Obama’s Finance Chair, Failed Bank Owner Penny Pritzker And Today’s Wall Street Problem

Candy Crowley and David Gergen said on CNN last night that bad news on Wall Street is good news for the Obarfy Campaign. Sounds strikingly familiar to the Iraq story. McCain needs to point out how many Obarfy campaign advisors have their dirty hands all over this Wall Street problem – Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, Jaime Gorelick and Hunter Biden to name a few Freddie and Fannie stars. How about our deplorable democratic congress and the horrible Chris Dodd/Barney Frank housing bill which has contributed to our housing and mortgage meltdown. This was the dem plan all along. Throw the American people into financial troubles and then blame the Republicans and George Bush! How much does George Soros and Felix Rohatyn have to do with all the market troubles going on? Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are traitors to the American people. Why are gas prices going up Nancy when the price of a barrel of oil is going down?

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 16, 2008 – 11:20 ET

Do you think the recent stock market collapse or troubles in the banking system are good news?

Well, according to CNN’s Candy Crowley, the Obama campaign does.

On Monday’s “Anderson Cooper 360,” after CNN senior political analyst David Gergen said “what happened over the weekend with the economy and the bottom falling out of the financial markets…is the opportunity for Obama to seize the momentum back on his side,” Crowley actually said, “[J]ust as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section, along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street…I mean, this is what they wanted.”

I kid you not. The transcript of this disgraceful exchange follows (video embedded right, h/t Steve Malzberg):

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

DAVID GERGEN, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: But what happened over the weekend with the economy and the bottom falling out of the financial markets — and we have been saying for some time on this program this is the worst financial crisis since the Depression — Alan Greenspan said on Sunday the worst economic situation he’s seen — it seems to me that there’s a real turning point now, that that momentum on McCain’s side is likely to fade. And there is the opportunity for Obama to seize the momentum back on his side. I don’t know if he’s going to do it or not. He is trying. McCain has an opportunity here as well. But there’s no question right now that this — this really dark economic situation is now going to be — is going to really — is going to, I think, blot out a lot of this question about who — the backing-and-forthing and the advertising, and focus on the issues.

ANDERSON COOPER, HOST: Right.

GERGEN: And that’s what — that’s what Obama has wanted to do. He’s now got the opportunity.

I think, personally, he’s got the critique down, but he still hasn’t provided a message about what he would do, nor has he really surrounded himself, in the way he needs to, with the Bob Rubins and the Paul Volckers and the Larry Summers and Laura Tysons, and have them as a tight unit. I think he still has to do that.

COOPER: Candy, no doubt — very quickly — on the campaign trail, it obviously played a big role today. You anticipate, in the days ahead, issue number one, it’s going to be front and center?

CANDY CROWLEY, CNN: Oh, absolutely.

I mean, listen, just as foreclosures were showing up on B-17, or in the real estate section, along comes this horrific headline out of Wall Street.

COOPER: Right.

CROWLEY: I mean, this is what they wanted. They believe, of course, that the economy is one of their strengths and that they can paint John McCain as George Bush.

Isn’t that nice? The nation’s banking system is collapsing, and members of CNN are not only discussing how it helps Obama, but are admitting that this is what his campaign wanted.

How disgraceful.

—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

It angers me. Diane Sawyer tried to provoke Hillary Clinton. Thats pathetic. Are there no objective journalists? Why do women try to bring down other women? Thats so blatantly ridiculous. Thank God that Hillary is a seasoned politician, and knows how to handle all quests.

This article confirms my fear that an Obama administration would be no different than Dubya. But of course the Dems would be telling us, what he meant was….

ALL YOUR CHANGE ARE BELONG TO US

I am sorry, but there is something seriously wrong with the system. Guess that misogyny is inbuilt. Its incredible. I think of it this way……the MSM is
waiting to hear a smear from a former presidential candidate to an opposition on the VP ticket. That means…..Hillary to Sarah.

Take it the other way. If Romney or Huckabee (presidential candidates) smears Biden (a VP candidate), will it be given ehough press and analysis. I bet not.

