Advantage Rick Santelli — and Larry Kudlow.

CNBC reporter Santelli’s Thursday morning “Shout Heard Round the World” (CNBC’s term) objecting to the Obama administration’s mortgage modification program on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange quickly went viral, and struck two nerves. First, it ignited a groundswell of support from the over 90% of the of the nation that pays its bills and plays by the (normal) rules. The other nerve it struck was at the White House, whose spokesman Robert Gibbs struck back with a level of poorly concealed fury and contempt that I don’t think I’ve seen publicly displayed by any other administration in my lifetime.

Larry Kudlow had Santelli as a guest on CNBC’s Kudlow Report Friday night (CNBC video here; YouTube here [HT Scott's Slant]).  As one would fully expect by this time, Santelli made a few huge, emotionally-charged points of his own. The gratifying stunner is Kudlow’s passion in the final third of the interview, where he sounded the alarm over freedom of the press, basic respect, and bullying.

Looking around the web, at least at this point, this interview has gained relatively little exposure, leaving the distinct and incorrect impression that Gibbs has the rhetorical upper hand.

No way. The CNBC pair of Santelli and Kudlow has the White House on its heels. Common-sense, passionate, principled assertions rooted in truth will tend to do that:

Here’s the full transcript (bolds are mine):

Kudlow: With us now to discuss this blistering attack is our Rick Santelli.

Hang on, Rick, for one second. Mr. Gibbs had some more to say. I want you to listen to this, and then we’re going to get your comments.

Gibbs (from earlier in the day): This is a copy of the President’s home affordability plan (check out the background chuckle, as someone apparently think Gibbs is about to put Santelli in his place. In your dreams. — Ed.). It’s available on the White House web site, and I would encourage him (to) download it. Hit print, and begin to read it.

Kudlow: All right, “Download it, hit print, and begin to read it.” Rick, this is one of the worst attacks I’ve ever seen on the media from the president or the White House or the press secretary. It reminds me of Papa Bush attacking Dan Rather. It reminds me of Richard Nixon’s blistering attacks on members of the press he didn’t like. I don’t like this one bit. First up, my friend, have you read the mortgage documents, the mortgage plan documents, because they’re saying you didn’t.

Santelli: Of course I did, Larry. I though it was a one-page thing he (Gibbs) held up. (Looks that way to me — Ed.).

(Santelli holds up what is apparently the full plan.)

We all heard the President when he did this live on CNBC. Of course we saw it. And you know what, if you listen to my rant, Larry, did I talk to any points in here that were unjust?

Let’s just look at a few of these. Y’know, Mr. Gibbs, I will tell you this, the one point Larry and I don’t like right from the beginning is loan modifications through bankruptcy judges. Now, you really want to get particular? They said I don’t know what I’m talking about, and I think the notion is that we aren’t really paying for other people’s mortgages. Where does he think these thousand dollars are coming from to pay the services? Why should we pay those banks? They should be taking care of it themselves.

You know, this money is coming from somewhere. And if they’re going to lower the interest rates on some, they should lower it for everybody, or they should give everybody a check. You know what Larry? The 92% of the Americans that are paying their loan on time, do you think there’s no pain there? These people are probably cutting back, their 401(k)s are down. It’s tough. Just because they’re making their payment and they’re current, doesn’t mean they’re not cutting back as well.

We need to be American about this. A card laid is a card played. Do we want to inundate our kids with that? But more than that, do we want to teach our children that you can get out of a mistake and that there are do-overs? I just don’t think that’s American, and I read it, and guess what? (tears up papers and throws them in the air) I still don’t like it.

Kudlow: Rick Santelli, there is a populist revolt against this mortgage plan, precisely for the reasons that you have articulated this evening, and of course yesterday. You see it everywhere. You see it in the media everywhere.

