About Me

Name: CJLloyd
Email: cjlloyd41@aol.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Blog Roll

 

Spare Us the Phony Outrage

Posted by CJLloyd on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 11:21:30 PM
Liberals absolutely love crying about hate crimes and hate speech. The very idea of a hate crime is against the nature of what our legal system was established to do. Hate speech on the other hand, can cross the line of legality at times and its a very blurry line. I'm not going to attempt to come up with a definition of illegal hate speech here. What I would like, nay, love to do here is expose just one of the many glaring hypocrisies scarring liberalism.

The recent health care debate has sparked protesters from a group of people who have little to no experience protesting. I'm talking about conservatives. For one reason or another we just haven't been the sign toting, flag burning, "beaming young idealists", that folks like Maureen Dowd dream of when they think of democracy in action. Perhaps it's the fact that liberals manage to advance their socialist agenda in such a way that most Americans never see it coming. Perhaps it's because conservatives aren't being rallied by their heroes in pop culture to "fight the man" or "vote or die". Maybe it's just the nature of the conservative mind to fight the progressives intellectually. I believe it's a combination of all three. What has happened at these town hall meetings has clearly surprised and confused liberals all across this great land. People of all ages, from different backgrounds have left the comfort of their home or office and are participting in this new thing they call "protesting". The nature of these protests have ranged from the silly to the sincere but what has liberals fuming is the images of their lord and savior, President Obama, with swatstikas and those cute little Hitler mustaches photoshopped to his face. This to me is closer to the silly side than the sincere. Even those holding the signs can't possibly believe that the President is going to commit genocide. What's truly hard to believe is the reaction from the left to these types of signs. The current Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has accused those against the health care plan to be an "angry mob". Michigan congressmen John Dingell has said that these protests remind him of Klan rallies during the civil rights movement. Really Mr. Dingell ? Of course, like most liberals, you can't take this stuff seriously. They are what they are and all the logic, statistics, Bible thumping and history lessons do little to no good in helping them limp along to the truth. Set aside the questions regarding the legality of the Nazi inspired imagery and focus on the reaction by the left. Columnists on the left have been SHOCKED by these pictures. "Is this hate speech!?" they ask. They wonder, "Should we be worried of a violent militia movement?!". There concern is touching, but this is what we call "crocodile tears". Let me show you exactly what I mean. Here are a few images I found with Google Image search by typing the words Bush and Hitler. Enjoy:




How Sweet

Nice drapes
A NY Times Bestseller Last but not least
Besides being sort of amusing, these are almost identical to the pictures we are seeing of President Obama at the town hall meetings across America. When the libs were running around breaking windows and inciting riots with these banners and signs, we on the right sat back, shook our heads and carried on living our productive lives.

Whether or not this is an acceptable form of protest is for you to decide. I simply thought it was important to point out the inconsistencies in the outrage the left selectively displays. We're all guilty of some type of "political sin" in one way or the other, but hypocrisy has become a pastime for the left and is a prime example of what is wrong with the liberal progressive movement. They love to nail conservatives with the moral gotcha's, and I'll be the first to say there's nothing wrong with that. If you don't practice what you adamently preach you are liable to get your head knocked in once you slip up. A prime example is the SC governor Mark Sanford and he deserves whatever he gets. The difference in a moral misstep and a blatant double standard is the figurative distance between the Right and the Left.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You Can't Have It Both Ways

Posted by CJLloyd on Monday, August 17, 2009 12:00:00 AM
Today I am going to do something that many people who know me may not believe. I'm going to praise President Obama. No snarky comments or backhanded compliments. Just honest to goodness appreciation for something he said last week in Guadalajara, Mexico with the leaders of our continental cousins. A reporter addressed all three leaders, asking different questions of each. Presiden Calderon of Mexico was asked about the American involvement in Honduras and whether or not he thought the US had done enough restoring the Honduran government. Here is the question posed by a reporter known as "Ginger" in the transcript:

"President Calderón, I'd like to hear a little bit about your thoughts on Honduras. There have been some in Latin America who have said that the United States has not acted strongly enough to return President Zelaya to power. And I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you feel about what the United States should be doing or could be doing to restore democratic order in Honduras."

When President Obama was asked about immigration reform, he took a moment to deviate from the subject and address the question posed to Calderon about US involvment in Honduras: 

"Oh, excuse me -- I know this wasn't directed at me, but I just want to make one quick point on Honduras, because you repeated something that I've heard before. The same critics who say that the United States has not intervened enough in Honduras are the same people who say that we're always intervening, and the Yankees need to get out of Latin America. You can't have it both ways."

