We knew this was coming, right?

Opposition to Obama’s policies, in this case, the stimulus package=racism. Just ask Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-SC).

Will President Obama issue a statement declaring how he strongly disagrees with Rep. Clyburn’s “assessment” or will he let the accusation go unanswered? He was perfectly willing to fan the flames of racism last year when it suited his purposes (to get elected) but now that he’s President, will he take a different approach?

I won’t hold my breath.

“Chicago Tea Party” re: the stimulus bill?

Heck yeah, I’m all for it!

Here’s part of the transcript, via Tom Blumer:

Becky Quick, in studio: …. Rick have you been listening (to the previous conversation)?

Rick Santelli, on trading floor: Listening to it? I’ve been just glued to it because Mr. Ross has nailed it. You know, the government is promoting bad behavior, because we certainly don’t want to put stimulus forth, and give people a whopping eight or ten dollars in their check, and think that they ought to save it.

And in terms of modifications, I’ll tell you what, I have an idea. You know the new administration’s big on computers and technology. How about this, (Mr.) President and new administration — Why don’t you put up a web site to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages, or would we like to, at least, buy cars and buy houses in foreclosure and give them to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road, and reward people that could carry the water, instead of drink(ing) the water.

Trader sitting near by: What a novel idea! What? Who thought of that!

(traders in the pit start clapping and cheering)

Joe Kernen, in studio: Rick, they’re like putty in your hands. Did you hear —

Santelli: No they’re not, Joe. They’re not like putty in our hands! This is America! (turns around to address pit traders) How many of you people want to pay for your neighbors’ mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills? Raise their hand. (traders boo; Santelli turns around to face CNBC camera) President Obama, are you listening?

Trader (sitting nearby, goes over to Santelli’s mike): How about we all stop paying our mortgage? It’s a moral hazard.

Kernen: It’s like mob rule here, I’m getting scared. I’m glad —

Santelli: Don’t get scared, Joe. They’re already scaring you. Y’know, Cuba used to have mansions and a relatively decent economy. They moved from the individual to the collective. Now they’re driving ’54 Chevys, maybe the last great car to come out of Detroit.

Kernen: They’re driving ’em on water too, which is a little strange to watch, at times.

Santelli: There you go.

Kernen: Hey Rick, how about the notion that Wilbur pointed out, you can go down to 2% on the mortgage …..

Santelli: You can go down to minus two percent, they can’t afford the house!

Kernen: ….. and still have 40% not be able to do it, so why are we trying to keep them in the house?

Santelli: I know Mr. Summers is a great economist, but boy I’d love the answer to that one.

(some cross-talk)

Quick: Wow. You get people fired up.

Santelli: We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m going to start organizing.

Where do I sign up? :D

Related: NRO Talks to CNBC’s Rick Santelli

Priceless story of the day

My friend and fellow Charlottean Bruce at the Gay Patriot blog called Senator Kay Hagen’s DC office today to ask, point blank, whether or not the Senator felt he was a “coward” as per AG Holder’s description of Americans on the issue of race. Here’s the response he got (emphasis his):

[…] given the fact that if I dare speak about race in the workplace, I’d be fired under current employment laws….. Does Senator Hagan think I — an ordinary American — am a coward?

The poor dude who answered the phone sputtered, then said he “figured she would not agree with Holder’s statement”. But then put me on hold and after about 3 minutes came back with: “Let me take your address so we can send you a response to Holder’s nomination since Sen. Hagan still has to answer a lot of letters about the subject.”

I don’t know, it is a pretty simple question: Senator Hagan — do you think I’m a coward?

Hey Bruce – $5 says someone at Mel Watt’s office would actually give you a definitive answer to that question without you ever having to be put on hold ;)

About the “Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board”

I touched on this topic briefly yesterday, but today Byron York’s got an in-depth report on what’s being called “the RAT board” – something that was buried deep in the stimulus bill that President Obama has now signed into law (via Dan Riehl):

You’ve heard a lot about the astonishing spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, signed into law this week by President Barack Obama. But you probably haven’t heard about a provision in the bill that threatens to politicize the way allegations of fraud and corruption are investigated — or not investigated — throughout the federal government.

The provision, which attracted virtually no attention in the debate over the 1,073-page stimulus bill, creates something called the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board — the RAT Board, as it’s known by the few insiders who are aware of it. The board would oversee the in-house watchdogs, known as inspectors general, whose job is to independently investigate allegations of wrongdoing at various federal agencies, without fear of interference by political appointees or the White House.

In the name of accountability and transparency, Congress has given the RAT Board the authority to ask “that an inspector general conduct or refrain from conducting an audit or investigation.” If the inspector general doesn’t want to follow the wishes of the RAT Board, he’ll have to write a report explaining his decision to the board, as well as to the head of his agency (from whom he is supposedly independent) and to Congress. In the end, a determined inspector general can probably get his way, but only after jumping through bureaucratic hoops that will inevitably make him hesitate to go forward.

When Iowa Republican Sen. Charles Grassley, a longtime champion of inspectors general, read the words “conduct or refrain from conducting,” alarm bells went off. The language means that the board — whose chairman will be appointed by the president — can reach deep inside a federal agency and tell an inspector general to lay off some particularly sensitive subject. Or, conversely, it can tell the inspector general to go after a tempting political target.

“This strikes at the heart of the independence of inspectors general,” Grassley told me this week, in a phone conversation between visits to town meetings in rural Iowa. “Anytime an inspector general has somebody questioning his authority, it tends to dampen the aggressiveness with which they pursue something, particularly if it’s going to make the incumbent administration look bad.”

As they say, read the whole thing. And then ask your friends and family members who supported then-candidate Obama if this is the type of “transparency” they were promised in an Obama administration.