Santelli: You know, I’ve ranted for years. Anybody who’s seen CNBC knows I’m impassioned about anything. You’ll ever see anybody get more excited about CPI than Rick Santelli. Why is this rant over the last 14 years such a big deal or different than the others? Because we hit a nerve. And the reason he (Gibbs) had the nice smile on his face and he was so kind to me, is because he is protesting too much. He sees the pluralist come back. He sees the web sites, he sees the hits, and maybe they didn’t expect it, and I’m not saying I’m right. But at the end of the day, call me any names that you want, but the fact of the matter is, everybody is talking about it, studying it, and looking at it more. And in my opinion, if I helped do that even one-tenth of 1%, I’m happy, and I can take it. And if we’re going to be on the Today Show together, I’ll drink decaf, but I have a feeling that you ought to drink caffeinated.

Kudlow: Well, I’ll just tell you this, of course I agree with virtually everything you said. I’ve made the same points. But Rick, I want to go into this. This is an unprecedented White House assault on a member of the press, a member of the media in good standing.

Santelli: Free speech as well.

Kudlow: You’ve been doing this stuff for years. And as I said earlier, I can’t recall anything like this. In some respects, this is worse than the Nixon attacks on Dan Rather, or I remember the Papa Bush’s attacks on CBS’s Dan Rather. Now there’s an issue here, there’s a freedom of the press issue. There’s also a respect issue. There’s also a bullying issue, Rick Santelli. I wanna know, do you want to take Gibbs up on having a cup of coffee? Do you feel that the White House has the right to start bullying members? It could be you today, it could be me tomorrow, it could be somebody on Fox News, it could be NBC News. It could be anybody. Does this mean this is how this White House and the Obama Presidency is going react to criticism from the media? Is this, is this a signal of things to come with the worst press relations we’ve seen in our lifetime?

Santelli: Well I certainly hope not. And if he’s inviting me to Washington, I certainly out of respect for the presidential administration, whom I want to succeed as badly as any of the other 300 million Americans, not only will I show up, but my favorite movie is “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” and Rick is going to be on his way.

Kudlow: All right, terrific stuff. Rick Santelli, have a great weekend. You’ve earned it.

Santelli: Thanks, buddy.

A few follow-up thoughts:

• Kudlow must have missed the 1990s, when the Clinton Adminstration sicced IRS auditors on political opponents, including Joe Farah’s Western Journalism Center.
• Bush 41 and Nixon went after Rather themselves, rather than leaving it to a surrogate to do their dirty work.
• Kudlow has it very wrong about Bush 41 and Dan Rather. Bush 41′s 1988 takedown of Rather was in response to pre-planned bullying ambush from an incredibly boorish Rather, as this retrospective look last year by Rich Noyes at NewsBusters clearly shows (interview transcript is here).

In the brief item that accompanies the video at the CNBC link, Santelli says that “This is an issue of discourse on a topic that affects the foundation and principles that make our country great….. free speech, contract law, freedom of the press, and most of all the legacy we leave our children and grandchildren.” This morning, RedState notes yet another example (“Democrats to Railroad Through Another Super Secret Massive Spending Bill”) of the White House’s and congressional leadership’s plans to ram through major legislation at light speed without giving lawmakers a chance to even read it, let alone have “discourse” about it.

With all due respect to Rick Santelli, it’s reasonable to believe that “discourse” is the last thing they want.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

From Oceanside, California:

February 20, 2009

A California man awoke from a coma right before his doctors were about to disconnect his life support. The story gives more credence to the notion that families should avoid making premature decisions to take the life of a loved one, because of the possibility of recovery.

Mike Connolly is a 56-year-old man whose heart stopped in late January and he lay in bed comatose for about four days when his family decided to give doctors permission to remove his life support.

That’s when Connolly recovered and interacted with his world around him once again.

According to the North County Times, Connolly’s stepson Mike Cooper was reading Scripture by his bedside when he noticed a tear going down Connolly’s cheek. Cooper soon left the room, only to return moments later when heard another family member cheering and hollering.

“He said Mike was responding,” Cooper told the newspaper. “I didn’t believe him, but I went back in there, and it was true. You would say his name, and he would turn his head toward you. It was a miracle.”

The news was surprising because doctors has said Connolly had brain damage from his heart stopping and would never recover from the coma.

Now he is making steady progress and the same physicians say he will make a full recovery.

Martin Nielsen, Connolly’s pulmonary doctor, told the newspaper he is surprised by his full recovery and called it miraculous.

