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:

Like ”Cap and Trade,” Obama will produce scientists to declare that football is a dangerous sport threatening the health and welfare of the players. He’ll then pass “Helmet and Trade” legislation putting government in control of football — setting salaries for players, prices for fans, and giving new powers to the NFL players union.

Never letting a serious crisis go to waste, Obama will then pass legislation called “NFLCare” that demands that the NFL pay for the lifetime pension and healthcare of the players, paid for with massive new taxes on the NFL and its fans. The doctors who treat the NFL players will have caps placed on their fees. Of course this will lead to shortages of doctors and rationing, so eventually NFL Limb Panels will be set up to decide who gets a new knee, or shoulder, or hip. These decisions will be based on years of player life expectancy remaining, or the size of contributions to the Obama campaign.

He’ll then decide what income is “fair” and what is “greedy,” placing wage controls on players. Obama will say, “There is no longer a need for million dollar salaries. After all, just like government union employees, I’m going to guarantee NFL players — even the failed ones — pensions of $100K per year for life and free healthcare. We’ll call it ’NFL Tenure.’ It’s like a government job — a guaranteed job for life, without any performance necessary.”

Like American businesses, players will react to lower wages and higher taxes by leaving the USA to play football in Canada and Europe, destroying the NFL. Obama, of course, will blame the “greedy NFL owners” for sending American jobs offshore and pass a huge tariff on each player leaving the USA.

Then, Obama will state proudly, “We’ve got to spread the wealth around” and pass ”NFL Financial Reform,” requiring ninety-five percent of revenues be redistributed to employees, vendors, peanut salesmen, ticket takers, security, and parking lot attendants. A peanut vendor will be seen crying and telling a reporter, “I’ll never have to worry about paying rent or putting gas in my car ever again.”

But, Obama is just getting started. Fifty percent ownership of NFL teams will be turned over to the Players Union, just as in the case of GM and Chrysler. Obama will state, “The working man needs a stake in his own future.” This legislation will also demand teams have a minority owner in their ownership group and 50% of all NFL contracts be awarded to minority owned businesses. Not losing the opportunity for a teachable moment, Obama will say, “The NFL must reflect the diversity of America. It is time for the ownership, players, and contractors to reflect social justice. To get this party started correctly, I have fired Commissioner Goodall and appointed Reverend Al Sharpton as Commissioner of the NFL.”

Next he’ll pass rules limiting work hours for players and declare off-season workouts as “overtime.” The White House will set up a Toll Free (800) number for players to call the Bar Association, one of Obama’s leading contributors, who will provide lawyers free of charge to sue NFL teams within hours of a reported violation.

Finally, various new taxes will be imposed including “draft taxes,” “trade taxes,” and a “championship tax” (doubling taxes on Playoff teams; tripling on the Super Bowl winner). He’ll impose VAT taxes on everything bought at the games and a “wealthy fan confiscation tax” for prime, sideline seats. Skyboxes, of course, will be seized for the use of government officials, bureaucrats, politicians, and Obama campaign contributors.

At this point NFL owners will plead insolvency and threaten bankruptcy. Obama will ask “So, what’s in it for me?” Understanding EXACTLY what he means the owners will make massive campaign contributions to Obama and receive billion dollar bailouts from the U.S. Treasury as part of his next “stimulus” package.

Problem solved. NFL Strike/lockout averted. Obama has done it again. How did business survive before Obama?

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.

If markets are relatively free to adjust, it just doesn’t matter how smart you are, or how much you know about a particular commodity or business, you are not going to know what the world is going to look like in five years.  Chances are, you are not going to know what it is going to look like in a year.

Now suppose Matt Simmons, instead of being a private businessman making bets on his convictions was, instead, a government official setting policy.

This is what we’ve got today.

Pinheads with power who think they know the last detail of how the world works and what it is going to look like, not just over the next couple years – but years down the road.

For them tomorrow is simply a repeat of yesterday.  The idea that life is about surprises and the unknown – that what we know is a small splotch compared to what we don’t know – takes humility.  And humility is the last thing on the radar screen of power brokers who feel they know so much that they are comfortable planning and taking over the lives of their fellow citizens.

