an agenda that begins with jobs.
As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited – I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action. And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law. Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.
How did the economic stimulus bill work out for us? It didn’t. All it did was give us the illusion, through numbers that we have experienced growth through money that has been spent, but has not actually been paid for. Let me clarify that a little more because it can be very confusing. Government gets their income and revenue through us, the American taxpayer. But when Government spends far more than what the taxpayer can make, it puts us in debt since we fund the government. Because the Government funded it with money that has not been made yet through us, the spending from the people that benefited from the stimulus bill created an illusion that the economy is not as devastating as it actually is, and even provided the illusion that we are on the road to recovery. Amidst this illusion called a recovery, unemployment continues to rise...
Unemployment rose in 43 states
By Christopher S. Rugaber ASSOCIATED PRESS
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/22/unemployment-rose-43-states-last-month/?feat=home_headlines
… and yet, we are gearing up to do it all again. And yes, it is going to be another so-called stimulus proposal. In fact, after nearly three short weeks in early 2009, after Obama approved the so-called “stimulus bill,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi brought up the idea of having a second “stimulus bill.” Now that they want to propose another “stimulus bill,” after the ineffectiveness of the first one, the Democrats are being told not to call it a stimulus bill.
See for yourself:
www.breitbart.tv/congressman-admits-were-told-not-to-call-it-another-stimulus-bill-calling-it-a-jobs-bill/
Read for Yourself:
www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/27/dem-congressman-were-told-not-call-it-stimulus-bil/
Excerpt:
Congressman Brad Sherman (D - CA). Mr. Sherman hosted a telephone townhall on Monday and told participants that he was told (among others) to not call the upcoming jobs legislation another stimulus bill:
"The other thing I'll point out is we now have...we are working on a...we're told not to call it another stimulus bill. We're calling it a jobs bill. it's similar but smaller and there's a lot of discussion as to what it's best to spend the money on, and I've been pushing for aid to state and local governments. First, because my own state is having such severe problems--and second because from a macro-economic stand-point, we're trying to have jobs now. And construction projects, for example, they talk about them being shovel-ready, but even if you're ready to start building a bridge now, a big chunk of that work is going to be done in 2013, 2014."
It’s amazing to me how one branch of Government can TELL another branch of Government (controlled overwhelmingly by the same political party) what to title something and what not to title something. But anyway, back to the issue of the stimulus, who is going to benefit from this one? Again, like the last one, Government employees and Obama’s special interest groups are going to make out like bandits! Government employees who are union are going to get the red meat of this sweetheart deal. This is why he says….
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders.
All of these jobs are financed by taxpayers money. They are also union jobs. And unions are among Obama’s largest special interest groups…also known as lobbyists, which brings me to the next issue.
Lobbyists:
During the first run of the so-called “health care bill,” Obama and the Democrats attempted to include many of their lobby groups and making them practically work as branches of the federal government. The widely publicized ACORN was chief among these groups as ACORN is a political activist organization, not an organization that is experienced in handling health care matters. In his speech, President Obama addressed the cynicism and distrust towards Government. In that he said….
To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
Of course, he did exactly the opposite. Obama, the Democrats, and their lobbyists worked on a bill behind closed doors and shut the Republicans out cold. Guess what? Republicans are representatives of the people of this country just as much as the Democrats are. When you shut out dissent from representatives completely, especially on domestic matters that affect people’s way of living, then you are in one broad stroke discarding every worker, family, and individual connected to that representative. Of course on Obama’s end, if the American people get word of the sinister details behind such a broad proposal, it can obliterate the majority they currently have in one fell swoop, and in that context, it makes sense that they would exclude Republican lawmakers from engaging in the process.
All of what I shared with you today is issues oriented, and has to do with the reality. In part 2, I will address more issues such as national security and also delve into what this speech revealed to me regarding the character of Barack Obama. Why did I call this a Carter-esque Malaise speech? You will find out in part two of this probe on what actually is, and what the president perceives things to be.
Editor's Note: Part 2 will be published right below this article, on this page, under the same web-link when it is posted. Thank you.
In-Depth Analysis of the President’s First State of the Union Address
On January 27th, 2010 President Barack Obama delivered his first official State of the Union Address. The speech to me had both a campaign feel, and a Carter-esque “Malaise speech” feel to it. I will explain that later on. In watching Barack Obama’s speech, there was a certain feel to it. It was a very good speech …. But only if you live in a fool’s paradise.
In watching the speech, I thought that Barack Obama tried to re-ignite that almost “spiritual sensationalism” he inflicted in his most ardent supporters during the 2008 campaign. As someone who watched the speech, I thought he appeared collective and cool. But as I watched it and listened to the words, the substance and the truth not only spoiled the sensational feel to the speech, but it made me angry because it was totally disconnected from the truth. Again, I could not purchase what was being sold.
The first thing I had a problem with was the lie about the banks. President Obama said….
Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal.
But I don’t think President Obama hated it as much as he said he did. After all, some of the banks that were offered bailout money who did not need bailout money tried to reject bailout money. As banks tried to reject bailout money, Obama would not allow it.