“When we get a guy like Mike Connolly, it’s almost like a miracle,” Nielsen said. “I’ve never seen anybody come back like he has.”

Connolly’s heart stopped beating for 35 minutes and doctors speculate his brain went without oxygen for at least 10 minutes — making his recovery even more spectacular.

“Generally, the rule of thumb is if you go for more than four minutes without oxygen, you will see severe damage to the brain,” Nielsen said.

Go here for the rest of the story.

News:

Obama’s First Budget Seeks To Trim Deficit
Plan Would Cut War Spending, Increase Taxes on the Wealthy

Obama also seeks to increase tax collections, mainly by making good on his promise to eliminate some of the temporary tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003. While the budget would keep the breaks that benefit middle-income families, it would eliminate them for wealthy taxpayers, defined as families earning more than $250,000 a year. Those tax breaks would be permitted to expire on schedule in 2011. That means the top tax rate would rise from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent.

From Instapundit (HT Anchoress), from an e-mail he received:

Congressman Jerry McNerney (D-Pleasanton, CA) …. “told me that he thought tax rates should go up for the very rich and that the top marginal tax rate should be 90%. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing, so I asked in a voice that many in the room could hear if he really meant 90%, and he said yes. Several people asked me after my turn was over if they heard correctly what he said, and were amazed when I said yes.”

As usual, the press doesn’t understand the difference between “the wealthy” and “high-income earners.”

That’s not surprising. President Obama doesn’t either.

From Life News, in Bellevue, Nebraska:

February 17, 2009

A local electrician has quite working on repairs to a late-term abortion business outside of Omaha following pressure from pro-life advocates. The worker was repairing the abortion business run by late-term abortion practitioner LeRoy Carhart that was recently burned in an accidental fire.

The Nebraska-based center is one of the few in the nation to do late-term abortions and Carhart’s name became famous when the Supreme Court ruled for him against a partial-birth abortion ban.

The unnamed electrician made the decision to quit assisting with repairs and cancel his contract after he was informed that abortions took place at the run-down medical office.

The electrician initially resisted efforts and said he had nothing to do with an abortion business, but after being told that the basement containing medical records he was working on was part of Carhart’s abortion business, he quit immediately.

“He said he considered himself a good Catholic and didn’t want to be an accessory to an abortion clinic,” local pro-life advocate Larry Donlan explained.

Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue, which monitors abortion practitioners, applauded the good news and told LifeNews.com that the results of campaigns designed to protest the collaboration between construction workers and abortion centers work. ….

Go here for the rest of the story.

The Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven is now the President of the White House Correspondents Association (picture at right is from the WHCA web site).

Loven was the first person on President Obama’s preselected list of those permitted to ask a question at his February prime-time press briefing. Whether she received this top placement because of her office, or because of her years of George Bush-bashing bias — so strong and obvious that Powerline was moved to dub her a “Democratic Operative” back in 2004 — is an open question.

Loven queried the president as follows:

Earlier today in Indiana you said something striking. You said that this nation could end up in a crisis, without action, that we would be unable to reverse. Can you talk about what you know or what you’re hearing that would lead you to say that our recession might be permanent when others in our history have not? And do you think that you risk losing some credibility or even talking down the economy by using dire language like that?

(Obama actually said “may be unable to reverse,” not “would be.” But I digress.)

Obama’s rambling answer, and the rest of the briefing, should have reminded Loven of what she surely considered a withering critique of Bush three years ago (HT to an e-mailer; bolds are mine). After all, she wrote it:

The President And The Straw Man
(Jennifer Loven, AP)
WASHINGTON, March 18, 2006

….. When the president starts a sentence with “some say” or offers up what “some in Washington” believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.

The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Mr. Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.

He typically then says he “strongly disagrees,” conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.

Mr. Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed “critics,” is just as problematic.

Because the “some” often go unnamed, Mr. Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, “‘some’ suggests a number much larger than is actually out there,” said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.

A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as “a bizarre kind of double talk” that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.

….. “It’s such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people,” Fields said. “All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What’s striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff.”