Doomsday scenarios dominated thinking about energy in the 1970’s.  It led to major government interference in these markets that just made things worse.

Reagan became president in 1981, cut taxes, cut spending, and decontrolled oil prices.  Within a couple years, oil prices dropped to a third of where they were, and stayed there for 15 years.

When I worked on welfare reform, doomsday sayers claimed that getting rid of perpetual government welfare would throw poor people into the street.  No one wound up in the street, and many got off welfare, found work, and built new lives.

The biggest problems our country has today relate to government planning gone awry.  The huge solvency problems we have with Social Security and Medicare all relate to assumptions these government planned systems were built on that turned out to be false.

Now we have only to watch and wait as the disaster that will follow our new government takeover of our heath care unfolds.  Every opportunity for new, creative solutions that would emerge from a free market has been squashed. The bureaucrats now reign.

Freedom is about humility not hubris. Our nation’s current problems reflect the latter.  Our only hope for renewed bounty and prosperity is to restore the former.

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.

If you don’t like what’s going on in this country, you have a chance to speak out about it yourself.  Attend NCFreedom’s statewide rally tomorrow,  May 12th in Raleigh, NC, where some of these very protesters will be exercising their 1st amendment rights, again.

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.

Hagan’s amendment would control the types of financial products that you as a consumer would be permitted, under federal law, to purchase.  It will limit consumers to no more than six and as few as one loan per year during a 12-month period for “covered” loans – those include anything from car title loans, installment loans, and payday loans to even some retail company credit plans.  For instance, if you purchased a large appliance from a department store or home improvement center and financed it through store credit with a payment plan of installments, you might be literally barred by law from purchasing another appliance in that same 12-month period if you intend to pay for it through installments on another company credit plan.

To enforce these controls, the government would create a national database to track the loan products that ordinary citizens are purchasing, and would require certain lending institutions – including banks, mortgage lenders (except for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are both exempted from the bill), car dealers, retail companies that offer credit plans, and even some doctors and dentists – to comply by providing information about you, your loans, and your bank account details to a bureaucratic agency managing the database.

So it’s no wonder local Tea Party, 912 Project groups, and other liberty-minded activists in the Charlotte area tried to pull together a spontaneous grassroots protest at the Bank of America headquarters there.  Upon learning of the amendment and the bank’s support of it, they gathered this past Saturday to draw attention to the amendment, and to the bill in general.

While it was a small gathering, the group arrived with signs and attempted to draw attention to their message from passers-by.  Since the bank was actually open for business, many people were going about their business in and out of the building.  Protesters said the local Charlotte police almost even seemed embarrassed and surprised at the show of force from bank of America. They were courteous to the group and even sent some of their officers back to the station after it was obvious the group posed no threat to the property or to any people.

However, Bank of America security, including the Wackenhut officers, saw it differently.

Protesters describe being spoken to by Bank of America guards with contempt.  They were immediately told to leave the premises, even though the bank was open for business and they’d stayed out on the sidewalk area.  Instead, the security detail then stood them down in a single file.  We’re receiving video and photo as of this writing but it’s almost comical to see the initial visuals, because their show of force actually outnumbered the number of protesters.

After some not-so-friendly direction given them by one of the plain clothes security officers and then a Wackenhut officer, the protesters moved to a different area of the property location, where the boundary line between private and public property was demonstrated for them.  They cooperated without issue and proceeded to simply stand in the designated area with their signs.  Meanwhile, they describe the security detail as angrily watching over them and treating them as though they were common criminals, while passersby looked on.  One plain clothes security officer got on his cell phone and spoke most of the time with an unidentified party, seemingly giving a play by play description of the protesters and their activity.  In viewing some of the initial photos we received, the man clearly wasn’t happy.

The incident is especially interesting because it’s in such stark contrast with similar protests by left wing activists and labor unions.  Take, for example, these photos from other Bank of America protests, where security, if present at all, simply stepped aside and went about their business.