See Stories:
Some Banks, Feeling Chained, Want to Return Bailout Money (New York Times)
Excerpt from March 11th, 2009
www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/business/economy/11bailout.html?ref=todayspaper&pagewanted=print
By April of 2009, some banks tried to return the bailout money, but Obama refused to accept the returned bailout money…..
Obama Wants to Control the Banks
There's a reason he refuses to accept repayment of TARP money.
online.wsj.com/article/SB123879833094588163.html
Of course many things are tied to banks. Every major purchase is for the most part financed by a bank. People’s homes and properties are bought through banks. People’s means of private transportation are commonly purchased through banks. If he was aiming to take control of every aspect of our lives, through a communist style takeover, you would start by taking over the banks first. If the banks refused to take money, but Obama made them take it anyway, I’m sure it could be accurately said that he didn’t really hate giving them the money. He had to force them to take the money in order to inflict control via all of the strings that were attached to taking the money.
Taxes:
Be prepared America, because this political maneuver is a maneuver most commonly used in my home state of Illinois. I call it “raising taxes without raising taxes.” This is a technicality that I think everybody should be aware of.
In the speech, Obama said, “….millions of Americans had more to spend on gas, and food, and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime.”
By technicality that is true. But his taxes on businesses, further regulations (to add to the ones that have existed for decades) further litigations (to add to the numerous ones that have existed for years and decades), and so forth have been instrumental in raising prices at the grocery store, higher gas prices, and higher prices on necessities. Since a businesses’ existence is not granted, and government’s existence virtually is, a business has to do what it think in can to stay afloat if it is going to remain in existence. If it cannot maintain the economic weight inflicted on its shoulders, it crumbles and falls, and everybody who works for that business is all of a sudden out of a job. When Government inflicts that weight, the customer has to pay for it. If the customer did not pay for it, the business would not make money, and if the business does not make money, then there is no real reason for the business to exist since its sole purpose of existence is to make money and generate a profit. Now, there are those out there who will also say, “Well, what about the CEO’s of these businesses that make six figure incomes?” and yes, there are matters where companies waste money, and do extraordinarily stupid and wasteful things. But keep in mind the fact that it is their own money that they earned fair and square that they are throwing away, and that does not give the government the right to come in and “punish” them for spending their own money the way they see fit, because if they do, the first place big businesses will be doing the cutting is in employment, and as they cut jobs, they will continue to pay undeserving people six figure incomes and they will continue to throw away money on ideas that are in essence stupid and wasteful. Anyway, back to taxes. Taxes have been raised to record levels on the state level and houses have been re-assessed at higher values to justify a “percentage adjustment” which is another way of inflicting a tax increase without really calling it a tax increase. But I thought it was ironic when Obama said….
To help working families, we will extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, investment fund managers, and those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it.
In other words, to make matters worse brace yourselves for higher gas prices, higher prices on goods and services (and keep in mind the fact that investors have to show profits… or else they will stop investing and the company will not have the leverage they need behind them to keep going), and jobs to remain on the decline since small business owners (especially owners who own franchise chains and so forth) will have to lay people off and take those losses as opposed to working in an economy that isn’t working for them. That’s also not to mention the factor of inflation. Inflation is simply the devaluing of the U.S. dollar, and the U.S. dollar has lost at least 17% of its value in the last year. This is due to the reckless overspending that has occurred due to the so-called “stimulus bill” and the insane way we keep printing money (that is backed by nothing substantiated).
Spending:
After I just mentioned inflation, and the stimulus bill, what does Obama go and do? He tries to justify his reckless and out of control spending. In that he said….
From the day I took office, I have been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious that such efforts would be too contentious, that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for awhile. For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China's not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany's not waiting. India's not waiting. These nations aren't standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They are making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs.
This remark is very reminiscent of the lines he touted in his Inaugural address a year ago when after going through a laundry list of expensive things he wanted to do, he said….
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage. What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.
This administration has effectively shrunken the economy. And when government grows to new heights, and spends far more than what they can produce, then that will cause hyperinflation, meaning that everything goes up so much that the economic state of the country and even the government is so brittle, it could break the country’s monetary system entirely. Of course, in the speech, Obama said that he was going to freeze domestic spending. But that doesn’t mean a hill of beans. Here is a very interesting article that explains Obama’s so-called “spending freeze.”
The Spending Freeze that Isn’t
online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575028930349664448.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
I also find it vital and fitting to also mention that the day after the State of the Union was made, and before the new Republican Senator of Massachusetts Scott Brown had a chance to be seated to help stop the measure, the Democrats in Congress approved with the empty Senate seat that the national debt ceiling be raised to an additional $1.9 trillion.
Senate permits gov't to borrow an additional $1.9T
www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9DGSHEO0&show_article=1
On Jobs:
One of the issues that Barack Obama addressed was jobs. This was one of the reasons why his speech was the second most watched program of the night, next to American Idol. What is Obama going to do on jobs? Remember the “economic stimulus bill?” Well, it looks as if he is going to do a re-run of what he did in early 2009.