Among Bush’s supposed “straw man” statements Loven cited — statements which Loven claimed that “bears little resemblance to (opponents’) actual position(s)” — were these:

• “There are some really decent people who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care … for all people.”
• “My opponent and others believe this (War on Terrorism) matter is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement.”
• “Some say perhaps we ought to just pull out of Iraq. That is foolhardy policy.”
• “There’s some in America who say, ‘Well, this can’t be true there are still people willing to attack.”‘

Of course, there really were prominent politicians making these statements, as critiques at Powerline, the American Federalist Journal, and the Bookworm Room, among many others (HT Columbia Journalism Review), pointed out at the time. So Bush’s arguments weren’t being directed at people made of straw; they correctly characterized the beliefs of his opponents. As such, they had the distinct advantage of being true.

Barack Obama used the Loven-derided”straw man” rhetorical device quite a few times at the press briefing. Here are a few examples:

• “And there have been others on the Republican side or the conservative side who said, no matter how much money you spend, nothing makes a difference, so let’s just blow up the public school systems.” (Nice touch with the violent rhetoric. Real classy, Barack — Ed.)
• “…. although there are some politicians who are arguing that we don’t need a stimulus, there are very few economists who are making that argument.”
• “Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. You have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace.”

As to the last item, there are indeed “some” economists who have said they prefer doing nothing over passing the stimulus bill, but that’s because of the harm they believe the legislation will cause. It doesn’t mean that they don’t have policy prescriptions involving different forms of “doing something.”

But in a few cases, Obama took his straw men a step further than the Bush examples Loven cited. Using absolutist terms, the President frequently — and unlike Bush, incorrectly — claimed that the arguments of those who disagree with him broached no exceptions. Examples (bolds are mine):

• “But as we’ve learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems — especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans. We have tried that strategy, time and time again. And it’s only helped lead us to the crisis we face right now.”
• “Now, maybe philosophically you just don’t think that the federal government should be involved in energy policy. I happen to disagree with that.”
• “As I said, the one concern I’ve got on the stimulus package, in terms of the debate and listening to some of what’s been said in Congress is that there seems to be a set of folks who — I don’t doubt their sincerity — who just believe that we should do nothing.“

The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz couldn’t handle Obama’s rhetorical excess, and called it out by name on the last item I just cited:

Worst of all, Obama engaged in one of the most frustrating rhetorical techniques: The straw-man argument. It wasn’t fair for Obama to repeatedly suggest that the core opposition to his stimulus plan comes from people “who just believe that we should do nothing.” The basic Republican position is considerably more nuanced than that, favoring tax cuts and opposing big-government spending.

Yet we’ve heard not a word from Jennifer Loven about how Obama has (unlike Bush) actually put forth what her go-to “expert” Mr. Fields described as “arguments with nonexistent people,” and how his rhetoric has much more seriously “abuse(d) the rules of legitimate discussion.” I also haven’t seen or heard anything from those who lionized Loven’s “journalism” three years ago. Some examples are cited here at the Columbia Journalism Review; one fan called Loven’s work “a rare but penetrating piece of news analysis.”

Well, why not?

Perhaps Jennifer Loven is worried that husband Roger Ballantine, who “just so happens” to be a former Clinton administration environmental official, a “senior adviser on energy and the environment” for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004, and a leading light (if that’s possible) in the areas of alternative energy and climate change, might have his career or business efforts hampered if she leveled similar criticisms.

Say it ain’t so, Jen.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

From Canada (copied in full for positivity purposes):

2/20/2009 6:15:00 AM

The mother of a 12-year-old girl whose pro-life speech has become a hit YouTube video says her daughter’s passion for the unborn is genuine.

Lia is a preteen from Canada who decided to speak out against abortion in her school’s speech contest, despite teachers and school officials who encouraged her to pick a different topic.

“What if I told you that right now someone was choosing if you were going to live or die? What if I told you that this choice wasn’t based on what you could or couldn’t do, what you had done in the past, or what you would do in the future? And what if I told you [that] you could nothing about it? Fellow students and teachers, thousands of children are right now in that very situation,” she says in her speech.

