February 29, 2012

‘African-Americans for Obama’ Revived; Media Double Standard Obvious

AAsForBHO2012It wouldn’t take more than a nanosecond for the establishment press and TV talking heads to rip into any white political candidate — Democrat or Republican — who carved out a web site devoted to “Whites for Candidate X.”

About a weeks ago, President Obama, with his powers of incumbency in tow, decided to revive something he created back in 2007: “African-Americans for Obama.” And, as seen in the Obama video which appears at the site and in what appears to be a new twist, the Obama campaign is driving a Mack through the alleged wall of separation between church and state by finding so-called “congregation captains” to maximize African-American support on his behalf. As would unfortunately be expected, the press has not covered campaign’s move; A Google News search on “African Americans for Obama” (in quotes) returns only 17 results, only four of which are arguably mainstream media items.


Journal of Medical Ethics Paper: ‘After-Birth Abortion: Why Should the Baby Live?’

JMEBMJlogoOne thing you can say about an odious paper published at the misnamed Journal of Medical Ethics on February 23 (abstract; full text) is that at least its authors, Australians Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, didn’t fall back on abortion-supporting American politicians’ obfuscating “choice” language in discussing what they advocate.

Here’s what the pair support: “… we need to assess facts in order to decide whether the same arguments that apply to killing a human fetus can also be consistently applied to killing a newborn human.” Their answer is “Yes, they should,” which means, based on state of current immoral law, that they advocate infanticide on demand. As offensive as their arguments supporting such a practice are, I also wish to note the arrogant “how dare you?” element of the reaction at the JME to the firestorm of outraged comments it has itself received and the criticisms posted elsewhere. But first, I have excerpted as much from the paper as I can stand without throwing up in disgust (Warning: Concepts presented will offend; bolds are mine; italics are in original):

… An examination of 18 European registries reveals that between 2005 and 2009 only the 64% of Down’s syndrome cases were diagnosed through prenatal testing. This percentage indicates that, considering only the European areas under examination, about 1700 infants were born with Down’s syndrome without parents being aware of it before birth.

to bring up such children might be an unbearable burden on the family and on society as a whole, when the state economically provides for their care. On these grounds, the fact that a fetus has the potential to become a person who will have an (at least) acceptable life is no reason for prohibiting abortion. Therefore, we argue that, when circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible.

In spite of the oxymoron in the expression, we propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide’, to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.

… The moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus in the sense that both lack those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual.

Although fetuses and newborns are not persons, they are potential persons because they can develop, thanks to their own biological mechanisms, those properties which will make them ‘persons’ in the sense of ‘subjects of a moral right to life’: that is, the point at which they will be able to make aims and appreciate their own life.

The alleged right of individuals (such as fetuses and newborns) to develop their potentiality, which someone defends, is over-ridden by the interests of actual people (parents, family, society) to pursue their own well-being because, as we have just argued, merely potential people cannot be harmed by not being brought into existence.

It’s becoming all too clear that “ethicists” like Giubilini, Minerva, and other inexplicably influential people are careening down the slippery slope, on which those who warned against the consequences of allowing abortion on demand predicted society would head, at warp speed.


4Q11 GDP: Revised From An Annualized +2.8% to +3.0%

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 9:36 am

From the Bureau of Economic Analysis full release:

Real gross domestic product — the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States — increased at an annual rate of 3.0 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011 (that is, from the third quarter to the fourth quarter), according to the “second” estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the third quarter, real GDP increased 1.8 percent.

Apparently, expectations were for an unchanged result. 3.0% was the initial expectation ahead of last month’s advance report. Zero Hedge thinks that ” if history is any precedent, it will be back down to 2.8%” in next month’s revision.

NYT’s David Brooks Goes Godwin in ‘First They Came’ Rant

In Tuesday’s New York Times print edition, supposed in-house conservative David Brooks ended his column bemoaning how the Republican base (nicknamed “wingers,” who are “Republicans on the extreme”) is ruining the “mainstream” Grand Old Party by violating a Godwin’s Law corollary, namely (rephrased for columnists) that whoever inappropriately alludes to the Nazi era in German automatically fails to make his point effectively.