There’s no question that Tea Party, 912 Project groups and other activists who stand for the Constitution and against overreaching government are portrayed by this administration unfairly, and certainly not treated with the same respect and fairness that labor unions and progressive activists enjoy.  That’s because while Democrats and left wing groups have made it a central theme of their platform to demonize companies like Bank of America, chanting slogans like “End Corporate Excess” and “Main Street Not Wall Street,” the truth is that behind the scenes the two are bedfellows on the same side.  After all, Bank of America and many of the other big banks actually support the financial reform bill. And Democrats like Kay Hagan are reeling in the big bucks in donations from the very banks from which they claim to be protecting us helpless consumers.  That’s why it’s no surprise that the financial reform bill has moved so quietly through the legislative process.  If Democrats draw too much attention to it, opposing grassroots activists might take notice.  Instead, they’ve relied upon labor unions and Organizing for America to distract us all from that reality, with their dramatic stunts like “Showdown on Wall Street“, and “Bust up Big Banks” rallies.

Unfortunately, it’s a strategy that’s worked, because the Tea Party grassroots have all but been asleep on this issue.  At least, until now they were.

“I can’t believe people haven’t been aware of this bill and some of the things that are in it. It’s a surprise to many of us – we didn’t even realize it was this close to coming up for the Senate vote.  We’ve been so focused on this statewide Health Care Repeal, that we almost missed the financial reform bill entirely.  Hopefully we have enough time to wake some folks up quickly enough to get engaged in this before it’s too late,” explained David DeGerolamo, a Tea Party and 912 Project organizer from North Carolina who built NCfreedom.us, a statewide coalition and website under which many of the local and state patriot groups could organize and coordinate while still maintaining their independence.

“We need to get these people back to the principles of the constitution that made this country great.  It’s about freedom of enterprise, not government intervention into enterprise.  The government is solely the problem in just about anything that has a problem.  Almost anything that’s wrong can be traced right back to the big fingerprint of the government.”

DeGerolamo was also referring to another statewide effort underway in the state of North Carolina, related to the recently passed Health Care legislation.  On May 12^th, State Senator Debbie Clary will introduce legislation that would exempt citizens and businesses of North Carolina from participation in any federally mandated health care.  According to NCfreedom, twenty-two states have so far filed lawsuits against the health care mandate.

The group is hosting a huge statewide rally on May 12^th, where at least twenty grassroots groups from across the state of North Carolina will march on the general assembly building and peacefully demand that the bills be brought to the floor for a vote. And after this weekend’s incident at Bank of America, he’s decided to expand the topic to the financial reform legislation as well so that the grassroots groups are aware of the importance of the legislation and its constitutional impact on the rights and personal liberties of American citizens and our free enterprise system.

Given the discovery that even many doctors and dentists who accommodate payment plans for their patients may be regulated under this financial reform bill as well, the expansion seems that much more appropriate.

And going back to the protest at Bank of America’s building for a moment, one quick video clip will sum up the story well.

As the protesters began to wrap up their exercise and stood alongside the bank looking on from the sidewalk, four or five kids began riding their bikes and doing tricks in front of the bank, right in the exact same spot from which the protesters had just been chased away for being on private property.  I guess they weren’t as threatening as that crazy, violent bunch of Tea Party protesters.

I think after this Bank of America incident, it’s clear that our rights are being eroded faster than most of us can keep up with.  After all, how many of you have been asleep for this financial reform bill?  But this wakeup call’s come just in time for NCFreedom’s statewide rally on May 12^th in Raleigh, NC.   I have the feeling the Raleigh event has probably just become Tea Party and grassroots central – the hot ticket event for this week.

If you’re anywhere near North Carolina, you can learn more about it here.   BigGovernment editor Mike Flynn has also just been invited to speak at the event.

Stay tuned – we should have some video posted on the Bank of America incident shortly.  I’m not sure whether it will tick you off, or make you laugh, but it will probably do both.

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.

Professor Brad Smith of Capital University Law School stressed that latter point to me:

It’s important to note that this is not just about more bailouts, but it will be bailouts for the politically connected and favored. If the President and Congress think you are a “savvy businessman” (which means you support his party) you’ll be in the pink. But if you are a “corrupt Wall Street Titan” (meaning you don’t support his party) well . . . .

Absolutely true. This is not only a federal takeover, but more specifically a political takeover of major financial corporations. Smith adds: “Republicans can rally public opposition if they get this message out there consistently.”

