Free Republic

As the state of New York continues to carry the legal torch lit seven years ago by disgraced former Attorney General Eliot Spitzer against American International Group (AIG) and its former CEO Maurice “Hank” Greenberg, two new and startling revelations have emerged surrounding the man the New York Attorney General’s office has put at the tip of its prosecutorial spear, David Ellenhorn.

First, records indicate that Mr. Ellenhorn was in March 2006 a member of a fund that controlled 8,400,000 shares of AIG—thereby representing a possible conflict of interest.

Second, Mr. Ellenhorn hails from a firm whose refusal to turn over key documents in a previous case resulted in a record $10 million fine by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

Assistant New York Attorney General David Ellenhorn was an appointee of Gov. Andrew Cuomo and a former partner in the now-defunct law firm of Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frischer & Sharp. Notably, Mr. Ellenhorn also previously represented the lawyers for ex-billionaire fugitive Marc Rich, whom President Bill Clinton notoriously pardoned.

Mr. Ellenhorn’s firm counted among its clients Bank of America and its broker-dealer subsidiary, Banc of America Securities. In 2004, things turned sour when the SEC slapped BAS with a record $10 million fine. The reason: “its lawyers simply did not turn over documents for months at a time, said some were ‘missing,’ when they weren’t, and ‘engaged in dilatory tactics that that delayed the investigation.’”

As the Boston Globe reported in 2004, the actions of Mr. Ellenhorn’s firm were so egregious that:

“Legal specialists said they would be surprised if the agency did not go after the lawyers involved, who worked at the now-defunct firm of Solomon, Zauderer, Ellenhorn, Frischer, & Sharp.”

That didn’t happen.

However, as SEC enforcement chief at the time Stephen Cutler said, “This is in many ways a textbook example of how not to deal with the government in an investigation.”

One possible defense of Mr. Ellenhorn might be that he was not responsible for the unethical behavior by members of his firm because he was not the partner in charge of the account. However, sources close to the story say that, ironically, that line of argument might be undermined by Mr. Ellenhorn’s own words. In 2001 oral argument before the New York State Court of Appeals, Mr. Ellenhorn posited that violations of the ethical Canons by one lawyer are equally attributable to that lawyer's partners.

Fast-forward to the present. As the Wall Street Journal wrote back in January 2010, a consensus has emerged that the case against Mr. Greenberg is unfounded and that it’s time for prosecutors to move on: “Mr. Greenberg has already got his reputation back. Mr. Spitzer was forced to leave office under shameful circumstances, and his supposedly open-and-shut case against Mr. Greenberg vanished.” Still, Mr. Ellenhorn remained determined to keep alive the case against Mr. Greenberg.

As the New York Times reported in April 2010:

“Mr. Ellenhorn argued that under New York State’s powerful Martin Act, senior executives can still be held legally liable for fraud even if they did not set out to commit fraud knowingly.

“It’s hard to envision a case in which the chief executive officer of a large company is more directly involved in fraudulent transactions,” Mr. Ellenhorn said.

A past colleague of Mr. Ellenhorn’s says their former associate’s zeal for the present case may be clouding his sensitivity to possible conflicts of interest as well as his prosecutorial judgment.

"David is a talented lawyer,” says a lawyer who practiced with Mr. Ellenhorn at his past firm. “But he has some obsessive tendencies— like a dog with a bone. He had a tendency to lose focus of the big picture. You can't put prosecutorial discretion in the hands of someone like David."

So far, we’ve seen President Obama’s reelection team telegraph five central campaign “themes.” None of them has anything to do with his record as president, and all of them are nonstarters that are easily refuted by the facts:

1. Mitt Romney is “too rich” to be president. Mitt Romney’s net worth is almost identical ($250 million) to the Democratic Party’s 2004 nominee, John Kerry ($240 million). If Democrats had no problem with a rich guy running for president in 2004, why now?

2. President Obama killed Osama bin Laden: Romney might not have. The Navy SEALS, not Barack Obama, killed Osama bin Laden. To suggest otherwise is an insult to their bravery and valor. Besides, does any serious person honestly believe that any president--of either party--would not have pulled the trigger when informed that Osama bin Laden was in the cross-hairs? Really?

3. Young people will vote for President Obama again because he is “cooler” than Romney, as is evidenced by his appearances on Jimmy Fallon. College-age voters are over "cool." They want jobs and can’t find them. One out of every two college graduates will soon hit the Obama economy’s wall of reality and join the growing ranks of the unemployed. Romney may not be “cool,” but he looks like that family friend mom and dad said to go see because his successful company is hiring. Put simply, Romney may not be the “iPod President,” but he sure looks like the “Paycheck President.” And that’s very cool.

4. President Obama is fighting those evil meany Republicans and their “War on Women.” The Obama economy has been a disaster for female employment. Nine out of ten jobs lost under Obama belonged to women. Female voters are over the “hope and change.” They have kids to feed and family budgets to balance. They want to work and earn higher wages. Obama has failed to produce either.

5. President Obama grew up poor and therefore has more compassion and willingness to maintain the social safety net. President Obama’s parents were professors, hardly a destitute upbringing (the Washington Post says Stanley Ann Dunham Soetoro, Obama’s mother, made what would today be a $123,000 salary—a figure that would place her in the top six percent of all individual income earners). Romney’s millions of dollars in private charity donations more than demonstrate that he cares deeply about those in need. In 2010, Romney donated 14 percent of his income to charity. Vice President Joe Biden? An embarrassing 1.4 percent. In fact, it was only recently that President Obama upped his charitable giving. Before running for president, the Obamas gave just 6.1 percent to charity. They've since upped their charitable giving to match Romney’s 14 percent.