Brooks final bark: “First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.” Yep, he’s trying to claim he’s to the right of George W. Bush, but that he’s not sufficiently pure enough for today’s “wingers.” Sure, David.

Slow ‘Recovery,’ Dire Consequences

What’s being sold as impressive and “normal” is unacceptable.


Note: This column went up at Pajamas Media and was teased here at BizzyBlog on Monday.


In December 2009, an Associated Press headline told us that the top business story of the year was “Recovery From Great Recession.” Readers of its text were informed that the previous year had seen the “Economy’s Fall — And Rebound.”

Twenty-six months later, the question I asked in response still resonates: “Rebound? What rebound?” Even though the American press has mostly pretended that they don’t exist, the unforgivable length of the post-recession malaise has caused an unprecedented growth in problems not seen since decades before most Americans were born.

If you’re looking for “good” news, the following sentence represents its full extent. For the first time in the ten quarters since the recession officially ended in June 2009, the private sector’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) was larger than it was at its pre-recession peak, whether you define the recession’s beginning the way normal people do (two or more consecutive quarters of contraction, in this case beginning with the third quarter of 2008) or as the academics at the National Bureau of Economic Research whimsically determined it (December 2007):


IBDrecoveryGraphicUpdatedJan2012That’s nice, but as seen at the right in an updated version of a graphic originally posted at Investor’s Business Daily last year, even the overall recovery in GDP (including the government sector) which occurred during the third quarter of last year took three times as long as any recovery from any downturn since World War II.

Demonstrating that he may need to employ a ghostwriter to compose his personal correspondence in order to prevent him from going off-message, President Barack Obama informed a Maine constituent in June of last year that “It will probably take another year or two to fully dig our way out of this hole.”

This demonstrates that despite the public posturing, Obama knows full well that this nation hasn’t attained an economic recovery, and is in fact far from it.

Other benchmarks indicate how bad things really are, starting with per capita GDP. By Obama buddy Warren Buffett’s reckoning in September 2010, before the Oracle of Omaha decided to become the full-time Klingon of class warfare, we were still in a recession, and would stay in one “until real per capita GDP gets back to where it was before.” We’re probably at least a year from that threshold:


Thus, we will have endured a half-decade of Buffett-defined recession.

The other major indicator that we have had a failure to recover is shown in the jobs numbers — not the ones relating to the overall picture, which are bad enough, but the ones breaking down part-time versus full-time employment. The following chart shows what has happened in those categories since what I have been calling the POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) Economy began at roughly May’s end in 2008. This was the point when decision-making investors, entrepreneurs, and businesspeople began running for cover as the ominous prospect that Obama might actually win the presidency and have a lapdog House Speaker and Senate Majority Leader at his beck and call became a likelihood:


On the current trajectory, while Obama and his administration brag about the wonders they’ve supposedly achieved in the employment growth in the since early 2010, the economy is at least four years away from recovering the full-time jobs lost since the POR Economy began, even before considering population growth. If ObamaCare somehow survives Supreme Court challenges and congressional repeal efforts, we may see full-time employment plateau barely above where it is now.

The slow non-recovery is having dire consequences which will be felt for years. The establishment press, which fabricated the fiction that the truly roaring economy under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s was supposedly creating jobs for hamburger flippers and not much else, is virtually ignoring the frightening human cost of the worst economy since FDR dragged the country through the needlessly long-lasting depression of the 1930s. Instead, they play a colossally fraudulent game of “Let’s pretend things are just fine” with the Obama economy.

In mid-February, there was a press report about “tent cities.” No, not those erected by the pathetic losers and criminal trespassers of the Obama-endorsed Occupy movement, but places where one will find the desperately poor:

Tent cities have sprung up in and around at least 55 American cities – they represent the bleak reality of America’s poverty crisis.

… One of the largest tented camps is in Florida and is now home to around 300 people. Others have sprung up in New Jersey and Portland.

The media outlet which reported this phenomenon clearly broke ranks with the predominant press indifference. There’s a high likelihood that you never heard a word about this report, because it came from the BBC. Does anyone think that the U.S. media, which is so completely vested in Obama’s reelection that it might as well be an arm of Obama for America, is going to cover the tent city phenomenon and risk seeing them referred to as they should be, i.e., as “Obamavilles,” the 21st century incarnation of the Depression-era Hoovervilles?