Kimberly, Lia’s mother, says Lia was told by school officials that if she chose the topic of abortion, she would not be allowed to participate in the speech contest. But both were surprised when Lia’s pro-choice teacher had a change of heart.

“Her teacher was really impressed by this speech and perhaps moved by it, and therefore her teacher kind of was a real supporter of [Lia] winning for the class,” Kimberly notes. “And she had to go through a couple of hoops and get clearance from a couple of other teachers before she could be declared winner of the class.”

Another controversy erupted when the panel of judges had a supposed big disagreement and one stepped down. Initially Lia was disqualified, but later the panel declared her the winner. She was asked to take out this portion of her speech: “[F]etuses are definitely humans knit together in their mother’s womb by their wonderful Creator who knows them all by name.”

Kimberly says after Lia was told to remove that portion of her speech, she took time to think about her decision and ultimately decided to leave it in. Lia also competed in a regional speech competition but did not win. However, her speech has been viewed by over 200,000 people on YouTube.

Go here for the rest of the story, and the video. Have a hankie handy; Lia’s poise will blow you away. Perhaps she will move a few hearts in the process.

Well, isn’t THIS interesting.

In a December post (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), I reviewed ABC’s online “The Faces of Political Scandal” slideshow, which featured mini-profiles of 14 politicians in recent years who have been tainted by scandal and/or crime.

At the time, I noted that:

Of the 14 politicians identified, seven are Democrats and seven are Republicans. Five of the seven GOP members are identified as such, while only two of the seven Democrats were flagged. The montage also has a couple of surprising factual errors.

Well, glory be, sometime in the past couple of months, ABC has made changes to the montage. Now each profile except for Bill Clinton’s (which is excusable) identifies the politician’s party. Additionally, two factual errors at the original profiles have been corrected. The year of Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal which ultimately led to his acts of perjury and impeachment has been changed from 1995 to 1998, and an incorrect statement that sex-scandalized Florida Democratic Congressman Tim Mahoney had conceded to GOP opponent Tom Rooney before Election Day last year has been removed.

Here’s the lineup of the “Faces of Political Scandal,” and how their status changed:

1. Then-current and now-former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich — Party was originally not ID’d; now the “Democrat” label is in the second sentence.
2. Then-current and now-former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens — GOP affiliation immediately ID’d in both instances.
3. New York Congressman Charles Rangel — Democratic Party immediately ID’d immediately ID’d both times.
4. Former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick — Democratic Party affiliation originally not ID’d; now the “Democrat” label is in the second sentence.
5. Former Florida Congressman Tim Mahoney — Democratic Party affiliation originally not ID’d. Now it is immediately (“D-Fla.”).
6. Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer — Democratic Party affiliation originally not ID’d. Now “the Democrat’s involvement in a prostitution ring” is in the first sentence.
7. Former New York Congressman Vito Fossella — GOP affiliation was in the third sentence; now it’s in the first “R-N.Y,”).
8. Former Ohio GOP Congressman Bob Ney — GOP affiliation ID’d immediately in both instances.
9. Former Florida Congressman Mark Foley — GOP affiliation ID’d immediately in both instances.
10. Former California Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham — GOP affiliation originally not identified; now it is (“R-Calif.”).
11. Then-current and now-former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson — Democratic Party affiliation ID’d immediately in both cases.
12. Soon to be former Idaho Senator Larry Craig — GOP affiliation ID’d in first sentence in both cases.
13. Former Illinois Governor George Ryan — GOP affiliation not originally ID’d; now “the Republican” affiliation is at the start of the second sentence.
14. Former Democratic President Bill Clinton — No party ID’d in either instance. No problem there.

ABC may have issued a correction notice relating to all of this, but I could not find it.

It is nice that ABC has made these fixes, but it would be nicer to know when they did them, and what motivated them.

Regardless, two inconvenient facts remain:

• While the “Faces of Political Scandal” montage was fresh, it was imbalanced in its party ID weighting for no defensible reason (if there was a defensible reason, ABC wouldn’t have made the changes they did).
• Unless they stumble across this post or the original, future researchers will look at the montage and understandably, but incorrectly, conclude that ABC got it right from the beginning.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

From Howell, Michigan:

February 20, 2009 00:00AM

Dudley Scott, a man who for years has been making sure veterans have the proper ceremonial touch at their funerals through his participation in the honor guard unit of the local Marine Corps League, will be at the center of a proper ceremonial presentation today.

