Bill Clinton To Blame For Current Housing Crisis

Bill Clinton helped in TWO major ways to cause the current housing/mortgage crisis

1. Firstly, he signed the law that repealed the Glass-Steagall Act which separated insurance and banking activities. Essentially, the Glass Steagall Act "separated investment and commercial banking". It was a law created to prevent another 1929 market crash. It led to the investment houses taking on large risks using leverage to create mortgage derivatives.

In the background of the go-go economy, the feeling grew among some economists and the financial community that Glass-Steagall hampered America’s financial competitiveness. Among the many voices favoring this was Alan Greenspan along with former Goldman Sachs partner Robert Rubin, Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary. In a 1995 speech and testimony to Congress Rubin signaled the Clinton Administration was ready to repeal Glass-Steagall:

“The banking industry is fundamentally different from what it was two decades ago, let alone in 1933.” He said the industry has been transformed into a global business of facilitating capital formation through diverse new products, services and markets. “U.S. banks generally engage in a broader range of securities activities abroad than is permitted domestically,” said the Treasury secretary. “Even domestically, the separation of investment banking and commercial banking envisioned by Glass-Steagall has eroded significantly.”

Glass-Steagall Act was created to keep banks from taking on too much risks and to protect the banking industry and taxpayers. Anyone who thinks the repeal of Glass-Steagall was forced on an unwilling Bill Clinton need only read Rubin’s testimony.
2.The Clinton administration made it an ideological priority that loans should be extended to minorities, regardless of their credit worthiness. As early as 1994 the New York Times was complacently reporting: "Clinton Administration officials have repeatedly urged banks, savings and loan associations and mortgage companies to examine their lending procedures to avoid any unfairness toward people in low-income neighborhoods or minority groups." It reported that "the number of mortgages issued to black and Hispanic borrowers rose sharply last year".

Capitalists have traditionally looked at the colour of people's money and judge any loan on its merits, i.e. a costs/benefits analysis, not of their skin. In 1999, under pressure from the Clinton administration, Fannie Mae started a program for extensive expansion of loans to people with low to moderate credit. The share of subprime mortgages to total origination was 5 per cent ($35 billion) in 1994; it had risen to 20 per cent ($600 billion) by 2006. The impetus originated with Bill Clinton. This madness included "Ninja" (No income, no job, no assets) loans.

Under legal penalties, Clinton's Federal Reserve compelled banks to accept welfare cheques and unemployment benefit as income sources to qualify for a mortgage. The affirmative action ideology so invaded the market that brokers advised people to claim they were 1 per cent Native American to benefit. In one extravagant instance a $480,000 mortgage was awarded to an illegal alien from Mexico.

This insanity had nothing to do with capitalism and everything to do with sub-Marxist social engineering. Capitalism was in a strait-jacket of political correctness - no wonder it imploded. If you lose your house, place the responsibility where it belongs - blame Bill Clinton

Lastly, there is this of course: Democrats defending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL36nwCSYUM

Facts are stubborn things....

PEW Center did a poll breaking down the partisanship of the major news outlet's viewers and the results are very interesting:

% that are Republicans % that are Democrats % that are Independent

FOX News 33 39 22

CNN 18 51 23

MSNBC 18 45 26

Network
Evening News 22 45 26

PBS 21 46 23

The traditional networks had a viewership of democrats that outnumbered republicans by a 2:1 ratio.
So, the alleged "conservative mouthpiece" of the media has the most balanced audienced out of all the major new outlets. no wonder they lead in ratings and number of total viewers.
I guess this takes away liberal arguments of the conservative bias, considering that the majority of the people watching foxnews are either democrats or independents..

A candidate determined to appear congenial might do that once, or even twice, but Obama did it eight times:

“I think Senator McCain’s absolutely right that we need more responsibility…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the earmarks process has been abused…”

“He’s also right that oftentimes lobbyists and special interests are the ones that are introducing these…requests…”

“John mentioned the fact that business taxes on paper are high in this country, and he’s absolutely right…”

“John is right we have to make cuts…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right that the violence has been reduced as a consequence of the extraordinary sacrifice of our troops and our military families…”

“John — you’re absolutely right that presidents have to be prudent in what they say…”

“Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran…”

Add it all up, and Obama was undeniably, and surprisingly, deferential to a man who in the past Obama has said “doesn’t get it.”