Bottom line: if Obama wants to win reelection, his campaign team has some serious work to do. The five themes they’ve telegraphed thus far are easily refuted by the facts.

Thursday marks the 1,086th day since Senate Democrats passed a budget plan, despite the fact that doing so merely requires a simple majority vote. Yet Sen. Harry Reid's decision to kill the Senate mark-up process this week ensures that the United States Senate will not pass a budget until after the November election. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said Wednesday:

“The effective cancellation of this mark-up puts in crystal focus that the Senate’s Democrat leadership is determined to go to November without ever bringing a budget to the floor… They have proven themselves unable to meet the defining challenge of our time.

But if Republicans are honored with a Senate majority next year, we will conduct a real mark-up and we will pass an honest budget. And it will change the debt course of America.”

A "mark-up" is a process wherein a congressional committee debates on voting amendments while adding and removing language to a provision. Republicans on Capitol Hill believe Sen. Reid made his last-minute decision to stop the budgetary mark-up because the process would have forced Senate Democrats in tight races to make difficult political choices that might undermine their chances at reelection.

"The decision to kill the mark-up came as a total surprise," said one Budget Committee staffer in an interview with Big Government. "Sen. Sessions was literally in his office working on amendments when he saw Chairman Conrad on TV announcing that the process would no longer go forward."

Despite Chairman Kent Conrad's (D-ND) contention that he modeled the Democrat's plan after the Bowles-Simpson plan, a closer look at the Senate Democrats' plan may reveal why Sen. Reid stopped it from proceeding, as the plan contained huge tax increases with no net cut in spending. Specifically, the Democrats' plan included: $2.6 trillion in tax hikes Spending that would grow at twice the rate of inflation Debt increases by more than $8 trillion that would make the U.S. total debt $23 trillion by the end of 2022 Mandatory spending growth at 3 times the rate of inflation

Sen. Sessions blasted Senate Democrats for playing politics with the nation's purse at a time when the United States is facing an unprecedented $15+ trillion debt.

It is clear that, in addition to being unable and unwilling to publicly defend a plan of any kind, Senate Democrats also did not want to conduct a mark-up because they would have been compelled to cast votes on and defend the president’s fiscally ruinous health law that they supported, as well as the widespread taxpayer abuse and waste exemplified by the GSA. As for Chairman Conrad’s plan, it is easy to understand why Senate Democrats don’t want to vote on it, even in committee: it contains $2.6 trillion in tax increases ($600 billion more than the president’s plan), it contains not one penny of spending cuts, and it produces $8.2 trillion in new gross debt. It is one more-tax-and-spend plan, like the president’s budget. Never in recent memory has a majority party in Washington been more inadequate to meet the great challenge of our time than Senate Democrats now leading this chamber.”

With Republicans seeking to regain control of the U.S. Senate, the long timeline of budgetary inaction by Senate Democrats may now hold electoral consequences, as Sen. Reid's last-minute maneuverings can only be seen as cynical Machiavellian politics of the most irresponsible kind.

In their new book, Debacle: Obama's War on Jobs and Growth and What We Can Do Now to Regain Our Future, Grover Norquist and John Lott, Jr. explain just how bloated the pay and benefits of government workers have become. According to Norquist and Lott, the average private sector worker in America earns $61,000 annually in pay, pension benefits, and health care benefits.

That compares to state and local government workers who make $80,000 and federal workers who bag $120,000 taxpayer dollars in pay, pension, and benefits.

So how many government workers are there in America? In Debacle, Norquist and Lott report that "there are 2.2 million federal civilian workers, 1.5 million active-duty members of the armed forces, 5 million state employees in the 50 states, and 14.1 million local employees."

The cost to taxpayers over a government workers career is sizable. Norquist and Lott explain that the hiring of a single federal worker at age 25 will cost taxpayers between $2.73 million and $8 million in wages and benefits, depending on the speed with which the government worker is promoted.

As Norquist and Lott note, "federal law requires that government look to see what jobs now being done by government workers could be done by the private sector." But we know that isn't happening; even the liberals in the Clinton Administration cited 850,000 jobs that could be done by private workers. Indeed, as the authors explain, the average savings to taxpayers when hiring a private worker instead of a government worker is 30%.

Norquist and Lott's book is chock-full of similar policy solutions and insights designed to reduce the burden big government places on taxpayers. Voters and lawmakers should read it.

On Sunday, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner told ABC's This Week host George Stephanopoulos that Americans are "in a much better position to deal with" soaring gas prices because "the overall cost of energy for consumers is down."

Then, in another Sunday appearance, Mr. Geithner went on Meet the Press and told NBC's David Gregory that President Obama's handling of the financial crisis has been "extremely successful" and that "history will judge what he [Obama] did as remarkably effective crisis management."

In 2009, Tim Geithner became U.S. Treasury Secretary despite the fact that his confirmation revealed that he had previously failed to pay $17,230 in taxes and interest from 2003 and 2004 and another $25,970 from 2001 and 2002.