Scott, a World War II veteran, will be presented with the Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals at the American Legion Post in Howell Township. U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Howell, was expected to be there for the presentation.

Scott, 85, said lots of family will be on hand for the ceremony, including his wife, Edith, and four of their five children. Add to that a contingent of friends for a guy who has lived in the Howell area since he graduated form high school and the regulars at the American Legion, and you’ve got quite a celebration.

Scott earned his medals during the battle for Iwo Jima, a Japanese island that was seen as crucial to success in the South Pacific. He was not part of the initial, deadly assault on the island, but he was in the second wave of Marines who landed a few days later. More than 6,800 U.S. soldiers were killed during the five-week battle and Scott has always been thankful he was not one of them.

He was close enough to witness that famous raising of the American flag atop Mount Suribachi. Scott says he was watching from the safety of a shell hole about 200 yards downhill.

“It made the hair of the back of your neck stand up a little bit,” he said of watching the stars and stripes raised on Iwo Jima. “It meant we were going to stay in control of the island.”

If you’d like to say “thank you” to a real American hero, stop by the American Legion a little before 1 p.m. today to take in the ceremony. If you want to get a taste of what Dudley Scott went through during the battle of Iwo Jima, pick up a copy of the book “Flags of our Fathers,” by James Brady and Ron Powers. ….

Go here for the rest of the story.

Rick Sentelli’s rant for the ages (transcript here) on CNBC’s Squawk Box yesterday criticizing the recently passed stimulus package and the Obama administration’s mortgage modification program was marred somewhat by the studio hosts. Though their tone was semi-humorous, it’s telling that their instincts were to characterize the traders present at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange as a “mob,” and to assume that Santelli somehow controlled them (“putty in your hands”). When Santelli suggested a Chicago Tea Party, one of the hosts warned that Mayor Daley and the National Guard would be mobilized.

In October of last year, in a memorable exchange on the day that history may decide was when American free-market capitalism entered the point of no return, CNBC reporters seemed somewhat amused that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson had “put a (figurative) gun to the heads” of major bank CEOs to force them to accept government “investment.”

Well if you don’t mind my asking, will we see any reaction out of CNBC’s studio folks to an example of real mob rule in the mortgage marketplace?

In a story at WJZ in Baltimore whose headline and coverage almost seem deliberately understated (“ACORN Trains Citizens To Protest Home Foreclosures”), the station tells us that ACORN “protesters” had broken into and occupied  a foreclosed home (HT Inside Charm City via Michelle Malkin):

A community organization breaks into a foreclosed home in what they are calling an act of civil disobedience.

The group wants to train homeowners facing eviction on peaceful ways they can remain in their homes.

Derek Valcourt reports their actions are not without controversy.

“The mortgage went up $300 in one month,” said Hanks, former homeowner.

She says the bank refused to modify her loan and foreclosed, kicking her out of the house in September.

The community group ACORN calls Hanks a victim of predatory lending.

“This is our house now,” said Louis Beverly, ACORN.

And on Thursday afternoon, they literally broke the foreclosure padlock right off the front door and then broke into the house, letting Hanks back in for the first time in months.

The group says it was staging similar demonstrations in six other cities nationwide while urging a moratorium on foreclosures.

The president set a bad example when, while still president-elect, he expressed solidarity (“they’re absolutely right“) with the actions of former employees who occupied the Republic Window plant in Chicago in mid-December. It’s not unreasonable to contend that his support then has emboldened ACORN now.

A reasonable prediction would be that this lawlessness won’t get a lot of notice from the Associated Press or other major establishment news organizations.

If the Obama administration and its assembled economic geniuses want to see the markets really dive, watch what happens if investors start to conclude that the rule of law doesn’t matter any more.

What will the smug studio folks at CNBC have to say then?

