Some are now suggesting that President Obama get involved in the NFL strike talks. I was his college classmate at Columbia University and have studied his political career for years. My record of predicting where Obama will come down on the side of an issue and what lie he will tell to rationalize his decision is near perfect. Just call me “The Obama Whisperer.”

Here’s a quick lesson in how he thinks:

First, Obama is a Socialist who believes in the redistribution of wealth. He hates those who have worked hard and earned money — unless they give him massive campaign contributions.

Second, he’s a union hack, who will do anything for unions, even break the law and violate the Constitution — at least for those unions that give him massive campaign contributions. Don’t believe me? Ask the shareholders and banks that loaned billions to GM and Chrysler, only to see their ownership and legal contracts erased by Obama in order to hand ownership to the unions that destroyed the automakers in the first place.

Third, like a true Socialist, Obama believes government has the solution to every problem, and that solution is more government and higher taxes, combined with a prescription of social justice and affirmative action.

Based on his lifetime body of work, here is how I predict Obama will settle the NFL labor crisis:

(more…)

In August of 2005, Houston investment banker Matt Simmons predicted in a New York Times feature article that the price of oil, then $65/barrel, would soar.

Simmons, who had written a book arguing that the world is running out of oil, was predicting oil prices “in the high triple digits.”

After reading Simmons’ prediction, John Tierney, a libertarian, who was then an op-ed columnist for the New York Times, telephoned Simmons and called him on it.  He asked him if he’d be willing to put money on his prediction.

The two made a $10,000 bet.  If the average oil price five years hence in 2010, adjusted for inflation, exceeded $200, Simmons would win. If not, Tierney would pocket the ten grand.

We’re now into the second half of 2010, and the average oil price, in 2005 dollars, is $70.  Unless there is a remarkable explosion in the oil price for the remainder of 2010, driving it well above $300, Matt Simmons loses this bet.  It was not even close.

The point here is to try and learn something from this that is relevant to what is going on today.

Simmons is an energy specialist.  The company he founded advertises itself as “the only investment bank specializing in the entire spectrum of energy.”

It’s reasonable to assume that he knows a zillion times more about exploring for and producing oil than John Tierney.   But Tierney didn’t make the bet because he felt he knew more about drilling for oil.  He made the bet because he knows something about markets and change.

(more…)

Yesterday we brought you “As Tea Party Activists Protest Dodd’s Big Brother Bill, Bank of America Deploys Security Forces,” the story of a group of  Tea Party and 912 Project protesters in Charlotte, North Carolina who showed up at the Bank of America headquarters to protest the bank’s sweetheart deal with Senator Kay Hagan on the financial reform bill currently moving through the Senate.  As protesters arrived with the intention of standing peacefully while holding signs that read things like  “No More Bailouts” and “CFPA = Big Brother”, they were met by several local police officers, a number of Bank of America paid security guards, and a few hired security extras from Wackenhut.

No one knows how the police or Bank of America were informed of the protest, as the event coordinators had not sent such a notification, nor had they filed for a permit with such a small number of attendees.  Further, the event was only scheduled the prior day.  Nonetheless, the bank was obviously prepared enough to have beefed up their security staff and hired the extra guards.

All that, for this peaceful bunch of patriotic citizens, there only to exercise their 1st amendment rights and express their discontent with the out of control bailouts and Big Brother environment created by the marriage of Big Government and Big Banks.  The financial reform bill only makes that environment even worse.  So they had something to say about it.

Sure, officers and security guards have every right to direct citizens away from private property and onto the public property boundaries.  Standing there in a line however, and hovering in the corner  in numbers that outweigh that of the protesters themselves only creates a chilling effect on 1st amendment rights like free speech and the right of the people to peaceably assemble.

(more…)

In Charlotte, North Carolina, there’s apparently a growing deadly threat to worry about.  It seems that protesters there are getting unruly these days – so unruly that local businesses have brought on extra security detail to help out the local police.