Homeless advocacy groups have also gotten into the cover-up act, as illustrated in this paragraph from the 2012 The State of Homelessness in America report:

Chronic homelessness decreased by 3 percent from 110,911 in 2009 to 107,148 in 2011. The chronically homeless population has decreased by 13 percent since 2007. The decrease is associated with an increase in the number of permanent supportive housing beds from 188,636 in 2007 to 266,968 in 2011. Permanent supportive housing ends chronic homelessness.

Clever, eh? You wouldn’t know it from the excerpted paragraph, but “permanent supportive housing” is still a form of homelessness. Digging into the report to find comparable numbers, one finds that both kinds of homelessness combined have increased by over 9% during the past two years. What’s more, “The ‘doubled up’ population (people who live with friends, family or other nonrelatives for economic reasons) increased by 13 percent from 6 million in 2009 to 6.8 million in 2010.”

Meanwhile, millions of the long-term unemployed are seeing the skills which earned them middle-class standards of living dangerously erode in what is perhaps the greatest destruction of human capital this nation has ever seen. That doesn’t seem to be a problem to Obama adviser Valerie Jarrett, who positively gushes over how government unemployment checks stimulate the economy.

A slowly recovering economy means that real estate values, which declined steeply during the downturn, are just staying there. If it weren’t for the administration’s failed housing market interventions, the homebuilding and resale industries, instead of treading water near their bottom, would be coming back quickly enough to justify a meaningful rebound in home values. That’s not happening, and it’s seriously harming the financial positions of millions of individuals and families.

A president with the gall to brag about the set of conditions just described and who wants us to believe, with press assistance, that this is the “new normal,” it’s the best we can hope for, and that we’d better get used to it, is one who deserves to be electorally thrown out of office on his insecure, oversized ears.

Wednesday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (022912)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 7:15 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.


Positivity: Medical miracle walks, competes after being told he couldn’t

Filed under: Health Care,Positivity — Tom @ 5:58 am

From Louisville (video at link):

Posted on February 25, 2012 at 12:13 AM
Updated Saturday, Feb 25 at 12:22 AM

He walked when doctors said he wouldn’t, and became a Division One pole vaulter when coaches said he couldn’t.

That special former UofL athlete is back in town on a mission to bring better health care to the state.

“I don’t know how to quit. I haven’t quit a day in my life. I wasn’t raised to fail,” said John Thomas Hall.

But there have been a few moments in John’s life where it would’ve been easier to throw in the towel. July 7, 1993, was one of those moments.

“I was an avid water skier. I was out working on a move that I’d seen on ESPN. I bailed really hard and broke my neck. C6, C7 fractured relocation. There was a severe bruise to my spinal cord,” he recalls.

At 16-years-old, John could only use his right arm. Told he’d never walk again, he powered through rehab one grueling step at a time.

John graduated in 2000, and decided he wanted to establish a foundation to support those suffering from paralysis. Named Team Walk On, the foundation started to thrive. Then John had another one of those throw in the towel moments.

“I found out I had contracted leukemia through a routine physical test. They found it in my left testicle. They removed that and I went through six months of treatment in the state of Indiana,” said John.

The man who beat paralysis would go on to beat cancer. But just five months later, the cancer returned.

“Death’s knocked at my door three times now. I know what it’s like and I’ve seen it up close. It’s no picnic,” said John.

Cancer free now for almost a year and a half, John’s journey has come full circle. …

Go here for the rest of the story.

Video: Economic Freedom in America Today

Filed under: Economy,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 12:01 am

Sobering, and appropriately critical where criticism is warranted:

February 28, 2012

Romney Wins MI (by 3 Points) and AZ (Without a Majority)

Filed under: Activism,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:38 pm

This is nowhere near as problematic as things seemed just four weeks ago.

Mitt Romney avoided utter utter humiliation in his “home” state by what appears to be three points. We’re supposed to be impressed that this is a momentum change? I don’t think so.