Looks like the MSM wants a catfight between Hillary and Palin. Really, they are totally sexist. and its disgusting. And I’m a man. And this offends me. I can only imagine what you women are feeling.

In my opinion, and ofcourse it may be deeply flawed, there are 2 kinds of democratic presidents. The growth-democrat or the re-distribution democrat. Clinton was a growth-democrat. His presidency expanded the economy, created jobs, bridged the deficit. But Obama’s economic plan is like a classic re-distribution democrat. The economy will die under Obama. That is not good in the present circumstances. Obama would be a disaster in this present scenario, whatever he or the Democratic part says.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NzI3ZDUzOTE0ZThlMTU3MTY0MDI4ZTY0MTZhY2I2MGY=

September 16, 2008, 0:28 a.m.

On Sex-Ed Ad, McCain Is Right
What was that Illinois sex-education bill really about?

By Byron York

In recent days, a consensus has developed among the Obama campaign and commentators in the press that John McCain has decided to lie his way to the White House. Exhibit A in this new consensus is McCain’s ad, released last week, claiming that Barack Obama’s “one accomplishment” in the field of education was “legislation to teach ‘comprehensive sex education’ to kindergartners.”

Within moments of the ad’s appearance, the Obama campaign called it “shameful and downright perverse.” The legislation in question, a bill in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, “written to protect young children from sexual predators” and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. In a stinging final shot, Burton added, “Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn’t define what honor was. Now we know why.”

Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. “The kindergarten ad flat-out lies,” wrote the New York Times, arguing that “at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators.” The Washington Post wrote that “McCain’s ‘Education’ Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive.” And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot “a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison.”

The condemnation has been so widespread that the Obama campaign has begun to sense success in placing the “McCain-is-a-liar” storyline in the press. But before accepting the story at face value, it might first be a good idea to examine the bill in question, look at the statements made by its supporters at the time it was introduced, talk to its sponsors today (at least the ones who will consent to speak), and find answers to a few basic questions. What were the bill’s provisions? Why was it written? Was it really just, or even mostly, about inappropriate advances? And the bottom-line question: Is McCain’s characterization of it unfair?

21st-CENTURY SEX EDUCATION
The bill in question was Senate Bill 99, introduced in the Senate in February 2003. Its broad purpose was to change and update portions of Illinois’s existing laws concerning sex education. (The text of the bill is here, and everyone interested in the issue should take a look at it.)

When the bill was introduced, a coalition of groups including the Illinois Public Health Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Cook County Department of Public Health, the Chicago Department of Public Health, the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council and others issued a press release headlined “Coalition of Legislators, Physicians and Organizations Bring Illinois Into the 21st Century with Omnibus Healthcare Package.” It was a three-part campaign; Senate Bill 99, covering “medically accurate sex education,” was the first part, with two other bills addressing “funding for family planning services for women in need” and “contraceptive equity in health insurance.”

According to the press release, Senate Bill 99 required that “if a public school teaches sex education, family life education, and comprehensive health education courses, all materials and instruction must be medically and factually accurate.” The bill’s main sponsor, Sen. Carol Ronen, was quoted saying, “It teaches students about the advantages of abstinence, while also giving them the realistic information they need about the prevention of an unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.” The release contained no mention of sexual predators or inappropriate touching.

What, specifically, was the bill designed to do? It appears to have had three major purposes:

The first, as Ronen indicated, was to mandate that information presented in sex-ed classes be “factual,” “medically accurate,” and “objective.”

The second purpose was to increase the number of children receiving sex education. Illinois’ existing law required the teaching of sex education and AIDS prevention in grades six through twelve. The old law read:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS.

Senate Bill 99 struck out grade six, changing it to kindergarten, in addition to making a few other changes in wording. It read:
Each class or course in comprehensive sex education in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.