That’s what happened when one such group of protesters descended upon the Bank of America headquarters on Saturday, May 8th.  The group showed up around lunchtime, eager to protest the financial reform bill currently making its way through the Senate.  Upon their arrival, not only were they met by three Charlotte police cars and a couple of local officers, but evidently Bank of America had somehow caught wind of the event and sent out another six or so Bank of America paid security staff. As an extra precaution, the bank had also hired at least two Wackenhut security officers to augment their usual staff.  Apparently, Bank of America felt it necessary to prepare for some sort of pending siege – these are Tea Party protesters we’re talking about here.  According to our own members of Congress and their allies, they’ve deemed Tea Partiers, the very constituents they are supposed to represent, a violent, racist bunch of potentially unstable people.

Well, when I heard about the incident, I couldn’t wait to get a look at these dangerous rabble-rousers.

So this is the riot mob that Bank of America sent out its security force, including extras from Wackenhut, to aggressively resist.

Meanwhile, these protesters showed up simply to draw attention to Bank of America’s role in trying to influence the current financial reform legislation.  In North Carolina, Bank of America has a special place in the heart of Democratic Senator Kay Hagan, who has been pushing an amendment to the bill on behalf of the giant bank.  (Coincidentally, it also benefits another of the Senator’s AND Bank of America’s favorites, the Center for Responsible Lending…but that’s for another post).

Hagan, a former Vice President with Bank of America who oversaw subprime lending programs there, has proposed the amendment under the guise of “protecting consumers”, but when Bank of America is a staunch supporter of the legislation, it’s easy to be suspicious of anyone’s supposed good intent.

(more…)

As long as the Democrats continue to control Congress, we’ll have to endure an endless procession of initiatives for the federal government to take over industry after industry. Health insurance and college loans went under federal hegemony with passage of a single bill, known as “ObamaCare.”

Now, a new bill, referred to by the name of its chief sponsor, the ethically challenged Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, aims to consolidate a federal takeover of the nation’s entire network of financial institutions.

As Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute notes:

Does the bill, as [Republican Senate leader Mitch] McConnell said, “institutionalize too big to fail?” Of course. There can’t be any reasonable doubt about this. The bill authorizes the Fed to regulate all non-bank financial institutions that are “systemically important” or might cause instability in the U.S. financial system if they failed. . . .

The market will see immediately that the government has created Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs in every sector of the financial system where these large companies are designated for Fed regulation, including insurance companies, hedge funds, finance companies, bank holding companies, securities firms, and any other kind of financial institution the government wants to regulate. Since these firms will be too big to fail, they will be seen in the market—as Fannie and Freddie were seen—as ultimately backed by the government and thus safer firms to lend to than small firms that are not government backed. This will permanently distort the financial market, favoring large companies over small ones, and eventually force a consolidation of each market where these firms exist into a few large competitors operating under the benign supervision of the government.

In other words, this is another huge step toward fascistic corporatism, completing a de facto government takeover of today’s nominally “private” financial firms. These corporations would be reduced to the status of politically managed public utilities.

(more…)

Last week, I had the honor of speaking to a robust group of conservatives in New Hampshire — and I saw a level of energy within our movement that I haven’t seen in a long time. People are fired up. And not just in the Granite State. Everywhere I travel these days, Americans are standing up and declaring themselves ready to fight for the principles and values that made this the greatest country in history – principles and values that are under attack by the Democrats in Congress and the current administration.

Today, the federal government owns or controls the nation’s largest insurance company, two of the three American auto manufacturing companies, the two entities that hold a majority of our mortgages, the entire student loan industry, wide swaths of the banking industry and now a major portion of the American health care delivery system.

Think about it. With his individual mandate, President Barack Obama and the federal government are now forcing Americans to buy a good or service simply for no other reason than they are alive. Their reform will lead to higher taxes and higher premiums – and not reduce the exploding health care costs that are the underlying problem of America’s health care system.

Let me put it bluntly: America is headed in the wrong direction.

(more…)

The Cincinnati Enquirer nails it today:

America’s robust discussion of health care reform during the past year has been beneficial in many ways, giving the public greater awareness and insight into this complex issue. Unfortunately, the debate has been held pretty much on one-party terms as Democrats, controlling both houses of Congress and the White House, crafted the only plan allowed on the table, and negotiated behind closed doors. Now, despite the deep reservations of a majority of Americans, congressional leaders plan to ram through their proposal this week – bypassing normal congressional procedures.