Do you remember how he worded the economic stimulus bill of 2009 when he made his address to the joint session of Congress (which had a feel of a State of the Union Address, but was not an Official State of the Union address)? In that February 24th, 2009 Speech, President Obama described the economic stimulus plan… technically referred to as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, he said…….
It’s an agenda that begins with jobs.
As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress to send me a recovery plan by President’s Day that would put people back to work and put money in their pockets. Not because I believe in bigger government – I don’t. Not because I’m not mindful of the massive debt we’ve inherited – I am. I called for action because the failure to do so would have cost more jobs and caused more hardships. In fact, a failure to act would have worsened our long-term deficit by assuring weak economic growth for years. That’s why I pushed for quick action. And tonight, I am grateful that this Congress delivered, and pleased to say that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is now law. Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs. More than 90% of these jobs will be in the private sector – jobs rebuilding our roads and bridges; constructing wind turbines and solar panels; laying broadband and expanding mass transit.
How did the economic stimulus bill work out for us? It didn’t. All it did was give us the illusion, through numbers that we have experienced growth through money that has been spent, but has not actually been paid for. Let me clarify that a little more because it can be very confusing. Government gets their income and revenue through us, the American taxpayer. But when Government spends far more than what the taxpayer can make, it puts us in debt since we fund the government. Because the Government funded it with money that has not been made yet through us, the spending from the people that benefited from the stimulus bill created an illusion that the economy is not as devastating as it actually is, and even provided the illusion that we are on the road to recovery. Amidst this illusion called a recovery, unemployment continues to rise...
Unemployment rose in 43 states
By Christopher S. Rugaber ASSOCIATED PRESS
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jan/22/unemployment-rose-43-states-last-month/?feat=home_headlines
… and yet, we are gearing up to do it all again. And yes, it is going to be another so-called stimulus proposal. In fact, after nearly three short weeks in early 2009, after Obama approved the so-called “stimulus bill,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi brought up the idea of having a second “stimulus bill.” Now that they want to propose another “stimulus bill,” after the ineffectiveness of the first one, the Democrats are being told not to call it a stimulus bill.
See for yourself:
www.breitbart.tv/congressman-admits-were-told-not-to-call-it-another-stimulus-bill-calling-it-a-jobs-bill/
Read for Yourself:
www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/watercooler/2010/jan/27/dem-congressman-were-told-not-call-it-stimulus-bil/
Excerpt:
Congressman Brad Sherman (D - CA). Mr. Sherman hosted a telephone townhall on Monday and told participants that he was told (among others) to not call the upcoming jobs legislation another stimulus bill:
"The other thing I'll point out is we now have...we are working on a...we're told not to call it another stimulus bill. We're calling it a jobs bill. it's similar but smaller and there's a lot of discussion as to what it's best to spend the money on, and I've been pushing for aid to state and local governments. First, because my own state is having such severe problems--and second because from a macro-economic stand-point, we're trying to have jobs now. And construction projects, for example, they talk about them being shovel-ready, but even if you're ready to start building a bridge now, a big chunk of that work is going to be done in 2013, 2014."
It’s amazing to me how one branch of Government can TELL another branch of Government (controlled overwhelmingly by the same political party) what to title something and what not to title something. But anyway, back to the issue of the stimulus, who is going to benefit from this one? Again, like the last one, Government employees and Obama’s special interest groups are going to make out like bandits! Government employees who are union are going to get the red meat of this sweetheart deal. This is why he says….
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. 200,000 work in construction and clean energy. 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, and first responders.
All of these jobs are financed by taxpayers money. They are also union jobs. And unions are among Obama’s largest special interest groups…also known as lobbyists, which brings me to the next issue.
Lobbyists:
During the first run of the so-called “health care bill,” Obama and the Democrats attempted to include many of their lobby groups and making them practically work as branches of the federal government. The widely publicized ACORN was chief among these groups as ACORN is a political activist organization, not an organization that is experienced in handling health care matters. In his speech, President Obama addressed the cynicism and distrust towards Government. In that he said….
To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.
Of course, he did exactly the opposite. Obama, the Democrats, and their lobbyists worked on a bill behind closed doors and shut the Republicans out cold. Guess what? Republicans are representatives of the people of this country just as much as the Democrats are. When you shut out dissent from representatives completely, especially on domestic matters that affect people’s way of living, then you are in one broad stroke discarding every worker, family, and individual connected to that representative. Of course on Obama’s end, if the American people get word of the sinister details behind such a broad proposal, it can obliterate the majority they currently have in one fell swoop, and in that context, it makes sense that they would exclude Republican lawmakers from engaging in the process.
All of what I shared with you today is issues oriented, and has to do with the reality. In part 2, I will address more issues such as national security and also delve into what this speech revealed to me regarding the character of Barack Obama. Why did I call this a Carter-esque Malaise speech? You will find out in part two of this probe on what actually is, and what the president perceives things to be.
Editor's Note: Part 2 will be published right below this article, on this page, under the same web-link when it is posted. Thank you.