Ah, but therein lies the rub. The Dodd bill faces a cliffhanger vote in the Senate, perhaps as early as next week. And whether it passes in its current form may come down to the vote of a single Republican “centrist,” Susan Collins of Maine, who could thwart a successful GOP filibuster.

The repercussions of this legislation are as significant as ObamaCare. But even some Democrats are wavering on it. It can still be defeated.

I urge you to contact your two U.S. senators today. (And while you’re at it, make sure to send a copy of your message to Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.) Tell them to oppose the pending financial reform legislation, the so-called “Dodd bill.” Tell them it represents “crony capitalism” at its worst, putting taxpayers on the hook for guaranteed bailouts of any and all financial institutions deemed “too big to fail.”

Tell them that this will give unfair market advantages to big, politically connected corporations over smaller, politically unfavored competitors. And that, in turn, will completely distort the financial-services marketplace, creating the false impression that large, government-backed institutions—like AIG, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac—are inherently safer for investors and lenders than their smaller rivals. That can only encourage the consolidation of the financial-services sectors into a few gigantic monopolistic institutions, adding to the “moral hazard” problem of rewarding irresponsible businesses at the expense of their responsible competitors.

And you might want to add that we, the voters, will have the last word if power-craving members of Congress continue to imagine that they are “too big to fail” in November.

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.

We need to help good people running for office who understand that the federal government is overreaching and are willing to stand up and say, “Enough!” I’ve set up my Freedom First PAC to help elect those sorts of candidates to Congress this year.

The folks I’m talking with around the country tell me they’re ready to fight back against this massive expansion of the federal government. If you agree with them, I invite you to join me during my Facebook Town Hall on Wednesday night at 7:15 PM Eastern. I’m going to talk for a few minutes about some of the great candidates I’m supporting in 2010 and then I’m going to ask to hear directly from you. You’re going to get a chance to nominate conservative candidates for federal office to be enrolled in the Freedom First PAC’s fundraising program. My hope is that this program will give the grassroots unprecedented influence over the 2010 election.

I hope you will join me on Facebook Wednesday night at 7:15 PM Eastern. Bring your energy and your best ideas.

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.

This disgusting process, which Democrats brazenly wish to bring to conclusion this week, is being done with little regard for the opinions of a clear majority of Americans who, while they may believe health care reform is necessary, think this particular approach will take our nation down the wrong economic path.

Obama, despite all his fine talk of bipartisanship, has proven he has little regard for the ideas – or the constituencies – of those who are not his political allies. The paltry few GOP proposals that he has indicated he is willing to consider – even here, there are no real commitments – are so token as to be laughable.

Meanwhile, an Associated Press poll last week showed that 68 percent of Americans don’t want health care reform passed without Republican support.

Supporters of the Democratic plan can spin it any way they wish, but polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans oppose their heavy-handed approach to reform. Americans may favor general principles such as universal coverage, but they are distrustful of the way this bill has been crafted and how it will change their relationship with their health care providers.

According to the Quinnipiac Poll, Ohioans oppose the Democrats’ reform plan 56 percent to 33 percent, although they agree 53 percent to 44 percent that Congress should keep trying to reform health care.

The legislation has major problems that have not even begun to be discussed in a serious way, and if Democrats have their way will not be debated at all. The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, for example, calls the Senate bill “racially discriminatory” because of provisions that “in addition to being unconstitutional, will not improve health care outcomes for minority patients.”

And despite denials, the bill has worrisome implications for Medicare. According to an Associated Press news account, much of the reform bill is “financed with Medicare cuts the government’s own experts say could be unsustainable.”

Democrats are devising an elaborate set of sleight-of-hand tricks to get this bill on Obama’s desk this week, including Senate “reconciliation” to avoid a GOP filibuster.

Yes, both parties have employed reconciliation in the past – it has been used by Republicans in 14 of 22 instances since being adopted in 1974 – but its purpose is supposed to be resolving budget issues, not making far-reaching policy decisions that will alter one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

Its blatant abuse is yet further damning evidence of congressional leaders’ arrogant, condescending attitude toward the people they ostensibly were elected to serve.

View the original article here.