A recent lengthy report by Reuters confirms what many conservatives have long known: President Obama's promise to create millions of so-called "green jobs" has been a colossal and expensive failure.

A few highlights from the report:

Since 2009, the wind industry has lost 10,000 jobs, even as the energy capacity of wind farms has almost doubled.

By contrast, the oil and gas industry have created 75,000 jobs since Mr. Obama took office.

"A $500 million job-training program has so far helped fewer than 20,000 people find work, far short of its goal." The program was so bad that "the Labor Department's inspector general recommended last fall that the agency should return the $327 million that remained unspent." They didn't.

And now, the department "remains far short of its goal of placing 80,000 workers into green jobs by 2013."

According to the Labor Department's own figures, the push for so-called " green jobs" has been an abysmal failure. "By the end of 2011, some 16,092 participants had found new work in a "green" field, according to the Labor Department - roughly one-fifth of its target."

The article also highlights the degree to which Obama's big jobs promises have fallen flat. For example, in 2008, Obama promised that "investing" $150 billion taxpayer dollars would create 5 million jobs over 10 years. Obama and Vice President Joe Biden's past green jobs statements now read like punchlines:

"We'll put nearly half a million people to work building wind turbines and solar panels, constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings, and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to new jobs," he said at a wind-turbine plant in Ohio the day before he took office. In December 2009, Vice President Joe Biden said the effort would create 722,000 green jobs.

None of this will come as a surprise to conservatives and Republicans. Indeed, the ream of failed green energy stories is endless. Still, it's encouraging to see a consensus among mainstream media begin to sprout--even if green jobs aren't.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, rapper Kanye West used the widely-broadcast “Concert for Hurricane Relief” to tell an international audience that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

Might West have the same perception today, as black America crumbles under the leadership of the first black president?

Speaking to DailyCaller.com, chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, (D-Missouri), said:

“[…] If we had anybody else in the White House, with this level of unemployment, that you know, you would see a lot more African-Americans, African-American organizations and retro organizations speaking out against it […] “But because he is revered, you know, he gets I guess the benefit of, you know, understanding that the situation was terrible when he came in. So, we’re not doing that.”

Really?

Conventional wisdom (oxymoron?) on the Left is to blame anything and everything on race. Therefore, if Obama were white (which half of him technically is) and Republican, surely Cleaver would be blaming Obama’s abysmal failures on some deep, hidden racism, seething within him. Or, as it would seem, Obama’s skin color gives him a pass.

Indeed, under Obama’s watch, vast swaths of wealth have eroded among black families. The recession that plagued the general population was a depression in many black households. Tragically, the devastation among blacks — who supported Mr. Obama’s campaign by a margin of 95 percent — has created a poverty of spirit as well as financial calamity.

Obama’s plans of hope and change have utterly failed his most ardent constituency. Today, the wreckage is overwhelming:

* When Mr. Obama was inaugurated black unemployment was 12.6%. 36 months later, it is at a depression era level 15.8%.

* Black teenage unemployment is a jaw dropping 42.3 percent.

* In October 2010, blacks accounted for 22.6 percent of the then 40.5 million Americans who received food stamp benefits each month. That figure was projected to rise in 2011. Mark Rank of Washington University suggests a whopping 90 percent of black children may eventually live in households that need food stamps.

* In 2007, before Obama took office, white households had a median net worth of $134,280, compared with $13,450 for black households. By the end of 2009, the median net worth for white households plummeted 24% to $97,860. But for black households, it dropped 83% to $2,170. The Chicago Sun-Times called it, “The Disappearing Black Middle Class.”

Worst still, Researchers at the University of California at Berkeley Labor Center claim, according to their report, Black unemployment rates are higher now than they were at the official end of the recession in June 2009.

Given this lousy track record, where is Kanye now? Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett faults the GOP. (No surprise there).

But it’s hard for Jarrett to defend her boss’s Jekyll and Hyde presidency. As black family budgets dwindled, Obama played over 90 rounds of golf. While he derided “millionaires and billionaires,” Obama eagerly took millions from Hollywood elites. As Americans struggle with rising gas prices, Obama blocked the Keystone pipeline.

Surely the NAACP or perhaps the Congressional Black Caucus would be foaming over Obama’s schizophrenic lack of empathy for struggling blacks were he of the same political mind as it’s only Republican member Representative Allen West (R-FL).

But sadly, they are all silent.

Yet, while President Bush seems to have done more for black American uplift, President Obama’s bungling remains unchallenged simply by virtue of his race.

And so it goes, like the looming insolvency of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, faith in President Obama is not to be questioned or scrutinized. The White House Press Corp., a.k.a., the media, will likely continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Obama, his clique of advisors and the mountains of spending and new regulations they endorse have not eased the pain of his most loyal constituency. Although, in this support, it seems a growing number of blacks are beginning to bifurcate.

Sadder still, Obama—while ceaselessly augmenting the unfailing inefficiencies of government planning—has refused to address the root cause of American declinism: that over one-third of American children – and 70 percent of black children – are born to unmarried mothers. And thus the fading edifice of the family fosters a poverty that hits children the hardest.

For three years President Obama has endorsed a political agenda that breeds societal brokenness. Obama has Balkanized neighbors. He has pitted the blue collar VS the white collar. Blacks VS whites. The one percent VS the 99 percent.