And in Arizona, where I understand the other three candidates did very little, Romney still couldn’t win a majority.

This means that Rick Santorum is still the only candidate to win a clear majority in a statewide election (Nevada was a caucus, and Romney won a majority by less than 100 votes in a heavily Mormon state; and don’t bring that “Missouri doesn’t count” garbage in here).


UPDATE: Via a Gregg Jackson email, relaying a message from a Michigander — “Santorum won 56 of our 83 counties, and the 27 that Romney won led us in abortion and high crime.” Also this, in a different email: “After running for president for the past half decade and outspending all his opponents combined by at least 10-1, Romney got 10% less of the vote in his “home state” than he did 4 years ago.”

UPDATE 2: Erick Ericksen, who is also not a Santorum fan –

Mitt Romney continues to run an uninspiring campaign only able to win by massively outspending his opponents to tell voters how much worse the other guys are. That may work in the primary, but it will not work in a general election where the President of the United States won’t be outspent 5 to 1.

Three percentage points. In his home state. In his wife’s home state. In the state his father served as Governor. Three percentage points against a guy few took seriously two months ago and who just three weeks ago no one expected to give Romney a run for his money in Romney’s home state.

And this is our nominee — a guy who can only win in states with a home state advantage, New Englanders and New England transplants, and Mormons.

Richard Who? AP, NYT, Others Ignore UK Speech by MIT’s Lindzen As He ‘Pwns’ the Globalarmists

GlobalWarmingAs is the case with so much that is being reported in other countries about how much of the rest of the world is walking itself back from the extreme statist agenda supposedly necessitated by “climate change,” a presentation at the British House of Commons made by Professor Richard Lindzen, whom James Delingpole at the UK Telegraph describes as “one of the world’s greatest atmospheric physicists: perhaps the greatest,” has gone virtually unreported in the U.S. establishment press.

There’s a reason for this. As Delingpole notes (“Lindzen totally pwns the alarmists”): “… even if you’d come to the talk he gave in the House of Commons this week without prejudice or expectation, I can pretty much guarantee you would have been blown away by his elegant dismissal of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.” Here are excerpts from the PDF supporting Lindzen’s appearance, followed by proof that the self-described outlets of record in the America have ignored it (bolds are mine):



Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 3:42 pm

You might have missed this from the 2008 presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton:

You know, it’s very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments. We’ve seen throughout the campaign if you’re willing to say really outrageous things that are accusative, attacking of President Bush, that you’re going to jump up in the polls. I’m not willing to light my hair on fire to try and get support. I am who I am.

I’m a person with extensive experience in government. I understand how government works from a personal standpoint and from a theoretical standpoint. I want to use those skills to help the country. And if I get selected, great, and if I don’t, I can live with that too. I’m putting myself out there because I think I can do a better job getting America back on track. I think this president has taken us in a very dangerous direction, and that we’ve got to get him out of the White House. But I’m not willing to say anything to get that nod.

The reason you missed it is because (of course) it didn’t happen.

But the following did, courtesy of (who else?) …:

More Crud From AP’s Crutsinger: Failure to Cite Seasonality in Steep Durable Goods Drop

At the Associated Press, covering today’s durable goods report from the Census Bureau, Martin Crutsinger wrote that “Orders for durable goods fell 4 percent last month.”

No they didn’t. They fell by a seasonally adjusted 4%. The raw data before seasonal adjustment says that they fell by over 15%:


No variation on the word “seasonal” is in Crutsinger’s report. Anyone reading or hearing his crummy content has every reason to believe that the reported drop of 4% is what actually happened. Obviously, it isn’t.

Seasonality is supposed to smooth out large variations in monthly numbers to give news consumers and number crunchers the ability to quickly evaluate the direction in which the data is headed, and then to attempt to discern reasons why things are looking better or worse. A 4%, one-month drop after seasonal adjustment demands intense scrutiny, especially when consensus expectations (which Crutsinger didn’t note) were for a drop of 1%.

So what happened? If you believe Crutsinger, the decline occurred because of what he described as a December 2011-exiring “tax break” once and as a “tax credit” twice

Businesses slashed spending on machinery and equipment in January after a tax break expired, pushing orders for long-lasting manufacturing goods down by the largest amount in three years.

