Was Schumer's Indy Mac Letter a Trial Run for September Surprise?

As some may know, NY Senator Charles Schumer (D) has been named as among the primary reasons the bank known as Indy Mac failed earlier this year. Schumer was named by the Office of Thrift Supervision as being largely responsible for the bank run after a letter he sent.

The immediate cause of the closing was a deposit run that began and continued after the public release of a June 26 letter to the OTS and the FDIC from Senator Charles Schumer of New York. The letter expressed concerns about IndyMac’s viability. In the following 11 business days, depositors withdrew more than $1.3 billion from their accounts.

"This institution failed today due to a liquidity crisis," OTS Director John Reich said. "Although this institution was already in distress, I am troubled by any interference in the regulatory process."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/07/feds-cite-schum.html

The original radical community organizer Saul Alinksy talked at length in his seminal book Rules for Radicals about the concept of the 'manufactured crisis' in order to create discomfort and drive support for the community organizer's 'solutions'.

Was Schumer's letter a trial balloon to see if the economy could be tripped up?

I have no inside information but I have a very strong feeling about this.

I believe Sen. Schumer sent that letter and publicized it to test depositor confidence and see what kind of response the general public would make given a manufactured panic.

Having proved the concept in June, the stage was set for election season. This same scenario was played out again last month at WaMu and other banks. There is also the conservatorship takeover of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, massive loans to AIG, and the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers as well as the near total collapse of the housing market which was the single largest creation of wealth among individuals in the US.

Perfect storm or manufactured crisis?

Given the similarity to the very tactics recommended by Saul Alinksy, I say this was no accident.

It's about judgement and truthfulness stupid!

The Obama campaign is squealing like a stuck pig lately about the impact they are feeling from recently successful attempts by the McCain campaign and the alternative media to bring up Obama's past choice of allies such as William Ayers, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Michael Pfleger, Frank Davis, Tony Rezko, Franklin Raynes, Jim Johnson, the radical group ACORN, and Kenyan genocidal psychopath, socialist and election stealer Raila Odinga.

The Obama camp has attempted to deflect these discussions by saying that they want to talk about the issues, not about his past 'associations'.

Well here is a newsflash, it's about judgement and truthfulness stupid.

The issue is the people and organizations that Obama has chosen to use for his political advancement, that he has taken money from and given money to; the people and organizations whom he associates with due to philosophical and political affinity. What do the people and organizations Obama has surrounded himself with say about his judgement and his truthfulness?

So let's examine the issue of judgement and truthfulness:

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who can launch his political career in a man's house (William Ayers), sit on several boards with that same man, write a blurb for the book jacket of a book written by that same man, and live in the same neighborhood for years with that same man can be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he was a terrorist? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who sat in a church for 20 years with a known radical preacher (Rev. Jeremiah Wright), who identified that same preacher as his spiritual mentor, who was married in that church by that preacher, and who allowed his children to be baptised and educated by that preacher can be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he held such radical, racist and hateful views, that he never heard such terrible sermons even though they were for sale on DVD in the church lobby and on the internet? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who says he worked with various church leaders in chicago for years with another known radical preacher (Fr. Michael Pfleger), who identified that same preacher as a good man, who did not condemn that man when he accused Hillary Clinton of crying about being a victim of a black man, can he be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he too held such radical, racist and hateful views, that he never heard such terrible sermons even though they this preacher had been a guest at his own church many times? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who identifies one of his political mentors as a man who was a registered communist (Frank Davis), who identified that same man as a force in his original political dealings and someone whose early support he recieved and who he later supported himself, a man who was a member of the violent Black Panthers, can he be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' he held such radical views? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who identified as friend and supporter a now convicted felon and influence peddler (Tony Rezko), who represented that same man in receiving $43M in government funding, the same man whose wife paid retail for a parcel of land next door to a new home Obama bought in the Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (which was $300,000 below the asking price) so that Obama could close on the house he wanted and who later sold a piece of the land to Obama, can he be believed when he says he 'just didn't know' Rezko was a slumlord and a blatant influence buyer? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

At the end of the day we have to ask ourselves if a man who includes as his housing and economic advisor a man who ran Fannie Mae which is now in government receivorship and who had to give back bonus money when it was found that under his leadership Fannie had overstated earnings like Enron (Franklin Raynes), a man who earned $90M in 6 years while Fannie was creating the siutuation that resulted in a $200B buyout and now $700B in additional expenditures, can he be believed when he said he 'just didn't know' that Raines had been so untrustworthy? If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

Similarly with Jim Johnson, another Fannie Mae executive who presided over the same steakth collaps of the housing market and who Obama had tapped for his VP search and who is still raising money for Obama. Obama says he 'just didn't know' Johnson was so corrupt. If true, what does that say about his judgement? If untrue, what does it say about his trustworthiness?

And what of the radical group ACORN? Obama worked for ACORN in their Project Vote program, the same program that is now under State and Federal investigation for Voter Fraud in at least 12 States. Obama also represented ACORN in court in Chicago in the mid 90's forcing Chicago lenders into sub-prime lending, the heart of the economic collapse we are now suffering. Obama has since had his campaign make improper donations to ACORN. What does that say about his judgement? What does it say about his trustworthiness?

And lastly, we have to ask ourselves if a man who has provided political advice and support to a genocidal psychopath, socialist and election stealer in Kenya (Raila Odinga) is fit to be President. What does that say about his judgement? What does it say about his trustworthiness?

'I just didn't know' is not an acceptable excuse, and frankly it rings rather hollow. As President you do not get to vote 'present' to avoid the tough decisions. And as President we require enough intellectual curiousity, integrity and honesty to evaluate all potential allies and to make the right decision up front, rather than after the fact when the political csts are deemed too high.

Again, it's about judgement and truthfulness, areas where Obama has no lead in any poll, and no record to stand on.