In his state of the union address, the president failed to try something new and progressive. Instead, President Obama again, embraced the internationally failed model of bigger government, subsidized by a shrinking tax base.

The agenda all Americans need now is one built on families and free markets.

In a State of the Union speech devoid of clarity or specifics, President Barack Obama offered but one shining exception: a direct call for members of Congress to send him a bill to ban congressional insider trading.

“Send me a bill that bans insider trading by members of Congress and I will sign it tomorrow,” President Obama said to applause. “Let’s limit any elected official from owning stock in industries they impact.”

Since the release of “Throw Them All Out,” Breitbart editor Peter Schweizer has been a one-man battalion fighting for members of Congress to abide by the same insider trading laws that apply to all Americans. President Obama’s speech Tuesday night is evidence that Schweizer’s battle against congressional insider trading and cronyism has scored a critical victory.

“It appears that our message has finally broken through,” said Schweizer in an interview Tuesday night with Breitbart News. “Thousands of citizens across America have called and written their representatives and the White House demanding a ban on congressional insider trading.

The President’s speech tonight is proof that their efforts were not in vain. Now is the time to apply maximum pressure and get behind Rep. Sean Duffy’s (R-WI) RESTRICT Act. It’s the best proposal I’ve seen to date.”

The RESTRICT (Restoring Ethical Standards, Transparency, and Responsibility in Congressional Trading) Act (H.R. 3550) would require members of Congress to either establish blind trusts or submit to a three day public disclosure of any and all investments. According to Schweizer, the bill is preferable to other bills, such as the STOCK (Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge) Act, which Schweizer believes do not go far enough to remedy the problem.

Since November, Peter Schweizer and Breitbart News have published numerous articles detailing bipartisan instances of congressional insider trading that have included Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), all of which were featured in a special report by 60 Minutes.

“There’s still much work to be done,” said Schweizer. “We need to get behind Rep. Duffy’s RESTRICT Act and let our leaders know that we will not stand idly by as members of Congress profit off of access to material, nonpublic information.”

With members of the mainstream media now hurling charges of using racially coded language against GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, Big Government has uncovered a private memorandum written over three decades ago that offers a unique glimpse into Mr. Gingrich’s longstanding attitudes about race.

The private memo, dated July 1, 1980, was written by Mr. Gingrich on his official House of Representatives stationery and was sent to then-candidate Ronald Reagan’s campaign manager, Bill Casey, who would later become President Reagan’s CIA Director.

In the memo, Mr. Gingrich urges Governor Reagan’s campaign to reconsider its decision not to speak to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Convention.

“This is a great opportunity to prove that a conservative Republican can speak to the hearts and pocketbooks of Black Americans,” Gingrich urged in the memo.

The memorandum goes on to explain that a decision not to speak at the NAACP convention would insult African American voters and be a “tragedy” for the nation:

Many middle class Black Americans who would vote for Reagan will be insulted by his non-attendance. I urge you to schedule the speech and talk about Kemp’s Inner City Jobs Bill, which Kilpatrick and George Will have both endorsed as acceptably conservative.

Failure to attend the NAACP convention will be a tragedy for Gov. Reagan and the country. Symbolic events are vital. Thank you for considering this. The 1980 Gingrich memorandum aligns with comments the former Speaker has made more recently.

At a January 5, 2012 event in Plymouth, New Hampshire, Mr. Gingrich said that if he were invited to speak to the NAACP he would accept: And so, I’m prepared, if the NAACP invites me, I’ll go to their convention to talk about why the African American community should demand pay checks and not be satisfied with food stamps. And I’ll go to them and I’ll explain a brand new social security opportunity for young people, which would be particularly good for African American males, because they’re the group that gets the smallest return on social security because they have the shortest life span. And under social security today, you don’t build up an estate, but if you’re allowed to build up an estate, if your tax money went into your savings and it was your money, if something happened to you, your family got you restate, the difference in transfer of wealth to the black community would be amazing.

Those and subsequent comments have sparked controversy among liberal critics who have taken issue with Mr. Gingrich’s contention that President Barack Obama has been America’s greatest “Food Stamp President,” a reference to Mr. Obama’s unprecedented expansion of the food stamp program (officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program).

Mr. Gingrich’s 1980 plea that the Reagan campaign should reach out to the NAACP and make inroads with black voters was just the first of many he has made to GOP candidates over many years.

As ABC News has reported, in his book Real Change, Mr. Gingrich criticized President George W. Bush’s “failure to address the NAACP,” which according to Gingrich, sent a “clear signal to the African American community that Republicans did not see them as worthy of engagement in dialogue.”

Also, in 2008, Mr. Gingrich criticized those 2008 Republican presidential candidates who declined to participate in a black voter forum hosted by Tavis Smiley.

Still, while it’s unlikely that Mr. Gingrich’s 1980 private memorandum urging the Reagan campaign to speak at the NAACP convention will change the minds of those determined to play the race card against him, the document reveals that Mr. Gingrich’s desire to restore the historic relationship between the Republican Party and black voters extends over three decades.

If President Obama needed any more indication of how much his public support has eroded, he need look no further than a recent memorandum of sorts published in the New York Times by former President Bill Clinton’s pollster, Stanley Greenberg. Listen to Greenberg, whose progressive polling firm partners with Clinton strategist James Carville, advise Obama and Democrats on what his latest round of polls and focus groups reveal are their only hope to survive politically, given the current reality:

“Voters in the developed world are turning away from Democrats, Socialists, liberals and progressives.”