… Economists attributed much of the decline in January to the end of the tax credit. They noted that demand for core capital goods hit an all-time high in December as most companies raced to qualify for the tax credit. Many said the underlying trend remained strong and predicted further business investment in the coming months.

“We see no evidence of underlying slowing in the industrial economy so we look for a rebound in February and the re-emergence of the upward trend over the next couple of months,” said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at High Frequency Economics.

Bloomberg’s “economists” weren’t as sure of themselves, as its Timothy R. Homan reported:

The expiration at the end of 2011 of a tax incentive allowing full depreciation on equipment purchases may have prompted a slowdown in investment at the start of this year. At the same time, a strengthening auto industry may help keep factories at the forefront of the expansion that began in June 2009.

… Last month’s decrease in capital goods orders extends a pattern of declines early in a quarter that are typically reversed later. Demand for non-military capital goods like computers, engines and communications gear have dropped in the first month of a quarter in all but three instances since the end of 2005.

Three things are annoying about what Bloomberg noted:

  • There’s a race to buy capital equipment to pick up a degree of depreciation or full write-off almost every year. Was December 2011 really so very different from the norm?
  • What Bloomberg describes as a “tax incentive” is a deduction (reducing taxable income) and not, as Crutsinger reported, a credit (directly reducing income taxes owed). Does he understand the difference? If there’s a unusual “credit” unique to 2011 which would have influenced year-end capital goods purchases beyond normal, I’m not aware of it, and I don’t see it in this list of expiring tax breaks prepared by a CPA in late December. Yet according to Crutsinger, “most companies raced” to get this alleged “credit.” Exactly how does he know this?
  • Seasonal adjustments are designed to smooth out typical declines, meaning that the January 2012 decline, the worst in three years must have been far from typical. As noted, leaning on tax-driven behavior to explain the drop isn’t at all satisfying.

Back to the post’s titled topic: Business reporters, especially it would seem at the AP, focus on seasonally adjusted data and almost always ignore the underlying raw results. That’s bad enough, and barely tolerable as long as they properly label what they deem to report. But when the “seasonally adjusted” label drops off completely and it “just so happens” to make a 15% decline look like it was really 4%, that’s completely unacceptable — but perhaps expected behavior between now and November from what yours truly has taken to calling the Administration’s Press.

Cross-posted at NewsBusters.org.

Tuesday Off-Topic (Moderated) Open Thread (022812)

Filed under: Lucid Links — Tom @ 7:15 am

Rules are here. Possible comment fodder may follow later. Other topics are also fair game.


Positivity: Watch What This 90 Year Old Couple Does at a Clinic

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 5:57 am

An Internet sensation — and it should be (HT GodVine):

February 27, 2012

Latest PJ Media Column (Slow ‘Recovery,’ Dire Consequences’) Is Up (More on the Tent-City ‘Obamavilles’ Which Somehow Only the BBC Has Been Able to Locate)

It’s here.

It will go up here at BizzyBlog on Wednesday (link won’t work until then) after the blackout expires.


Obamavilles: The column references and lightly excerpts a BBC report (related narrative where the video isn’t available here; YouTube video of the program here) which notes the proliferation of “tent cities” throughout the U.S. This post will extend what the Beeb found.

These aren’t Occupy encampments, and to a large extent they aren’t hangouts for the solitary homeless by choice.

Read on:

America’s homeless resort to tent cities

Panorama’s Hilary Andersson comes face to face with the reality of poverty in America and finds that, for some, the last resort has become life in a tented encampment.

Just off the side of a motorway on the fringes of the picturesque town of Ann Arbor, Michigan, a mismatched collection of 30 tents tucked in the woods has become home – home to those who are either unemployed, or whose wages are so low that they can no longer afford to pay rent.

Conditions are unhygienic. There are no toilets and electricity is only available in the one communal tent where the campers huddle around a wood stove for warmth in the heart of winter.

Ice weighs down the roofs of tents, and rain regularly drips onto the sleeping campers’ faces.

Tent cities have sprung up in and around at least 55 American cities – they represent the bleak reality of America’s poverty crisis.