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=M2E4MmYxZjMxMDgwMDI0NzJhMWM2NDY0ZjRmMWMxODU=

When Judges Make Foreign Policy

9/28/08

In a globalized age, decisions made by the Supreme Court are increasingly shaping America’s international relations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/magazine/28law-t.html?ref=magazine

What John McCain meant by "non-defense, non entitlement federal spending" freeze...

• $89.9 billion (+1.3%) - Education and training
• $76.9 billion (+8.1%) - Transportation
• $72.6 billion (+5.8%) - Veterans' benefits
• $43.5 billion (+9.2%) - Administration of justice
• $33.1 billion (+5.7%) - Natural resources and environment
• $32.5 billion (+15.4%) - Foreign affairs
• $27.0 billion (+3.7%) - Agriculture
• $26.8 billion (+28.7%) - Community and regional development
• $25.0 billion (+4.0%) - Science and technology
• $23.5 billion (+0.8%) - Energy
• $20.1 billion (+11.4%) - General government
• $644 bln - Disc spending in other agencies/depts
  

======================================================
$1.114 trillion in FY 2008 Discretionary Spending (non-defense, non-entitlement Federal spending for 2008)
41% of total 2008 Federal budget

Source: http://useconomy.about.com/od/usfederalbudget/p/Discretionary.htm


This is a partial list containing 11 federal agencies are neither part of Defense or entitlements. The figures above are for the 2007 $2.7trln federal budget. Percentages in parentheses indicate percentage change compared to 2006. They averaged +9% growth in spending - thus they have added to the budget deficit.

The Tendentious NY Times

NY Times Saturday (9/27/08) edition 3rd paragraph had this commentary in speaking about the first presidential debate last night:

"Despite repeated prodding, Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama refused to point to any major adjustments they would need to make to their governing agendas — like scaling back promised tax reductions or spending programs — to accommodate what both men said could be very tough economic times for the next president"

This is simply a factual error. John McCain said explicitly that he would freeze government spending (with some exceptions like Defense and entitlements). While the tendentious NY Times may not believe that is an adjustment worthy of noting, all of us taxpayers do.

ALARMS & DENIAL
WARNINGS ON ROAD TO BAILOUT - AND REFUSALS TO LISTEN

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon

September 25, 2008 The following segment ran yesterday on Fox News' "Special Report."
BRIT HUME: Many financial analysts are saying that if mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had been effectively regulated years ago, the supercharged subprime mortgage meltdown that led to the current financial mess would either never have happened or would have been nowhere near as severe.
showvideo("PostUsFeed","1458_386235");
Chief White House correspondent Bret Baier rejoins us now to examine the timeline. What were those warning signs? Who raised them?
And who disputed them?
BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS CHIEF WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over):
The Bush administration raised red flags starting in April 2001.
The '02 budget request declares that the size of mortgage giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, is "a potential problem" because financial trouble and either one of them could "cause strong repercussions in financial markets."
In 2003, the White House warning about Fannie and Freddie was upgraded to a systemic risk that could spread beyond just the housing sector. In fall of '03, the Bush administration was pushing Congress hard to create a new federal agency to regulate and supervise Fannie and Freddie, both government-sponsored enterprises or GSEs.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOHN SNOW, TREASURY SECRETARY: We need a strong, world-class regulatory agency to oversee the prudential operations of the GSEs and the safety and the soundness of their financial activities.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: But then Treasury Secretary Snow was getting a lot of pushback from then-ranking-member, now chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Democratic Congressman Barney Frank.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARNEY FRANK (D), MASSACHUSETTS REPRESENTATIVE: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in crisis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: In fact, Frank said the federal government should be encouraging Fannie and Freddie to do more to get low-income families into homes, and he believed too many people had a sky-is-falling mentality.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
FRANK: The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the Treasury, which I do not see. I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially and withstand some of the disaster scenarios. And even if there were a problem, the federal government does not bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: The legislation was blocked.
In 2005, Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan added his voice on Fannie and Freddie, after Fannie leaders admitted major accounting screwups. "Enabling these institutions to increase in size - and they will once the crisis in their judgment passes - we are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk."
Adding later at another hearing on the topic -
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ALAN GREENSPAN, FEDERAL RESERVE CHAIRMAN: If we fail to strengthen GSE regulation, we increase the possibility of insolvency in crisis.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BAIER: But the two mortgage giants had staunch defenders. Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer said, "I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world. If you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they've done a very, very good job."
And Sen. John McCain co-sponsored legislation pushing for regulation, delivering a speech on the Senate floor in 2006. "For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market, the GSEs need to be reformed without delay."
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BAIER: That bill made it out of the Senate Banking committee with a party-line vote. All of the Democrats voted against it. But fearing that they didn't have the votes to pass it, Republicans didn't even bring it up on the Senate floor. Sen. Obama did not weigh in on that bill.