“Voters feel ever more estranged from government—and they associate Democrats with government.”

“If they are to win trust, and votes, Democrats must show they are as determined as the Tea Party movement to change the rules of the game."

“This distrust of government and politicians is unfolding as a full-blown crisis of legitimacy [and] sidelines Democrats and liberalism."

Greenberg says that his public opinion research now reveals that voters believe, “Government rushes to help the irresponsible and does little for the responsible."

To win, Democrats must “advocate policies that would control the borders and address problems of undocumented workers,” and voters want to “see strong enforcement at the border and in the workplace, and the expulsion of troublesome undocumented immigrants."

“Finally, progressives have to be serious about reducing the country’s long-term deficits” because “the deficit matters to people and has real meaning and consequences.”

To recap, after analyzing his reams of public opinion research, President Clinton’s pollster just advised the most progressive President in American history to mimic the Tea Party’s resolve, stop government from rewarding the irresponsible over the responsible, crack down on illegal immigration and get tough on border enforcement, stop illegal immigrants from being hired over legal citizens, and deport violent or law-breaking illegal immigrants, and to top it all off, Obama and the Democrats should stop the government’s profligate spending spree and bring down deficits.

Crickets chirping.

In sum, to have any shot of surviving the political onslaught of the rage roiling in the land, the leftist pollster, writing in the New York Times, has just pleaded with Obama to morph himself into a Tea Party conservative.

Whatever one thinks of Greenberg’s progressive political views, he is a seasoned and accomplished pollster who, along with James Carville, Dick Morris, Paul Begala, George Stephanopoulos and others, successfully navigated Bill Clinton to two presidential victories. Put simply, Greenberg knows of which he speaks. And what his soundings reveal spells potential disaster for Democrats heading into the next election cycle.

Why? Because the more Obama and Democrats attempt to tack back to the political center, the deeper the erosion will be among their progressive base. Indeed, already, Obama has seen sizable losses in support among his liberal base, and there are already signs that Obama’s backers may be experiencing “donor fatigue.”

Recall again that Bill Clinton’s reelection was made possible when Dick Morris urged him to sign the Republican’s welfare reform bill so that he could “end welfare as we know it,” as Clinton famously put it.

It’s hard to imagine Obama willfully undergoing a similar course correction and advocating and passing the kinds of center-right policy proposals Greenberg’s polls and focus groups demonstrate the voting public demands. Indeed, given the disenchantment among his progressive base, along with the economic free fall black Americans are presently suffering as the nation witnesses the disappearance of the black middle class, every inch that Obama’s campaign dares to move to the center will further infuriate and alienate the dwindling vestiges of support he presently enjoys among his progressive base.

Much can and will change between now and November 2012. However, when a successful Democratic strategist all but urges the most far Left president in American history to don a three-cornered hat and join the Tea Party policy parade of fiscal discipline and border enforcement, you know there’s serious trouble in progressive paradise.

The 2012 equivalent of Ronald Reagan’s famous “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” will be: “In your hometown, which do you see more of: ‘Hiring Now!’ signs or ‘Going Out of Business’ signs?”

Those trapped in the grip of the disastrous Obama economy already know the answer, and it terrifies David Axelord, David Plouffe, and President Barack Obama. The presidential candidate who frames the debate this way will win.

Why?

Because the sad and tragic economic facts are now undeniable, and they have absolutely nothing to do with ideology or party affiliation:

Every fifth man you pass on the sidewalk does not work.

Every seventh person you pass on the sidewalk is now on food stamps.

The average time an unemployed America remains out of work is now a jaw-dropping nine months (36 weeks). The pre-Obama average: just three months (13 weeks).

The price for a gallon of gas has risen 104% from the time of Mr. Obama’s inauguration to today.

Unemployment has risen from 7.8% to 9.2% since Mr. Obama’s inauguration.

Incredibly, black Americans—who voted some 98% for Mr. Obama’s election—are now suffering their lowest levels of economic prosperity since the civil rights era of the 1960s; the black middle class is vanishing and setting back black economic gains at least a generation if not more.

Recent college graduates are now experiencing record unemployment—all but ensuring that their freshly minted skills will rust and grow stale as they struggle to find work. In 2006 and 2007, 90% of all college graduates found a job. In 2010, just 56% of college graduates were able to find a job.

Mr. Obama has added more to the national debt than all U.S. presidents from George Washington to Ronald Reagan—combined.

These facts will not change before Election Day. Sadly, they are set in cement for the time being, as small business owners—the engines of job hiring—wisely refuse to expand hiring with so much fear and uncertainty in the air.

And all this doesn’t even take into account the economic outlook once the 2,000+ pages of Obamacare take full effect. Moreover, each week, businesses of all sizes learn of new and more onerous regulations being concocted by Mr. Obama’s administration.

Mr. Obama’s common rejoinder that the economic catastrophe before us is the result of his predecessor will not work. Mr. Obama’s party, of which he is the head, had control of 100% of the U.S. government for his first two years in office. Presently, Mr. Obama controls 66% of the government. As Bill Clinton used to say, “That dog simply won’t hunt.”

The presidential contender who will prevail must present the economic fork in the road before the American people thusly: In the last three decades, our great nation has undergone two economic experiments to solve similar economic difficulties.