The bill’s third purpose was to remove value-laden language in the old law. For example, the old law contained passages like this:

Course material and instruction shall teach honor and respect for monogamous heterosexual marriage.
Course material and instruction shall stress that pupils should abstain from sexual intercourse until they are ready for marriage…
[Classes] shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100 percent effective against unwanted teenage pregnancy [and] sexually transmitted diseases…

The proposed bill eliminated all those passages and replaced them with wording like this:
Course material and instruction shall include a discussion of sexual abstinence as a method to prevent unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.
Course material and instruction shall present the latest medically factual information regarding both the possible side effects and health benefits of all forms of contraception, including the success and failure rates for the prevention of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, including HIV…

The bill gave parents and guardians the right to take their children out of sex-ed classes by presenting written objections. The bill also specified that “all sex education courses that discuss sexual activity or behavior…be age and developmentally appropriate.” And, after covering a number of other provisions, the bill addressed the issue of inappropriate advances:
Course material and instruction shall teach pupils to not make unwanted physical and verbal sexual advances and how to say no to unwanted sexual advances and shall include information about verbal, physical, and visual sexual harassment, including without limitation nonconsensual sexual advances, nonconsensual physical sexual contact, and rape by an acquaintance. The course material and instruction shall contain methods of preventing sexual assault by an acquaintance, including exercising good judgment and avoiding behavior that impairs one’s judgment. The course material and instruction shall emphasize personal accountability and respect for others and shall also encourage youth to resist negative peer pressure. The course material and instruction shall inform pupils of the potential legal consequences of sexual assault by an acquaintance. Specifically, pupils shall be advised that it is unlawful to touch an intimate part of another person as specified in the Criminal Code of 1961.

The wording of that provision suggests lawmakers were at least as concerned with protecting children from each other as from adults, and it doesn’t seem directed toward the youngest children, as Obama maintained. But there is no doubt that the bill did address the question of inappropriate touching. On the other hand, there is also no doubt that, looking at the overall bill, the “touching” provision did not have the prominence that Team Obama has suggested it had, and it certainly wasn’t the bill’s main purpose.

TOUCHY SUBJECT
After the ad controversy erupted, I asked the Obama campaign to suggest who I might interview for more information. I particularly wanted some sort of contemporaneous account showing that Obama voted for the bill because of its inappropriate-touching provision. The campaign suggested I call Ken Swanson, who is head of the Illinois Education Association and a 20-year veteran of teaching sixth-graders.

“The intent of the language and inclusion of kindergarten was simply to make it possible to offer age-appropriate, not comprehensive, information for kindergartners so that those young children could be given basic information so that they would be aware of inappropriate behavior by adults,” Swanson told me. “Certainly, it was never intended to be some sort of inappropriate information that might be appropriate for junior high or high school students.” McCain’s accusation, Swanson told me, was “bogus.”

I suggested to Swanson that the bill seemed to provide for HIV education for youngsters before the sixth grade, and perhaps as early as kindergarten. “As I recall the discussion, there was a conversation where in different places in the state — that was something that should be left to local circumstances,” Swanson told me. “What might be appropriate in an urban inner city might not be appropriate in a rural community. I don’t recall anybody, from our perspective, having a one-rule-fits-all vision.”

Swanson suggested that if I wanted to know more I should get in touch with the bill’s sponsors. There were five — State Senator Ronen, as well as Sens. M. Maggie Crotty, Susan Garrett, Iris Martinez, and Jeffrey Schoenberg. All were from the greater Chicago area. But getting in touch with them was easier said than done.

Ronen has left the Illinois state senate. When I called her home, I reached a woman who did not give me her name but told me she knew how to reach Ronen. I gave her my information, but there has been no call back, nor has Ronen answered a number of follow-up calls.

An assistant in Garrett’s office helpfully gave me the senator’s cell-phone number, so I was able to have a few brief conversations with her. In one, she said she couldn’t talk and asked me to call back in a few minutes. I did, and then did again, and ended up doing so several times over an extended period, all without an answer. The next day, I reached Garrett again, who told me that since the debate took place five years ago, she couldn’t speak about it “unless I have the bill in front of me . . . I’d be happy to do that if I could just print out the bill . . . I just want to be sure I get it right.” We agreed that I would email her the bill, but after I did, she didn’t answer the phone. She still hasn’t.

I’ve gotten no response from Crotty or Schoenberg.