Treasury Plan to Slow the Economy and Indeed Contract For Years to Come
Here's why:

This TARP or whatever the final plan is, is forced saving on the US economy. We (Tsy, Congress, Fed) are now moving beyond a typical slowing of the economy (we have gone from +4% GDP growth to +1% in this cycle) to an actual secular/cyclical contraction the likes of which we haven't experienced since WWII.
IF the Tsy is to borrow $700bln to purchase mortgages and other bad debt (the assets the Tsy can buy is very vague on purpose in the TARP as the Tsy wants maximum flexibility) a high proportion of that debt will be to buy US obligations to foreigners) will have a serious dampening impact.
It's like this: if you borrowed money from the SBA to start a small business and then the SBA changed their mind in these two ways:
1. SBA says they will only give you 80% of what they originally said they would loan you. You would slow your purchases - like not buying a car or your wife not buying a dress. That has cyclical slowing impact on the economy. (this scenario spread out across an economy takes GDP growth from +4% to +1%)
2. SBA says not only are they not going to lend to you as much as you expected (your plans and spending are based off your expectations), they are demanding you repay the entire loan right now. This causes what I described in today's Report as "Forced Saving". You would move beyond slowing your purchases to actually selling assets of your business. This has significantly more negative impact on US economic growth... no doubt in my mind that this would take us to a series of qtrly negative growth rates.
TARP is option #2....that's the analogy.
-Remember the UK example of 1989-90 when their housing market contracted but slowly (not one fell sloop) it led to the UK saving rate going from -2% to +4% in 2 short years that led to the worst economic recession for the UK since WWII. .....
Net/net: I argue that TARP will have a long-term dampening impact on the US economy that will occur for years to come.... it is going to force the US to save. We have never had anything like this ...except during wartime....

Bob Woodward's "The War Within..." book is far more damning of the US military leadership than it is of George Bush even though Woodward continues to sell the story that nothing the Bush admin ever does is right.

Our Generals Almost Cost Us Iraq

The dominant media storyline about the Iraq war holds that the decisions about how to conduct it pitted ignorant civilians -- especially the president and secretary of defense -- against the uniformed military, whose wise and sober advice was cavalierly ignored. The Bush administration's cardinal sin was interference in predominantly military affairs, starting with overruling the military on the size of the force that invaded Iraq in March 2003.

But it's not just the media that peddles this story. As Bob Woodward illustrates in his new book, "The War Within: A Secret White House History 2006-2008," it also resonates among many senior uniformed military officers.

The plausibility of the narrative rests on two questionable principles. The first is that soldiers have the right to a voice in making policy regarding the use of the military instrument -- that indeed they have the right to insist that their views be adopted. The second is that the judgment of soldiers is inherently superior to that of civilians when it comes to military affairs. Both of these principles are at odds with the American practice of civil-military relations, and with the historical record.

In our republic the uniformed military advises the civilian authorities, but has no right to insist that its views be adopted. Of course, uniformed officers have an obligation to stand up to civilian leaders if they think a policy is flawed. They must convey their concerns to civilian policy-makers forcefully and truthfully. But once a policy decision is made, soldiers are obligated to carry it out to the best of their ability, whether their advice is heeded or not.

Moreover, even when it comes to strictly military affairs, soldiers are not necessarily more prescient than civilian policy makers. This is confirmed by the historical record.

Historians have long recognized that Abraham Lincoln's judgment concerning the conduct of the Civil War was vastly superior to that of Gen. George McClellan. They have recognized that Gen. George C. Marshall, the greatest soldier-statesman since George Washington, was wrong to oppose arms shipments to Great Britain in 1940, and wrong to argue for a cross-channel invasion during the early years of World War II, before the U.S. was ready.

Historians have pointed out that the U.S. operational approach that contributed to our defeat in Vietnam was the creature of the uniformed military. And they have observed that the original -- unimaginative -- military plan for Operation Desert Storm in the Gulf War was rejected by the civilian leadership, which ordered a return to the drawing board. The revised plan was far more imaginative, and effective.