The first of these experiments was performed by President Ronald Reagan. He let Americans keep more of the money they earned and helped small, medium, and large businesses hire more people by cutting red tape. The result: the greatest peacetime economic expansion in American history and a gain of 18 million new jobs.

The second economic experiment is the one we’re presently trapped in, performed by President Barack Obama. He has spent more of your money than all U.S. presidents—combined, seized 17% of the U.S. economy with the introduction of Obamacare, and is in the process of raising taxes even higher. The result: 16.2% of your neighbors can’t find enough work to make ends meet, food and gas prices are skyrocketing, and the country is broke and on the verge of total economic collapse.

In short, Mr. Reagan’s economic experiment created “Hiring Now!” signs. Mr. Obama’s economic experiment has created “Going Out of Business” signs.

The candidate who can clearly and plainly communicate this tale of two signs will be America’s next president.

Wynton C. Hall is a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the owner of Wynton Hall & Co., a celebrity ghostwriting and speechwriting agency. He is the author, most recently, of The Right Words: Great Republican Speeches that Shaped History

President Obama is an OPM addict. Our commander-in-chief is addicted to spending “other people’s money.” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) is his pusher. The establishment media are his enablers.

Consider what’s happening in Washington right now with the debt crisis.

After tossing the Republican Cut, Cap and Balance Act aside without debate, Reid said House Speaker John Boehner’s plan—which would require $1.1 trillion in new spending cuts and no tax increases—was “written for the Tea Party, not the American people.”

So Reid equates Tea Party members with illegal aliens?

Whatever his insult is supposed to mean, Reid insisted Senate Democrats “would not vote” for Boehner’s proposal. Speaker Boehner’s budget plan would legalize America’s borrowing authority until April of next year, and would also require a vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment by Oct. 1.

Reid, finally forced to put forth his own plan, suggests little reform. His would raise the debt ceiling by a record-breaking $2.7 trillion while relying on getting many of its alleged budget cuts from defense expenditures in anticipation of our nation’s war on terrorism drawing to a close.

Enter the biased cavalcade of Obama’s bitch-made media.

CNN’s Piers Morgan—for once not busy denying accusations he hacked phones in Britain—called conservative lawmakers’ anti-tax stance “crazy” and cudgeled them for not “compromising.” The New York Times ominously proclaimed, “House Republicans have lost sight of the country's welfare.”

While the media spotlight focuses on conservatives, Obama is getting little scrutiny for his stunning lack of leadership.

Despite the media circling the wagons for the President, Republicans still have a strong case to make. They just need to grow a pair and take their message to the American people.

Here’s how.

Republicans should ask: Since when is presidential leadership defined by making America poorer?

If President Obama “wins” the debt-ceiling debate and gets to borrow more from abroad, does America win? Without deep cuts to address our runaway spending, future generations will bare the burden of paying the bill.

Does Obama really think bankrupting the future is the strategy for winning the future? Do our children deserve to inherit an America owned by our creditors? 


Without the anchor of his own plan, Obama has had the luxury of demagoguing the debate. If our national credit rating is downgraded—which may happen no matter how much the debt ceiling is raised, taxes go up or spending goes down—Obama can blame conservatives in Congress for allegedly not compromising.

But compromising with what?

That’s the sticky situation. Obama has done himself a grave disservice. His lack of leadership and subterfuge as crisis grips the nation will likely earn him a sorry place in presidential history.

Political victory, as defined by Obama, is how best he can rob from future generations.

Obama is on track to delude the great pantheon of presidential leadership down to how well a President can financially destroy his own country.

For this, Obama’s place in presidential history will be a humiliating one.

History books will one day read: Lincoln freed the slaves. Kennedy took us to the moon. Reagan won the Cold War. Obama raised the debt ceiling.

Congratulations! What a legacy. 


And what do Congressional Democrats “win?”

They risk being easily cast by their political opposition as reckless and committed to more taxes and more spending over reform and stability.

Again Republicans should ask: Since when did it become liberal or conservative to want the best value for the cheapest price or to want to live within one’s means?

Hard-earned tax dollars should be spent sensibly, which has zero to do with ideology. But in just two years, Obama has exploded the national debt and his spending binge has created more debt than all of his predecessors combined. 
 


While Obama’s defenders in the establishment media and on Capitol Hill seek to blame conservatives for any bad results of this debt crisis, conservative Republicans should be steadfast in reminding the American people of the high costs of Obamanomics.

Seemingly lost on all the debt talk is the continuing high unemployment rate and stagnant economy. It’s too far along to blame George W. Bush. Obama owns the current economic morass. Yet, he’s still focused on his reelection.

His campaign slogan: Donate millions so I can spend trillions.

Ultimately, Obama’s “stash” of OPM is drying up. His spending binge has created a deluge of debt. If we don’t get our government to rehab soon, the addiction will be America’s undoing.

Jerome Hudson is a member of Project 21 a sponsorship of the National Center for Public Policy Research. He is the editor of OurLastStand.com and can be reached at Jeromehudsonspeaks.com.

As the White House lobbies to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, why not instead raise its moral ceiling? After decades of rewarding bad behavior, it is in the government’s best interest—and perhaps even its duty—to promote the morals and values that made our nation great.