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

….. But I Don’t Have Any Time For:

• Obama’s transportation secretary certainly has a last name that fits at least one area of his philosophy, that of fleecing motorists — “Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood says he wants to consider taxing motorists based on how many miles they drive rather than how much gasoline they burn.” If it ever comes to pass, it won’t be a replacement tax. It will be an additional tax.
• Per Quinnipiac, in the Cleveland Examiner — “58% of Ohioans also approve the way that Obama is handling the economy – better than Governor Ted Strickland, who only received a 44% approval.” Those seem lower than you’d expect one month into a presidential administration and halfway through a gubernatorial term, respectively.
• In her video declaring her US Senate candidacy, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner referred to “Ohio’s election problems of 2004.” Hey Jen, the only “problem” is that your side lost. The late Paul Weyrich summed it up nicely in 2005: “We can thank Ken Blackwell for the fact that we are not still in court over the 2004 election. When a Clinton appointee to the Federal Judiciary in Toledo, two weeks before the general election, ruled that voters did not have to vote in their own precinct but could show up anywhere they pleased, Blackwell went to the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit and won the case, which upheld Ohio law.” Imagine that: a Secretary of State going to court to uphold Ohio law. It’s amazing, but sadly not surprising, that Jen Brunner considers that among 2004′s “problems.”
• Oh please, let it be so — “Netanyahu to Be Asked to Form Israel’s Next Government.” Forgotten nugget: Surely with the Clinton administration’s blessing, James Carville worked to defeat Netanyahu in 1999. If Bibi ends up in charge, his first meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ought to be quite interesting.
• The New York Times Company, which closed at yet another all-time low of $3.51 yesterday after a 5% drop, has suspended dividend payments to shareholders to preserve cash. The Sulzberger family and its affiliated trusts will lose out on about $25 million a year. It’s hard to imagine that the family would just sit there and take it without somehow reining in or ousting “Pinch” Sulzberger. His nearly seven-year bout with Bush Derangement Syndrome, followed by his romance with Obamamania, has virtually destroyed the paper’s credibility, and is on the verge of wrecking its financial viability. Anyone should have seen this coming years ago; your truly did. It’s time to acknowledge that though it pretends otherwise, the Times may no longer be the newspaper of record. For better or worse (tough call, but probably worse, though the pre-BDS Times was better), the Associated Press is probably the news source of record in the Internet era. Sadly, the AP’s structure makes it less accountable to the market’s and readers’ wishes than the Times, while its BDS and ObamaLove problems are equally as serious. Update: More is at a related NewsBusters post.

Rick Santelli for President (since he turns down replacing Ray Burris for Senator in the vid):

Also note the sniping inside the studio about “putty in his hand,” “mob rule,” and “I’m getting scared,” as if the people in the trading pit can’t think for themselves.

Jerks — What the bleep do you people think the foreclosure Chavistas are?

Memo to CNBC: You and the your networks’ talking heads who thought it was so cute how Hank Paulson “put a gun to their (big bankers’) heads” can kiss my keister.

UPDATE: A transcript of most of the video is below the fold and at NewsBusters (boy, I hope Santelli has paid his taxes, and never lets the parking meter run out when he’s in the Windy City) –

(more…)

Note: This column was first posted at Pajamas Media on Tuesday morning.

_____________________________________________________

For a fitness buff, he is sure feeding us a lot of junk.

_____________________________________________________

Four weeks into his presidency, the list of significant whoppers Barack Obama has inflicted on the American people is amazingly long.

Where to begin? Let’s take a look at four statements he made at his first presidential briefing.

Earlier that day, on February 9, the president had told his Elkart, Indiana audience the following:

Economists from across the spectrum have warned that if we don’t act immediately …. our nation will sink into a crisis that at some point we may be unable to reverse.

Unable to reverse? Possibly permanently? That’s how any reasonable reader would understand it.

At that evening’s prime-time briefing, the first question came from the Associated Press’s Jennifer Loven. Ms. Loven “just so happened” to be the first reporter on what was a pre-selected list of those who would be permitted to ask questions of His Excellency.

It is understandable that Obama gave Loven the coveted first slot. Her husband “just so happens” to be a former Clinton Administration environmental official, a “senior adviser on energy and the environment” for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004, and a leading light (if that’s possible) in the areas of alternative energy and climate change. To say that the Ballantine-Loven family stands to gain from the Obama administration’s love affair with “green jobs” would appear to be a very safe bet.