So it was with Iraq. The fact is that the approach favored by the uniformed leadership was failing. As the insurgency metastasized in 2005, the military had three viable alternatives: continue offensive operations along the lines of those in Anbar province after Fallujah; adopt a counterinsurgency approach; or emphasize the training of Iraqi troops in order to transition to Iraqi control of military operations. Gen. John Abizaid, commander of the U.S. Central Command, and Gen. George W. Casey, commander of the Multi-National Force in Iraq -- supported by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers -- chose the third option.

Transitioning to Iraqi control was a logical option for the long run. But it did little to solve the problem of the insurgency, which was generating sectarian violence. Based on the belief by many senior commanders, especially Gen. Abizaid, that U.S. troops were an "antibody" to Iraqi culture, the Americans consolidated their forces on large "forward operating bases," maintaining a presence only by means of motorized patrols that were particularly vulnerable to attacks by improvised explosive devices. They also conceded large swaths of territory and population alike to the insurgents. Violence spiked.

In late 2006, President Bush, like President Lincoln in 1862, adopted a new approach to the war. He replaced the uniformed and civilian leaders who were adherents of the failed operational approach with others who shared his commitment to victory rather than "playing for a tie." In Gen. David Petraeus, Mr. Bush found his Ulysses Grant, to execute an operational approach based on sound counterinsurgency doctrine. This new approach has brought the U.S. to the brink of victory.

Although the conventional narrative about the Iraq war is wrong, its persistence has contributed to the most serious crisis in civil-military relations since the Civil War. According to Mr. Woodward's account, the uniformed military not only opposed the surge, insisting that their advice be followed; it then subsequently worked to undermine the president once he decided on another strategy.

In one respect, the actions taken by military opponents of the surge, e.g. "foot-dragging," "slow-rolling" and selective leaking are, unfortunately, all-too-characteristic of U.S. civil-military relations during the last decade and a half. But the picture Mr. Woodward draws is far more troubling. Even after the policy had been laid down, the bulk of the senior U.S. military leadership -- the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the rest of the Joint Chiefs, and Gen. Abizaid's successor, Adm. William Fallon, actively worked against the implementation of the president's policy.

If Mr. Woodward's account is true, it means that not since Gen. McClellan attempted to sabotage Lincoln's war policy in 1862 has the leadership of the U.S. military so blatantly attempted to undermine a president in the pursuit of his constitutional authority. It should be obvious that such active opposition to a president's policy poses a threat to the health of the civil-military balance in a republic.
---Mackubin Owens is a professor at the Naval War College and editor of Orbis, the journal of the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

Obama and the Bomber

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

Bill Ayers.

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama's first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers's home

The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," and "not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis." Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with "external partners," which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted "leadership training" seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns

The Obama campaign has cried foul when Bill Ayers comes up, claiming "guilt by association." Yet the issue here isn't guilt by association; it's guilt by participation. As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago

Barack Obama is an Arab-American not a African-American...
Here is the truth about Barack Obama’s name, and his father’s ancestors:
True Negro tribal members of western Kenya where his father was born have Christian names, not Arabic. His father’s decision to name him with an Arabic name is a matter of his father establishing his ethnic identity in Africa - it is done deliberately to separate him from the African tribes. He may live among them, but he is not one of them. His father’s message is that he is Arabic, not Negro.

Many will find these truths unsettling. I’m often asked, “But I thought his father was Kenyan. How could Mr. Obama not be African-American, how could his ethnic composition be so Arabic?”

The definitive clue to that answer is to look at his name, his father’s name, and the names of all his ancestors on his father’s side. They are all Arabic.
Researching his roots reveal that on his father’s side, he is descended from Arab slave traders. They operated under an extended grant from Queen Victoria, who gave them the right to continue the slave trade in exchange for helping the British defeat the Madhi Army in southern Sudan and the Upper Nile region. Funny how circular is history; now the British again face the Madhi Army, albeit this time Shiite, not Sunni, as in nineteenth century Sudan.

But telling America’s black community that while their ancestors were breaking the shackles of slavery, Barack Obama’s ancestors were placing those shackles upon their wrists would hardly play as an Oprah Winfrey best-seller.

Being the son of a poor Kenyan goat-herder plays much better than being the son of a highly placed Arab-African who operated at the top of the Kenyan government following his education at Columbia. You see, even the way he portrays his father is a lie.