The Obama administration wants Congress to raise the debt ceiling so our government can borrow more than the almost $14.3 trillion currently allowed by law. Conservatives want any debt increase tied to spending cuts, and a recent vote shows Obama lacks the political capital to ram through an increase as he might have in the past.

But an increase in borrowing authority is no solution to our nation’s woes.

How will a little bump curtail unfunded entitlement liabilities some estimate to cost more than $100 trillion?

Instead of raising the ceiling for more debt to support policies rewarding unwed motherhood, broken families and failing government-run schools, we must instead raise America's moral ceiling to promote the institution of marriage, hard work and quality education.

In the long run, reinvigorating these virtues could effectively cut spending by lessening the need for government entitlements now certain to bankrupt our government.

Conventional wisdom suggests a precipitous moral decline in America since the 1960s. Consequently, no subgroup has been affected more than the black family. The notion of family has changed. Marriage no longer seems to hold the same appeal and divorce rates have skyrocketed. Two-parent homes and academic performances suffer chronically, while crime and illegitimacy flourish. But the liberal elite apparently considers all this a series of social non sequiturs.

But again, how after Herculean efforts such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act, set-asides, public housing projects, “The War on Poverty” and the rest of the Johnson Administration’s Great Society programs, did millions remain mired and dependent almost entirely on the state for their very existence? Instead of curing “inequality” and “racism,” more government seems only to have compounded problems.

In his 1965 report, "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action," future Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was alarmed that approximately a quarter of black households were headed by women. Today that number has risen sharply to 70%, (41% overall). Also, black unemployment was more than 16% in April—a 40-year high—and there are the persistent problems of drugs and a culture of crime.

The result? Profound impoverishment and visibly destitute inner cities. Neighborhoods where shattered families and unwed (regularly teenage) mothers produce unruly youths, who are often housed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), doctored by Medicaid, taught by Head Start and fed by food stamps. And this culture perpetuates the same self-defeating behavior: lawlessness, dropping out and drug abuse. In the end, misery and the most shrunken scoop of existence endorse a poverty both moral and spiritual.

Instead of blaming discrimination, this President should address the problem of absentee fathers. Instead of screaming racism, liberal academics should preach the value of graduating from gang life.

So much of our nation’s debt exists to support a massive safety net. We have turned our society on its head in an idle attempt to cope with the now shameless scores of unmarried women (of all races) giving birth to illegitimate children. We all know that two incomes are better than one, and that children are less likely to fall into poverty themselves when they see the unwavering commitment of their mothers and fathers to work.

Congress can pass no law to mandate solid marital relationships, and President Obama cannot sign an executive order to raise academic achievement. But the President can play a larger part in reinvigorating our broken values system. Congress can pass laws such as tax breaks for married couples and welfare reform that discourages single parenthood. And vouchers can help raise the quality of stagnant school systems.

The stakes are too high to ignore. As W. Bradford Wilcox and Chuck Donovan pointed out in Christianity Today last December, statistics show America’s moral breakdown expanding from the lower class to the middle class. If trends hold true, it will create a larger gulf between the lower and middle classes and the nation’s wealthy—and likely force the government to expand its entitlement safety net, which in turn will necessitate further borrowing.

Raising the debt ceiling is certain to push our nation closer to insolvency. Raising our moral ceiling can make people happier, more productive, and possibly help us work down our debt. As far as the latter is concerned, however, these days it sounds like there is nowhere to go but up.

While next month marks the anniversary of the “Summer of Recovery,” a quick trip to your local gas station or grocery store feels more like relapse.

Pro-life activists exposed systemic abuses at Planned Parenthood. The media was outraged.

In Planned Parenthood offices all over America, activists pretending to be a pimp and an underage girl taped employees giving them advice on obtaining illegal abortions so they could get back into the sex trade as quickly as possible without running afoul of the law.

This exposure of prohibited practices inevitably helped in the February 18 vote in the U.S. House of Representatives to end federal funding of Planned Parenthood.

(Abortion prices will necessarily skyrocket)!

The lament of the media? How could conservatives want women and children to die?

Even though Planned Parenthood was the bad actor (and admitted as much by firing some of the employees caught on tape) the media’s pro-Roe bias had already begun.

One Huffington Post headline cried, “A War on Women.” (Oh no)!

The always objective Politico reported the defunding bill, “Mike Pence’s War on Planned Parenthood.” (Bombs away)!

Similarly, The Seattle Times proclaims, “Republicans Focus Attack on Planned Parenthood.”

Indeed, the American left holds few things in such high esteem as a women¹s “right” to “choose.” What is getting harder to defend is why taxpayers should foot the bill.

In fact, a 2009 Gallup Poll found that 51 percent of Americans self-identify themselves as pro-life. Again, it begs the question why more than half the country should have to subsidize a life-ending procedure they morally oppose and has already caused the deaths of 51 million unborn babies?

While some argue shutting off the taxpayer spigot to Planned Parenthood will reduce funding for counseling services, HIV testing and other reproductive health and family planning services, abortion services are there real business.

To be clear, in 1997, Planned Parenthood, according to their own fact sheet, they received $165 million from taxpayers and performed 165,174 abortions. They performed 305,310 in 2007 and received $363 million.

Noticing a pattern yet?

As taxpayer funding increased, so did the number of these abhorrent procedures.