… One of the largest tented camps is in Florida and is now home to around 300 people. Others have sprung up in New Jersey and Portland.

Calls have come in from the hospital emergency room, the local police and the local homeless shelter to see if they can send in more.

“Last night, for example, we got a call saying they had six that couldn’t make it into the shelter and… they were hoping that we could place them… So we usually get calls, around nine or 10 a night,” said Brian Durance, a camp organiser.

… There are an estimated 5,000 people living in the dozens of camps that have sprung up across America.
The largest camp, Pinella’s Hope in central Florida – a region better known for the glamour of Disneyworld – is made up of neat rows of tents spread out across a 13-acre plot.

… These tent cities – and this level of poverty – are images that many Americans associate with the Great Depression.

Unemployment in America today has not reached the astronomical levels of the 1930s, but barring a short spike in 1982, it has not been this high since the Depression era.

There are now 13 million unemployed Americans, which is three million more than when President Barack Obama was first elected.

The stark reality is that many of them are people who very recently lived comfortable middle-class lives.

Here’s the video:

Now let’s make one thing crystal clear – The Beeb’s report massively overstates the problem and is relentlessly biased:

  • There are NOT 1.5 million children who are “homeless” (the broadcast actually says they are “without homes,” which includes families in cheap hotels and those who are in “doubled-up” arrangements with relatives, friends, and others because of economic circumstances). The 2012 report from the National Alliance to End Homelessness says that the total number of homeless of all ages in 2011 was 637,000 (page 5).
  • There are NOT 50 million Americans without health insurance at any given time.
  • It also overplays the influence of income and wealth inequalities. The former basically hasn’t budged since the turn of the century, and the latter has lessened because of the recession.
  • It’s also relentlessly hostile to “conservatives,” as if it’s their fault, when they’re not the ones who have ran $5 trillion in deficits (by the end of fiscal 2012) or who controlled Washington completely in 2009 and 2010. Conservatives have (sort of) controlled only one legislative chamber since 2011 began. The Beeb even takes shots at state governors like Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, when they’re not the ones who have been setting national policy priorities which have led the nation to the brink of financial ruin. The report’s commentator asks Michigan’s Lieutenant Governor about the tent cities and “cuts”; why did they interview no one in Washington and ask where the $2-plus billion the Washington bureaucracy is spending per year on homelessness is disappearing? At another point, the Beeb’s reporter gets into a definitional argument with Heritage’s Robert Rector over whether hunger is “widespread” (it’s not). It also treats ObamaCare as a major step in solving dire poverty, which is a sick joke for anyone who knows what’s in the bill.
  • At no point does the Beeb stop to wonder whether the “stimulus”-driven, massive debt-generating “solutions” tried in Washington have led to a worsening in the conditions found.

That said, the Beeb makes some relevant observations:

  • Detroit looks worse than Beirut.” But no connection is made to over four decades of government “solutions” and unspeakable corruption which have brought the city to its knees. The commentator somehow says without laughing that “The President still believes the way forward is spending on social services and infrastructure.” Yeah, more of the same will work.
  • Here’s the biggie: The report notes that homeless shelters in Southeast Michigan are referring those they won’t take in to Ann Arbor’s “tent city.” Read that again. Further: “It seems that tent city has become a semi-official dumping ground for the homeless here.” It goes on: “Panorama has established that public agency and overstretched shelters are referring the homeless to tent and encampments outside several other cities in America. You have to wonder why this point only cryptically made it into the printed report (bolded paragraphs above) and wasn’t present in the Panorama tease.
  • “This is not the vision of America President Obama’s supporters were led to believe in.” No kidding.

The larger point made in my PJ Media column is that the kind of things BBC found, especially the scandalous referrals to tent cities, would be all over American TV and other U.S. media if anyone but Barack Obama were president (I daresay that that no other Democratic Party president would be fully spared as Obama has been).

But we see nothing — because if we did, “Obamaville” would become part of the national vocabulary, and because the growth of the dire poverty problem is to a substantial degree the result of a pathetically and inexcusably slow recovery based on Obama administration “solutions” previously shown not to have worked during the entire decade of the 1930s.