Another reason to be a Republican or Independent: Large # of Democrats are racists…

on Saturday, the Associated Press and Yahoo News released results of a new poll, and the major take by AP writers Ron Fournier and Trevor Thompson was that if Obama loses, it's because of "deep-seated racial misgivings" held by "one-third of white Democrats."

http://news.yahoo.com/page/election-2008-political-pulse-obama-race

Fair Tax System?
As for fairness, we'd note that today the top 1% of taxpayers pay twice as large a share of income taxes (39%) at a 35% rate than they did in 1980, when they were taxed at a rate of 70% yet paid only 19% of income taxes. In that sense, the tax code is more "progressive" now.
By the way, Senator Joe Biden and his wife recently released their tax returns, and they reported an average of $380, or 0.2% of their income, in annual charitable contributions over a 10-year period. The national average was about 2% of income.

Bad Policy
In regards to David Ignatius Washington Post Sunday 9/21/08 column titled "The Plain Vanilla Revolutionary" on Sec Gate's new policy of "the United States will adopt a new approach of compensating the victims of such accidents first and then investigating the details."
This bad policy on so many fronts.
First, he is creating a market to be a "victim of American air strikes". That is to say the civilian population will now be incentivized to make victim claims knowing full well that America will simply pay first and then investigate their fraudulent claims later. Its economics 101: supply and demand. Sec Gates is now enticing the demand with American supplied money.Second, we should expect that the Gates Doctrine will actually make matters worse not better as more and more civilian deaths and victims will be broadcast by the more than willing "blame America first" media. It will hurt the US effort in the all-important propaganda battlefront.
Also, what are the chances that once the Pentagon get around to investigate a claim and then finds that particular claim was without merit the Pentagon will be able to get the money back? Not likely.
It might be seen by some as a "small change in policy" but it will have detrimental effects on both the US war-on-terror effort and US taxpayer money

Does Obama support sex-education for kindergartners?
The bill in question is Illinois state senate bill 99*which Obama voted for but the bill never passed. Unlike so many who are commenting on the bill -without obviously ever reading it, the bill does make it law to teach kids to stay way from predators but it does MUCH more than just that. Factually speaking, though Obama didn't author the bill he did vote for it on March 6, 2003.
Fact: The legislation Obama supported was not for the purpose of teaching young children about inappropriate touching and predators. That purpose already existed in the Illinois School Code in Section 27-13.2 many years before SB0099 was introduced. SB99 included text for that education but it already existed in law.
Fact: The language in the bill changed the specific mandate for STD transmission and prevention education from grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12.If there was no intention of providing STD education in kindergarten, it would not be necessary to deliberately change the language in the bill to include kindergarten in the STD education mandate. The bill leaves intact language which mandates that alcohol and drug use and abuse education be included in grades 5 through 12, but deliberately changes the language that mandates STD education in grades 6 through 12 to grades K through 12. The intent is clear. There would be no reason to change the grade level requirements unless kindergarten were to be included in the mandate for STD education.
Fact: There was so much objection to mandating STD education, among other Sex Ed topics, for kindergartners and early elementary students - even among Democrat legislators - that an amendment had to be added to the bill changing the bill's originally proposed language of 'grades K through 12' in the STD education mandate passage back to the Illinois School Code's existing language of 'grades 6 through 12' (line 3 of the amendment - the amendment then goes on to change the bill's proposed requirements of 'grades K through 12' in several passages back to the School Code's existing 'grades 6 through 12').
Fact: Obama voted for the originally presented bill, before the amendment.

Hope this clarifies the subject for everyone. Happy voting!

*Text of bill: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=3&GA=93&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=99&GAID=3&LegID=734&SpecSess=&Session=

Obama Campaign doesn’t want to talk about Palin’s daughter, here’s why:

"…if they (his two daughters) make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby…" ----Barack Obama, March 2008

----My guess is the Obama campaign will not push this story and it will die rather quickly.... they do not want to constantly have to defend Obama's pro-abortion position and his vote against "Born Alive" Illinois law(would require medical assistance be provided to babies born alive during abortion).....
Did You Know?
In 8,000 Ronald Reagan-icon of the 2008 conservative class, speeches he never once mentioned abortion...
By the way, Obama is for sex-education for kindergartners....
"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.
"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."
"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."