Thus, it’s not at all surprising that Loven, who surely knew how problematic Obama’s Elkhart statement was, and in general how dangerous the president’s no-confidence game of rhetorical overkill on the economy could turn out to be, graciously gave him a chance to back away from both, asking:

Earlier today in Indiana you said something striking. You said that this nation could end up in a crisis, without action, that we would be unable to reverse. Can you talk about what you know or what you’re hearing that would lead you to say that our recession might be permanent when others in our history have not? And do you think that you risk losing some credibility or even talking down the economy by using dire language like that?

That Jennifer Loven is clever, isn’t she? She turned “may be unable to reverse” into “will be unable to reverse,” transforming her question into the ultimate hanging curveball.

But despite having his first question served up mostly open-ended on a silver platter, the next painful sound viewers and listeners heard was that of Obama whiffing badly. Here’s how he began what inexplicably turned into a 900-word ramble (bold is mine):

No, no, no, no. I think that what I’ve said is what other economists have said across the political spectrum, which is that if you delay acting on an economy of this severity, then you potentially create a negative spiral that becomes much more difficult for us to get out of.

All he had to say was, “I only said that we might be unable to reverse the situation, not that it won’t be,” perhaps following it with a bit of elaboration. But instead, his answer was, in essence: “Jennifer, I like your husband, and I like you, but who do you believe, me right now or your lying ears in Elkhart?”

In Elkhart, before a friendly crowd, Obama adopted the economists’ supposed “may be unable to reverse” assessment, and used it as a reason to push for immediate passage of the so-called stimulus bill. At the briefing, he answered Loven as if he never said it.

The president never got around to dealing with the “talking down the economy” part of Loven’s question. The AP reporter and “Democratic operative” (but I repeat myself) didn’t call him on it; she may have been too stunned at how he mishandled the first part to react.

The briefing was chock full of other whoppers. Here are just a few.

He claimed that “…. this Economic Recovery and Reinvestment Plan …. will save or create up to 4 million jobs” — Put aside for the moment the numerical inconsistencies with previous claims that others have noticed. Candidate Obama always said his proposals would “create” jobs. He never said “save or create” or any variation on those two words — until after the election. Now all he talks of is “saving or creating,” laughably characterizing it at the briefing as “a measure of success.” Why? It’s not really measurable. As long as there are over 4 million Americans working (the real number is over 130 million), Obama can absurdly claim that all were “saved,” and declare “mission accomplished.” The press has uniformly failed to question this astonishing abandonment of accountability since Obama’s election.

In various ways, Obama called out people “who just believe that we should do nothing” as his main opposition. That is patently false. Regardless of what one thinks of the Republicans’ alternative proposal, it was anything but “do nothing.” In fact, it claimed that it would create (not “save or create”) 6.2 million jobs in the next two years through a combination of income tax relief, small business tax breaks, extended unemployment assistance, and a credit to new homebuyers. Even the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz called Obama’s characterization a “straw-man argument.”

Speaking of straw men — Obama said that “we’ve learned very clearly and conclusively over the last eight years, tax cuts alone can’t solve all of our economic problems — especially tax cuts that are targeted to the wealthiest few Americans.” Zheesh. No one ever said the Bush cuts would solve “all of our economic problems.” What was claimed was that tax cuts, especially the 2003 investment-related cuts, would lead to an economic recovery and higher federal tax receipts. They did both. After a mediocre previous two years, Economic growth in the four fiscal years ended September 30, 2007 averaged 2.8% — not bad, considering the drags of Sarbanes-Oxley and non-stop press negativity. Tax receipts continually rose, mostly dramatically, from 2003 until Spring 2008.

Maureen Dowd poked fun at the size of Obama’s ears in late 2006 (his reaction was quite immature, and a harbinger of the angry man we are occasionally seeing now). I’m starting to wonder if his nose hasn’t grown a bit longer since his election. At the rate he’s delivering whoppers to the American people, it won’t be very long before someone’s going to have to open any doors ahead of him.