That leaves Sen. Martinez, who was kind enough to speak to me by phone Monday afternoon. Martinez began by saying that the bill was indeed about inappropriate touching. “We know that young children, very, very young, have things happen to them that they don’t speak about,” Martinez told me. “It’s important that we teach our young kids very, very young to speak up.”

When I asked Martinez the rationale for changing grade six to kindergarten, she said that groups like Planned Parenthood and the Cook County Department of Health — both major contributors to the bill — “were finding that there were children younger than the sixth grade that were being inappropriately touched or molested.” When I asked about the elimination of references to marriage and the contraception passages, Martinez said that the changes were “based on some of the information we got from Planned Parenthood.”

After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told Martinez that reading the bill, I just didn’t see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. “I didn’t see it that way, either,” Martinez said. “It’s just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current.”

So, I asked, you didn’t see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?

“Absolutely not.”

“THAT WASN’T WHAT I HAD IN MIND”
The controversy over the McCain sex-ed ad is a rerun of a similar controversy that erupted in the 2004 Illinois Senate race, when Obama’s opponent, the Republican transplant Alan Keyes, brought up the same issue. In a debate that year, when Keyes accused Obama of supporting sex education for kindergartners, Obama answered, “Actually, that wasn’t what I had in mind. We have a existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it’s medically accurate and age-appropriate. Now, I’ll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughter about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that’s the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation.”

Obama’s explanation for his vote has been accepted by nearly all commentators. And perhaps that is indeed why he voted for Senate Bill 99, although we don’t know for sure. But we do know that the bill itself was much more than that. The fact is, the bill’s intention was to mandate that issues like contraception and the prevention of sexually-transmitted diseases be included in sex-education classes for children before the sixth grade, and as early as kindergarten. Obama’s defenders may howl, but the bill is what it is.

—
Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time

I’m getting truly afraid of Obama. What kind of man is he? He wants the economy to tank cos he gets to blame Bush, he wants to delay troop withdrawals from Iraq, cos it benefits his presidency. This man is scary. Please get a grip. America, and send this guy back to chicago. He is dangerous. Get serious about it. If you can, tell others about the dangers. This will affect the whole world. Obama is power-hungry and insane. And imagine him facing Putin. No way, he’ll want to run back to Michelle in the white house. yes, I’m being harsh, but you have to make sure that this guy doesn’t win.

Obama’s radical tax plan would hurt our economy. His desire to increase the capital gains tax and many other taxes would lead to an even greater economic crisis than exists today.

As far as taxes go, heres a simple version. And an example as to why taxing the rich more wont help. (I’m far from rich and know taxing them more is a bad idea).

BAR ROOM ECONOMICS – HOW THE TAX SYSTEM WORKS

Suppose that every day, ten people go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get their “fair share”?

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everyone’s share, then the fifth and the sixth would each end up being paid to drink their beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each drinker’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay. And so:

The fifth person, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the drinkers began to compare their savings.

“I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth. She pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yes, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I did” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor”

The nine drinkers surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.

For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible!

This is a very informative article about you know who.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/09/obama_and_south_chicago_slum_d_1.html

My guess is that this post will be removed, as all comments seem to be of the same voice, but how site with the tagline “Tired of Spin?…” can print an article referring to a presidential candidate as “Mr. Innocent” and “The One” is entirely beyond my capacity for comprehension. I support the notion of free speech and am always open to the other side of any argument, but whether or not the information in this article is accurate becomes irrelevant when you are choking on the emotionalism. The American people deserve more than this from the people that claim to work toward the purpose of providing information.

In a February 7, 2002 statement to a U.S. Senate Committee, FDIC Inspector General Gaston Gianni Jr. noted that “the failure of Superior Bank was directly attributable to the Bank’s Board of Directors and executives ignoring sound risk management principles…” Ironically, the Obama campaign’s national finance chair, Penny Pritzker, was a member of the Superior Bank/Coast-to-Coast Financial/Alliance Funding board of directors when Superior Bank engaged in the predatory subprime mortgage lending and toxic mortgage securitization practices which helped cause the collapse of the U.S. banking system less than 8 years after Superior Bank’s collapse in 2001.