In contrast, according to Planned Parenthood figures cited by Representative Pence and Tony Perkins in a Daily Caller commentary, the number of prenatal clients served by Planned Parenthood was less than 0.09 percent of the total services they provided in 2008. Pregnant women seeking help from Planned Parenthood were 27 times more likely to receive an abortion than receive prenatal care or be referred to an adoption service.

LifeNews.com reports Planned Parenthood performs 134 abortions for every adoption referral.

More appalling, Thatsabortion.com says 70 percent of these abortion factories are concentrated in minority neighborhoods. While black child-bearing women make up a just 3 percent of America, they comprise a heartbreaking 30 percent of abortions. Hispanic women make up a similarly disproportionate 25 percent.

It smacks of racial population control. This notion rings true considering that eugenicist Fredrick Osborn proclaimed in 1971 that “birth control and abortion are proving to be the great eugenics advances of our time.”

It seems that, just as blacks began to escape the preverbal seat at the back of the bus, a new obstacle awaits at a Planned Parenthood facility.

It’s the new civil rights issue of our time. As former governor Mike Huckabee says, the “Abortion issue trumps all.”

Meanwhile, NOW, the NAACP and The National Council of La Raza and others are not surprisingly siding with Planned Parenthood. It seems these people intend to ignore what makes sense morally to fight for what gains power politically.

It is mindboggling to no end that these self-proclaimed purveyors of unremitting compassion are instead the biggest defenders of publicly-funded abortion on demand.

Our nation is already deep in a financial abyss. In addition to our fiscal bankruptcy, must we turn a blind eye to the daily destruction of human life and become morally bankrupt as well?

* * *

Jerome Hudson is a member of Project 21 a sponsorship of the National Center for Public Policy Research. He is the editor of OurLastStand.com and can be reached at Jeromehudsonspeaks.com.

With poverty rates at an all-time high, black unemployment numbers at daunting levels, and Obamacare bringing no change on killing black babies, stunningly, black support for Obama is up.

In fact, black approval of President Obama is virtually unchanged at 91 percent since his inauguration.

Now, unless we believe that 91 percent of blacks are truly as radical as Obama (and every indication is that blacks are far more conservative than he is), then what explains how Obama could have 91% approval, when even among Democrats as a whole, that number is lower at just 79 percent?

Worse, black poverty is higher now than under President Bush.

In fact, during the Bush years, black unemployment was actually lower than during Clinton’s terms (you know, "the first black president"), at an average of 9 percent and certainly lower than the 16.3 percent it stands at today.

Indeed, under Obama, black unemployment rose from 12.6 in January 2010 to 16.3 percent as of August 1 2010. An almost 30 percent increase.

So far, President Bush has a better track record on black upward mobility than Clinton or Obama.

Regardless, Bush only enjoyed an average of about 32 percent approval amongst black voters two years into his first term. And we haven't even mentioned Bush’s historic cabinet level appointments of blacks or his unprecedented AIDS funding in Africa. Much to Kanye West’s chagrin, it turns out President Bush did, indeed, care about black people.

Still, some argue that black support of Obama is merely a function of "black solidarity”; that birds of a feather flock together. But that in itself is racist. After all, can you imagine white voters lining up 9 out of 10 to stand in "racial solidarity" with an elected official who was the equivalent of a wrecking ball slamming through their lives?

After nearly two years of Obama’s reckless spending spree, (John Keynes would be proud), 43.6 million Americans - one in seven people - now live in poverty, a 51-year high.

Looking deeper, these figures show that blacks, who account for only 13 percent of the population, make up 22.6 percent of the now 40.5 million Americans receiving benefits from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Food Stamps).

And after a year-long debate and an endless barrage of promises from the Obama White House that there would be no federal funding of abortions in the healthcare bill, we now know that tax dollars for abortions are being provided through high-risk insurance programs and have already been stopped in Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Maryland.

When political parties know that they no longer have to work for your vote, and that support from any voting bloc is automatic regardless of performance, those voters have relegated themselves to playing the role of perpetual dupe. Put simply, they are begging to be taken for granted.

Is it any wonder, then, that 50 years of black voters conceding 90 percent of their support to a party with a racist past has culminated in an anti-empowerment agenda that has sapped black Americans from achieving our maximum potential by creating a culture of dependency?

When Uncle Sam is your “baby daddy,” is it any wonder that so many inner city children chose gang life over graduation? Or that in just four days, more black children die at the hands of the abortion clinic then the KKK killed in its entire history?

Progressives and Democratic elites have long argued that black stagnation is the result of racism. But is a 70 percent illegitimacy rate among blacks (90 percent in some inner cities) the fault of “racism,” or a lack of accountability and personal responsibility?

The painful truth is that blacks kill more blacks (whether by gun or by a trip to the abortion clinic) at a higher rate than the Ku Klux Klan could have ever dreamed of.

So-called “civil rights leaders,” pseudo intellectuals, and progressive lawmakers are fully aware of these facts, yet they insist on pretending that “systemic” forces (racism) are more responsible than blacks themselves for sluggish black advancement.

It’s time for a frank discussion about the folly of monolithic voting among black Americans. When 91 percent of any racial group votes one way, it’s either out of racism or blind groupthink. Neither of these is good for America.

________________________________________ Jerome Hudson is a 24-year-old student of history, majoring in broadcast journalism, in Tallahassee, Fla. He blogs at http://jeromehudsonspeaks.weebly.com/