Our “Black” presidents and Is’ism

Is’ism isn’t new, it’s been practiced by con-men and charlatans for centuries, it’s just that our first two “black” presidents elevated its application to an artistic level.

What is “Is’ism,” you ask?

It’s the deliberate selection of words and phrases to imply something without definitively stating the implication. That way, a statement can never be pinned down. It relies on the audience’s subjective interpretation of what was said, as opposed to a definitive statement of fact(s) that could actually be concluded from the words. Supporters hear what they want to hear.

Nothing is stated without ambiguity – nothing is stated with specificity. If the speaker approves of an interpretation, you heard him correctly – if he disagrees with your interpretation, you misunderstood him (it’s your fault).

Didn’t Bill Clinton warn us that it all depends on what the definition of “is” is … ? What a crock.

Practically anything that Obama says is automatically certified as gospel truth by (at least) three factions of his supporters:

3. Ignorant people. Those classed as “ignorant” are saddled with an innate mental cluelessness and/or are handicapped by an inability to understand words more complex than “I” or “me.” Note that, in many cases, Group 3 also contains many individuals already participating in Group 1 and/or Group 2. Those are defined as “multidimensional” idiots.

Those groups have no interest in reading H.R.3200 or analyzing why “Cap and Trade” is a bad idea. If Obama blesses it, it must be righteous.

Thus, Obama can say that his overhaul of America’s healthcare will yield better care at a lower cost and even though there is ample evidence to the contrary, they still believe him.

~~~

Obamacare’s Magic Beans

In a letter to president Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid state "Our nation is closer than ever to achieving health insurance reform that will lower costs, retain choice, improve quality and expand coverage.” Boy, that’s some magic reform. Will it also increase size and staying power, resulting in a more satisfying performance?

They say that Obamacare going to cover 47,000,000 more residents and (somehow) cost less? Never mind that the 47 million is a completely bogus number to begin with, what kind of brainless dolts do they think we are? It is not possible to cover an additional 47 million residents without dramatically reducing (by rationing) the level of care that we’ve come to expect, yet they pooh pooh that (or should it be wee wee that?).

Here is one fundamental reason that the statement is demonstrably false.

Considering the current shortage of doctors, have any Obamacare advocates specified how the additional 47 million residents would be treated? We currently have some 800,586 physicians treating our roughly 300,000,000 residents, a ratio of 2.67 doctors per 1,000 people¹. To keep medical care at the same level (maintaining the same physician/resident ratio), we’ll need an additional 125,490 doctors to treat those 47 million – where will they come from? Can Obama wiggle his nose or click his heels together to magically produce them? Or must we plant Obama’s magic beans?

A Pesky Truth: improve quality and reduce cost at the same time? Here's a clue: name all of the federal programs that have improved efficiency and reduced costs at the same time. Please send your list to Pesky Truth.

Therefore, what we’ll have without any immediate and substantive increase in the number of physicians is a dramatically lower physician-to-resident ratio. With a lower physician-to-resident ratio, some residents will not be able to get treatment as promptly or to as great an extent as needed, resulting in compounding serious health problems, and for some, even death.

The only way to spread a limited number of doctors over a substantially larger patient population, is to reduce the time and/or care that a doctor can expend on an individual patient – and by rationing the health care to those who are deemed (by a bureaucratic triage) to be most deserving.

And don’t forget the nurses. Our healthcare system simply couldn’t operate without qualified, trained nurses. We currently have 2,417,150 nurses providing care to 300,000,000 residents¹ – a ratio of 8.07 nurses per 1,000 residents. Adding another 47 million residents would require an additional 379,290 nurses – where will they come from? How long would it take just to train that many additional nurses?

There are many other reasons that Obamacare simply, logically, cannot possibly work the way it is described by Obama himself and his supporters – this is but one.

It is plain that Obama and his supporters are not telling the truth.

A Pesky Truth: The only citizens who believe the Obamacare lies are the uninformed and the Kool-Aid drinkers.

¹ 2009 Statistical Abstract, U.S. Census

~~~

The “Lying” of the Senate

If there was any remaining doubt of the left’s softness on crime, Ted Kennedy’s passing should remove it. He has been lauded for his achievements in the Senate. But he was there for almost 47 years, wouldn’t you expect some achievements? That’s more than a career, that’s a lifetime. Cesar Millan (the Dog Whisperer) could teach a beagle to speak Swahili in 47 years.

But many ignore the fact that he was a drunken, misogynistic, traitorous, coward. To wit:

• He was kicked out of Harvard for cheating on a Spanish final exam²
• He left a woman to die in an overturned car in six or seven feet of water to save his political career³
• He interfered in his nephew’s rape trial4
• He was known to be a drunkard who sexually assaulted women5
• Ted Kennedy conspired with Soviet President Yuri Andropov to lend the Soviets aid in opposing the foreign policy initiatives of President Ronald Reagan.  In return, the Soviets were to help the Democratic Party in a propaganda war against Reagan during the upcoming 1984 presidential election in the U.S.7

This is a man to worship? If Kennedy had been an “R” instead of a “D,” he’d have been tarred and feathered by the OM (Obsolete Media), and ridden out of DC on a splinter-filled fence rail.

Just as the other democrat ruling class miscreants, Clinton, Frank, Dodd, Rangel, et al, all get a bye just because of that all-important “D” by their name, it’s much like having a big Superman “S” emblazoned on one’s chest – it makes one impervious to accountability.

~~~

Glenn Beck, A One-man Mainstream Media

I’m guess I’m finally sold.

I’d listened to or watched Beck sporadically for awhile. More recently, I’ve been listening to some of his radio show and watching some of his TV show. As of today, I’m recording all of his TV shows and won’t miss any more of them – they’re too important.

I’ve come to the conclusion that Glenn Beck is “connecting the dots” better than anyone else in the country, except for (possibly) Michelle Malkin. He is uncovering information about Obama’s new czars and about the connections between little-known “progressive” groups and their agendas. It’s about time that we connect these dots because ignoring them will be our downfall.

While he does sometimes push the loonery envelope, and some may call Beck a kook, he won me over because I’ve watched him broadcast much of the same information that I spent a lot of time researching for my “Connecting the Dots” series for Pesky Truth. At least relating to that information, I believe that his pronouncements are based on facts that I’ve independently verified. My research was done before his shows that concentrated on ACORN, SEIU, Wade Rathke, Tides Foundation, etc. so my studies weren’t triggered by his broadcasts. Yet, I came to the same conclusions – that the country is at risk from attack by radical leftists and the Obama administration.

In the last two weeks, he has been prodding his viewers and listeners to ask questions. Simply ask questions. To question how and why so many who have Obama’s ear are Socialists, Marxists, Communists, or otherwise anti-American and anti-capitalists.  What is their overall agenda? Why has B. Hussein Obama surrounded himself with so many anti-American radicals? Either Obama has assembled the largest group of “devil’s advocates” known to man or he’s hired them because they think like he does. As Beck says, “you be the judge.”

His questions have been logical and reasonable, and we citizens have a right to know the answers. So far as I’ve seen, the attacks against Beck have belittled everything about him, from his on-camera antics to his previous alcoholism – but no one has refuted his allegations. Why? If, he is a lying, ignorant, rabble-rousing, P.O.S., enlighten us with the corrections to his allegations – show us the evidence of his lies.

A Pesky Truth: They haven’t, they won’t, they can’t.

~~~

A Revision to the “Throw the Bums Out” Movement

As bad as the chumps in congress are, they couldn’t act with such impunity and arrogance if not for the support of the OM (obsolete media). Imagine if you will, that the publications and networks identified in the following Byron York piece were publicizing the Van Jones story in a similar fashion to Glenn Beck, Fox News, and the Internet bloggers. If the truth were widely known, Mr. Jones (“Mr.” term used loosely) would play hell finding a job as a Czar of Tater Tots for Sonic.

This lack of coverage in the OM is the very definition of “aid and comfort” to congress and the Obama administration. The OM is NOT objective and we can no longer depend on them for any real journalism. Therefore, they are even WORSE than Congress – they are ENABLING the irresponsible actions of Obama and our congress, by their willful non-reporting of anything remotely detrimental to the congress or the administration. We need to throw them out as well – and we can do that by not buying their tripe-laden newsprint or their flatus-laced airtime.

The Van Jones (non) feeding frenzy

By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
Washington Examiner

09/04/09 11:30 AM EDT

From a Nexis search a few moments ago:

Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the New York Times: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy in the Washington Post: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on NBC Nightly News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on ABC World News: 0.
Total words about the Van Jones controversy on CBS Evening News: 0.

If you were to receive all your news from any one of these outlets, or even all of them together, and you heard about some sort of controversy involving president Obama's Special Adviser for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, your response would be, "Huh?" If you heard that that adviser, Van Jones, had apologized for a number of remarks and positions in the recent past, your response would be, "What?" And if you were in the Obama White House monitoring the Jones situation, you would be hoping that the news organizations listed above continue to hold the line -- otherwise, Jones, who is quite well thought of in Obama circles, would be history.

I think that the OM is having a “deer in the headlights” moment. They don’t know what to do. Their circulation and viewership is dropping precipitously, gradually moving to the “new” media and Fox News, yet rather than expose the truth about congress and the Obama administration, they will apparently fall on their swords. The stockholders of those entities should DEMAND that they begin to exercise some journalistic fortitude and give their dwindling customer base some real news – or suffer the consequences, the figurative death of their brands.

~~~