Wow. Mr. President, I must say you pleasantly surprised me with this response. Not only did he go out of his way to respond to the question posed to President Calderon, but he was frank in saying the critics can't "have it both ways." This comment was overlooked by the American media for two reasons I believe. The liberal state run enterprises like MSNBC and the network newscasts probably didn't like what the President had to say. They have been questioning the judgement of the Pentagon since the 1960's. While FOX News covered the press conference in it's entirety, nothing was mentioned in great length of the Presidents remarks on this subject. This is a good example of how truly American sentiments are often ignored for political reasons in our press. In the end, I don't really have a problem with private media corporations like MSNBC and FOX News slanting one way or the other. American media has a long history of weaving opinion into it's hard news coverage and the CEO's of each respective company has the right to cover the news anyway they wish, so long as they are not being dishonest, but this is another subject all together. The President was right and when he defends the country he was elected to serve like he did at that press conference, it should be noted. If only the rest of the world outside of Latin America would recognize that it's time they stop having it both ways...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

White House Admits Closed Door Meetings With Big Pharma

Posted by CJLloyd on Sunday, August 16, 2009 12:00:00 AM
News out of Washington about the White House making deals with power pharmaceutical companies should have all those with an eye on the State of the Union concerned.

In 1994, amidst the Democrats last attempt at health care "reform", pharmaceutical companies (often referred to as Big Pharma) lobbied AGAINST the Democratic plan as they should any plan to socialize medicine. Their biggest qualm ? The White House at the time refused to make a promise to Big Pharma that it would prevent price drops in prescription medicine. The government, as we all know by now, is willing to spend money it doesn't have for almost anything. This includes perscription medicine. The seemingly bottomless budget for the federal government allows it to underwrite pharmaceutal companies, another example of how any socialized health care plan leads to the ultimate demise of its private sector. There are a couple of reasons why this should be alarming.

First: What happened to all that CHANGE we were promised ? President Obamas predesessor, George W. Bush, struck a deal with Big Pharma in 2003 referred to as the Medicare Drug Benefit ( for more on this legislation visit HHS.gov - MDB2003 ). To make a long story short, this deal benefitted Big Pharma in such a way that the liberal columnists and blogosphere ERUPTED with scorn. How could the White House possibly do something to benefit the evil corporations ? This week the White House admitted after pressure from an article in the LA Times to the terms agreed to in a closed door meeting with PhRMA (Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America), a gigantic lobbying arm for the pharmaceutical industry. Which reminds me, is anyone else still convinced this administration has some moral high ground on transparency ? I hope not. I digress. In this agreement the administration confirmed a "compromise" with Big Pharma which includes not requiring rebates on drugs for joint enrolled patients of Medicare and Medicaid. Translating this; the administration has promised to include properties of the bill which will prevent pharmaceutical drug costs from going down. Why would the current administration, one which has attempted to demonize as many corporate enterprises as possible, be willing to go the extra mile for Big Pharma ? The answer is clear. In return for the White House's favor, PhRMA has agreed to support the Dems socialized medicine plan and to spend $150 million on television ads starting this month. To put that in perspective, that is more money than the McCain campaign spent during his entire run for the White House in 2008. So next time you go to your local drug store and purchase perscription medicine there is a change that a portion of your payment will be redirected in to an ad campaign convincing you that socialized medicine is good for you, when in fact, it will be fiscally benefitting the pharmaceutical companies now supporting it.

Ask yourself the tough questions. Why would the White House need to essentially pay off lobbyists for backing their health care plan ? Has this happened with other groups ? Perhaps the AARP made such a deal with the administration, prompting the President to proclaim their support when the AARP says no such deal has been struck. Either our President is a liar or this is becoming an issue. The corruption in Washington is staring us in the face. It's time we stare back, and send the corruption packing during the next election; DemocratsAND Republicans. When the White House actively partcipates in a racketeering job (and tries to cover it up) we have a very serious problem.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

GOP Alternative to Socialized Health Care

Posted by CJLloyd on Friday, August 14, 2009 12:00:00 AM
Wednesday, Republican lawmakers released what they call a more effective and affordable alternative to the House Resolution sponsored by Democrats.

