By R.C. Seely
FROM THE MOMENT Trump was declared president, the Democrats have been apoplectic and undeterred in their claims if fraud or impropriety. This imbalance is nothing new and the worse started with with George W. Bush. Commentator Charles Krauthammer referred to it as “Bush Derangement Syndrome.” Then it was “Obama Derangement Syndrome.” Now, as the logic would follow, we gave “Trump Derangement Syndrome” which seems the most extreme.
It has gotten so bad that even those in Hollywood have come out to defend Trump. Tom Hanks said that he “hopes Trump does so well he would vote to reelect him.” Both Mathew McConaughey and Jeff Bridges pleaded that Trump should be “given a chance.” Morgan Freeman takes it to the next level stating the president,”has to be a good president. He can’t not be.”
The leading criticism of Trump is the declaration of collusion with Russia and Vladimir Putin, to win the election. Most media sources covering the claims already agree with anti-Trump crowd. But not all are so bias.
From the Washington Examiner:
“The House Intelligence Committee has released findings from its upcoming report on the Trump-Russia affair–and its main conclusion is that it has discovered no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia to influence the 2016 presidential election.
‘We have found no evidence of collusion, coordination, or conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians,’ the committee said in a one-page summary of its findings released…In addition, the committee took issue with the Intelligence Community assessment of Russian motivations in the 2016 election. The committee agrees with the assessment that the Russians did, in fact, try to interfere… (but) the committee disagrees with the Intelligence Community judgment that Russian leader Vladimir Putin specifically tried to help Donald Trump win the election.
The committee’s findings say investigators came to ‘concurrence with the Intelligence Community Assessment’s judgments, except with respect to Putin’s supposed preference for candidate Trump.’The collusion question has been the most basic, and the most contentious, of the entire Trump-Russia investigation. After this or that revelation — the emergence of the Trump dossier, the June 9 meeting, the plea bargain of George Papadopoulos, the activities of Carter Page, the analysis of Facebook ads — partisans on both sides claimed that collusion had been either proved or not.
Republicans released the findings in bullet-point form. They were condensed from a larger report that will not be made public for several weeks.
But the question of collusion remained a key issue for the committee, as well as for the other two big Trump-Russia investigations, by the Senate Intelligence Committee and special counsel Robert Mueller. And Republicans and Democrats have differed sharply on whether collusion did or did not take place.”
“We found no evidence of collusion. We found perhaps bad judgment,…” commented Republican Representative Mike Conaway, who ran the committee’s probe.
“There is already, in my view, ample evidence in the public domain on the issue of collusion if you’re willing to see it,” Democrat Representative Adam Schiff reported.
It appears the Washington Examiner was spot on when the Democrats “will come up with their own version of events” and the results of the investigation “are sure to be disputed.”
This is the conclusion that rationale people came to from the beginning. There was nothing to suggest voter fraud and Russia didn’t help Trump, Putin had nothing to gain by it. Trump is an unpredictable lose cannon, not a schemer. While I don’t doubt that he would have no qualms about committing such volations of ethics there’s never been anything to suggest he did.
Neither Trump or Clinton are ethical and both have blood on their hands from personal and professional dealings. But Putin acts in his own best interest, which does not seem to be having Trump as president.
R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture and has a new one–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible–soon to be released.
americanus libertae 
Human rights can’t be granted by humans
Posted: March 28, 2018 in Political, Social CommentaryTags: ALTV, americanus libertae, confused yet?, free market, freedom, freedom of speech, funding for freedom, human rights, human rights can't be granted by humans, libertarian, rc seely, United Nations
By R.C. Seely
ONE TERM THAT IS A favorite one amongst collectivists is “human rights.” It’s a term further advanced by the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” initiated by Eleanor Roosevelt, a former U.N. member. Problem is “human rights” don’t exist and those rights in question are either “natural rights” or free market products and services that they are trying to claim for their agenda of control.
That aside, there is the question of efficiency as well. The legislative actions of those in power have given valid cause of concern.
One such question is the concerns with health care. Should health care be conducted as a free market concern or government one.
I have had limited need for health care services at this stage in my life but have seen the differences when being there for family members. This is the observations I’ve made with health care: primary care is altogether superior to hospital care. It’s easy to see why too. You are treated as an individual, not a number. You have to set an appointment, you’re generally in faster and given more personal care.
Keep in mind this is not an indictment of the service providers but the nature of the business. The service providers I think do care and it’s not they who are not at fault. The business side of hospitals is inefficient and similar to the assembly line. Your done and on to the next one. It’s also not to say that hospitals are bad or unnecessary, emergency care is a needed social service–it could be provided in a better manner though.
Why is this relevant? Because big government pushes out the primary care competition. If they had their way all medical care would be done at the hospital. That would be a bad thing! Prices for services would go up exponentially and quality of care would be atrocious. Think the soup kitchen lines during the great depression.
The U.N. has even made it a goal to indoctrinate the children to misunderstand human rights by including educational materials, so they “understand” human rights and their importance. The most important thing we can do with human rights is avoid them.
We have something better, we have “natural rights.” The right to speak our minds, believe what we want, defend our selves in the manner we decide and private property rights and all not by an authority figure. Even the United States Constitution doesn’t grant its citizens it’s right but simply defines those rights.
Other concerns are dealt with by consumer discretion. Through boycotts, word of mouth and online ratings; the world is far more efficient and safe than any federal consumer protection agency or health and human services could employ.
Before we give the United Nations full governing power in our daily lives–the environment, gun rights, free speech, health care, foreign policy, etc.–the cost of adopting “human rights” over “natural rights” should be examined.
R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He has written books on pop culture with an upcoming new release–Confused Yet?: Understanding the Utterly Incomprehensible.