It is a distressing prospect. We hope that moderate House Democrats – among them Rep. Steve Driehaus of Cincinnati, who says he “will not bend on the principle of federal funding on abortion” but will be stuck in the middle of an elaborate charade to include that funding anyway – will put a stop to this sham.

Real debate has been sidestepped, while Democrats played a childish game of Catch-22 with health care legislation: Congressional leaders wouldn’t allow Republican proposals to be formally considered, then turned around and accused them of not having alternatives. Among themselves, Democrats cut a series of backroom deals that in any other context would be considered criminal payoffs and bribery.

Here’s how blatant it’s become: Last week, President Obama nominated for a federal appeals court the brother of a wavering Democratic House member from Utah.

(more…)

To achieve the goal of a universal, single-payer health system, the White House must secure the power it needs by amending the Social Security Act to transfer pivotal controls from Congress to the executive branch.  This transfer of power would ultimately give the President and the majority party, in this case the radical left Obama White House and Pelosi-Reid led progressive Democrats, the authority to frame and manipulate new policy, coverage options, and reimbursements, ultimately reshaping the future US health care system into a something unrecognizable in this country.

The deliberate setup for the White House power grab is built into the each of the health care bills and, if they fail, little-known twin bills called “MedPAC Reform of 2009” are waiting in the wings.  The bills, S.B. 1110 and H.R. 2718, craftily amend the Social Security Act and transfer the Medicare guideline and rule setting processes, from the legislative branch to the executive branch.  These bills offer cover to one another in case one doesn’t pass the House or Senate, respectively.  Remember, Democrats need to gain executive branch authority by amending the Social Security Act over Medicare regulations and physician fee schedules to transform the health care system in a single-payer, socialized system.

More importantly, Medicare’s regulations and physician fee schedules are the keystone to developing payer systems and reimbursement models across the entire health care industry.  And where Medicare goes, insurers follow.

To underscore the far-reaching power, a bulk of the states already reference or utilize the Medicare guidelines and fee schedules in determining policy, coverage, and payment, which impacts certain state-specific plans, including, but not limited to, self-funded plans, automobile insurance payers, and state workers’ compensation funds and plans – affecting even Big Labor.   For the executive branch to have such authority over Medicare regulations with little oversight is alarming.  This raises further issues of the powerful impact these federal mandates could potentially have on the states in stripping them of their own management of their respective insurance industries.

(more…)

President Obama’s meetings at the Senate on Sunday, much like his visit to Copenhagen this week, are not indicators of inevitability; they are portents of panic.  The reports coming out of the closed door, Democrats-only, meeting of internal divisions that are still irreconcilable, despite the high rhetoric of historic moment, only make the point more vividly: can you say “desperation”?

The sensible Democrats know they are in trouble.  They know the American people have lost confidence that the Administration and Congress share their priorities.

While polls consistently show that Americans are increasingly concerned about jobs, reviving the economy, and managing our deficits, the Democrats fixate on health care, a relatively low priority for most Americans and anathema for many in this form.  The reforms the Democrats push are themselves unpopular, and for good reason.  Americans know that a government takeover of health care will diminish the quality of care, reduce our ability to control our treatment options, and drive up the premium costs for many Americans.  It’s not just the health care system that will suffer, but proposed reforms will also cripple one of the few sectors that have been creating jobs during the recession, create multiple new taxes and penalties, and further hamper the economy by creating massive new debt and entitlements.

(more…)

Just because you have a gun, you do not necessarily need to shoot it.  Just because you have a vote in Congress does not mean you need to grab power.

While both Parties have their internal battles, Republicans who are wondering why their numbers are waning need look no farther than the current health care debate for clues.  When Democrats roll out a Federal takeover of private health insurance, the Republican response should not be less of a government takeover, it should be a total federal government withdrawl from regulating private health insurance.  The point is simple, although lost on many.

When we think about insurance in our lives, from life, home, auto, professional liability and health, which one is the biggest source on consternation?  Guess what?  Health insurance is the only one in which the federal government has significantly intruded.  Even that is currently regulated at the State level.  However, the many Federal government restrictions that complicate the health insurance marketplace are the primary reason competition cannot thrive.

(more…)

Today, Sen. Harry Reid will move his government takeover of health care a bit further down the field:

Fortunately, the bill doesn’t take full effect until 2014. Lots of chances to undo the harm that is about to be closer to enactment.