A significant portion of the GOP alternative features tax savings for those uninsured by a company policy and tax credits to provide an incentive for small businesses to offer employee health care policies. For those Americans who are not offered Employer-provided health insurance a tax savings is applied equal to that of an individuals or family's insurance premiums. For low and modest income families there are refundable and advanceable tax credits to provide immediate relief from health insurance costs as the average premiums are driven down. Perhaps the most innovative concept of the plan is one that allows intrastate insurance policies and creates an opportunity for states, small businesses and other groups to band together to offer health insurance at a lower cost. Perhaps the most important element of driving down the cost of health care at any level is TORT REFORM. In 2007 $30 Billion of malpractice tort costs played an important role in the continued increase of health care costs. Democrats have consistently resisted tort reform. The Republican plan would likely cap malpractice and "pain and suffering" suites that force doctors to practice defensive medicine. This will immediately reduce out of pocket expenses as doctors no longer feel the need to perform unnecessary tests for the sole purpose of covering all the bases to avoid a lawsuite. Even more, it would provide more resources and authority to medicare/medicaid for preventing fraud and to help stop the one thing Washington is good at, wasting taxpayer dollars. This link is a YouTube video of two doctors explaining the importance of tort reform. It's only 1:42, check this out.

Lastly, the alternative to Democratic bill would allow college graduates unable to find employment with health insurance options to remain as a dependent on their parents health care plan until the age of 25.

For more information the Republican solution for Health Care reform visit their official website: GOP.gov - Health Care Solutions


Opt-out Survey Results (pdf)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Problems with the Current Health Care Legislation

Posted by CJLloyd on Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:00:00 AM
With all the madness surrounding Augusts Congressional Town Hall meetings, I feel it's appropriate to lay out some of the facts surrounding the health care bill coming out of Congress and weigh in on the citizens being demonized for vocalizing their opinions.

First let me introduce the premise of the health care bill, dubbed "Obamacare" by those who oppose it. The current administration is ON RECORD in favor of a "single-payer" system which is in short a 100% government controlled health care system. This bill, like anything coming out of Washington these days, is sugar coated and written in legalese so as to prevent the average American from seeing the inevitable results of a bill such as this being passed. In the current version of the bill the Federal Government will provide what it calls a "public option" for those who feel they cannot afford health insurance within the current system. President Obama has been saying for months now that those who are happy with their current health insurance will not have to switch. This is true. What he is not telling you, and will not tell you, is that within the peramiters of this bill is an 8% penalty tax passed on to small businesses (like that of my fathers) who do not switch to the government plan or provide the same coverage as the public plan. This is a catch22 for those who feel the government doesn't have the right to meddle in the private sector. Undoubtedly small companies will feel the financial crunch of trying to compete with the "public option" and those companies that switch to it. The only remaining option will be to switch to the public plan themselves further eliminating private insurance companies from the playing field. 'Thats fine', you say, 'I am not on a company insurance policy nor do I provide insurance for my employees.' Well, you might be in an even tighter squeeze if your trying to avoid jumping into the Gov't plan. In the current legislation catastrophic insurance only would be made ILLEGAL! That means if you choose to pay out of pocket for check-ups, phyiscals, etc. and pay insurance premiums for catastrophic injury or those operations that would otherwise break the bank, you are breaking the law. Sounds to me like our options are being severely limited. If you're still not sure why hard working, honest Americans are showing up in droves at the Town Halls Meetings to protest the bill, consider the language used in reference to "end of life care" in Obamacare. The President has said that health care will NOT be rationed in his health care reform plans, but Lee Seigel, columnist for the Daily Beast, a leftwing editorial website had this to say;

"Determining which treatments are “cost effective” at the end of a person’s life and which are not is one of Obama’s priorities. It’s one of the principal ways he counts on saving money and making universal healthcare affordable... This is the Big Brother nightmare of oppressive government that the shrewd propagandists on the right are always blathering on about. Except that this time, they could not be more right."

You may be asking yourself why a liberal columnist would be exposing fatal flaws in the health care reform bill that President Obama is touting all over the country. Perhaps his reason for discontent should be shared by more ethical Americans who believe in the sanctity of life, whether it be at conception or in the twilight of ones journey through this world. The government should NEVER have the right to determine whether or not treatment for a human being is "cost effective". The concept alone is disgusting.

All of these things add up to more government intrusion into our lives. It started under the previous administration and has continued and escalated under the current one. Preventing the Federal Gov't from squeezing the life out of private industry is not a left or right issue. Whether it be with TARP, Omnibus, bailouts, Cap and Trade, or the hot button item of the day, health care, Americans are now forced to make a decision. Stand up for the liberties you are so blessed to have or forfeit them with apathy.

Many on the left are complaining about the protestors at the Town Hall meetings. They accuse them of abusing democracy by shouting at the congressmen and women and senators hosting the meetings. They are fed up. I am fed up. Together we can and will defend our liberties and if you don't like it, bunker down somewhere and prepare to deal with the ghosts of our forefathers.

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." -John Adams
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »