Archive for the ‘Political’ Category

By R.C. Seely

APRIL 22ND HAS BEEN DESIGNATED TO BE yet another holiday an evergrowing list of pointless identity holidays–Earth Day. A day specifically put aside for environmental activists to remind us what horrible people we are, not like the other 364 days of the year, when they are so silent. As I’ve made clear in previous written works–in both articles and in books–I have little respect for the current pop culture variety of the green movement, in no small part because of its take over by groups like the EPA. At one time these organizations did perform legitimate acts of public service and make the environment cleaner and safer, with regulations that made sense, now it’s all about creating division and maintaining power. The extremists​ in the movement have taken control. Green Peace, the Sierra Club, EPA, were on the right track at least, others like, ALF and ELF have always been essentially eco-terrorists. 

    Then we have celebrities in Greenism, Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, John Kerry, Barack Obama and Micheal Moore, as only a small sample of environmental profiteers. The ones that would demand the rest of us live green but demonstrate an aversion to it themselves, I applaud activists such as Ed Beagley Jr and Darrell Hannah for living their principles even though I disagree with them. Not only does not doing so make the others hypocrites, but it appears the sense of urgency is entirely manufactured for them. Live according to your principles or sit down. This year the green elite have a new platform as well, in the March for Science, a “nonpartisan” March for environmental justice–but you’re not invited if you support Trump, real “nonpartisan!” On the website March for Science displays this loudly stating an “American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas endangers the world.” And what of an organization that does the same? The group says support “evidence-based policy making” and government funding for scientific research, so essentially state sponsored scientific endevours are the only ones that will considered valid. Maybe another round of eugenics​ will be in the budget as well, getting rid of the deplorable critics of Greenism. A 2010 editorial in Nature magazine calls attention to “a growing anti-science streak on the American right” and it needs to be cured, which “depends on more education, science and technology,” all taxpayer funded too, I’m sure. In an article for Scientific American, author Shawn Lawrence Otto comments that “it is hard to know exactly when it became acceptable for U.S. politicians to be anti-science” since so many of our previous presidents and founding fathers were men of science. Many were also men of freedom, and a few of the men of science, who occupied the white house were borderline Authoritarians. To be fair Trump did call climate change a hoax, promised to continue with the Keystone Pipeline, and gutted Federal agencies involved in environmental issues. 

    Headlining the March for Science are Bill Nye, Mona Hanna-Attisha, and Lydia Villa-Komaroff, none of which are climate scientists. Nye is a mechanical engineer, Hanna-Attisha is a pediatrician​, and Villa-Komaroff is a molecular and cellular biologist, so their opinions on the matter are no more valid than yours or mine. NASA on the other hand, is full of experts on the climate and there is no common consensus on the human impact on the planet. 

    Whether they truly believe it or not, all of them are missing an opportunity, the chance to be more effective and return to the path of sane, rational environmental policy. Make the movement more about economy than ecology, capitalize on green capitalism. There are a few environmental policies that can save the individual, and in certain circumstances whole companies, money such as certain recycling programs. Control seems always be the agenda, whether it’s controlling how we live or population control. That’s what many also advocate in the environmental movement, lower the population, like they have the moral authority to do so.

    While researching this article, I saw a glimmer of hope from earthday.org with a common sense suggestion for activism–reforestation. “Trees for Earth… it’s goal is to plant, or inspire the planting of 7.8 billion trees worldwide… one for every person projected to be on earth,” is one of the proposed initiatives on the site. Finally, pushing an agenda that makes sense and encourages individual effort. Unfortunately they couldn’t help but cater to the extremists: “The scientific evidence is clear and irrefutable–human activity is causing our planet to warm at an alarmingly high rate. Not only is this warming climate trend happening right now, it could have serious outcomes on our food supply (especially if they want to outlaw GMOs), lead to mass migration and conflict, and without being an alarmist, it may very well threaten the future survival of the human race.” That doesn’t sound like an alarmist. Oh, by the way don’t forget to donate. Also it seems they want to silence their critics, but Earth Day was created for the zealots. Starting out as a United States holiday it was proposed by peace activist John McConnell in 1969 and sanctioned by the U.N. in 1970. A month after that, Wisonsin Democrat Senator Gaylord Nelson, founded a separate Earth Day and started a tsunami of new environmental activism. He could have started a green capitalism movement but that wasn’t his goal, which he made clear when he said that “the economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment, not the other way around.” What? That’s absurd, the economy is the key to human culture, no matter what form it takes. It’s also the methodology to get a green economy, many corporations went green because their customers wanted it and went beyond the EPA guidelines, at least if it didn’t hurt their company. That’s all the EPA does anymore really, create economic stagnation but that’s what happens when the agenda is control and not prosperity.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV and has written books on pop culture. For more on environmental issues read Unconventional Wisdom: Behavior Modification For the Modern Age and Victims of White: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society both available on Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF IN PARTY FIGHTING going on amongst libertarians, the most common issues of contention seem to be trying to define what makes one a “true” libertarian and what the stance on abortion should be. The problem with the first issue: How does one accurately assess and quality a movement based on voluntary interaction? I really don’t have a good answer for that, which is why I tend to embrace the simplest of solutions and don’t try to define them. Unless the proposed solution increases the size of government I will listen. That’s why I’m pro-choice, I disagree with abortion and think it’s used far too often, but the debate has come up because the temperance movement invited government into the debate by demanding its prohibition. When does federal intervention actually work? One argument that has been tossed around: How can someone be pro-life and in favor of capital punishment? That has some validity from a policy concept free from emotional bias. Essentially the person’s life-whether a convicted criminal or innocent unborn-is decided for them, is this moral? Let’s examine it.

    Arguments in favor of abortion-on-demand center around the threat of children being born with certain physical or mental irregularities-many undetected until after six months, which is why the “need” for partial birth abortion. According to a Huffington Post article in 2013, “The two main reasons for late-term abortions are lack of access to better, earlier care and biology. A 20 week abortion ban would make problems worse by criminalizing them… Pregnancy is riskier for women over 35. Amniocentesis, the test for anomalies, is not done until 15-18 weeks, and ultrasounds for congenital malformations are done at weeks 18-20.” Other arguments are because the child is simply unwanted. Part of the problem is that adoption is costly and not an efficient process in many areas, reforming that process would help. Adoption reform is rarely included in the discussion and a big part of the problem many are adamant in their perspective of the issue. Most have adopted the two polar opposite sides on abortion; either full legalization or total prohibition. It wouldn’t be reasonable to have some restrictions-such as, limited time period in which the procedure can be performed and no more taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood-but most restrictions won’t make abortion end, simply go underground. Oh good, another black market, just what we need. There has been a reported increase in the number of women suffering depression afterwards, that too should be in the discussion. Afterabortion.org offers this on the matter: 

“A study of the medical records of 56,741 California Medicaid patients revealed that women who had abortions were 160 percent more likely than delivering women to be hospitalized for psychiatric treatment in the first 90 days following abortion or delivery.

In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% experience sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychological medicine by their family doctor.”

 

    A study by JAMA refutes these claims and finds that “abortion denial may be associated with psychological harm to women.”

“The longitudinal cohort study observed 956 women semiannually for five years… [The] women who were denied an abortion reported significantly more anxiety symptoms and lower self-esteem and life satisfaction, but similar levels of depression, as women receiving abortions; outcomes improved or remained steady over time.”


     JAMA further concludes:

“In this study, compared with having an abortion, being denied an abortion may be associated with greater risk of initially experiencing adverse psychological outcomes. Psychological well-being improved over time so that both groups of women eventually converged. These findings do not support policies that restrict women’s access to abortion on the basis that abortion harms women’s mental health.”


    What is considered more moral: A policy that ends the life of an unborn and arguably puts the woman’s life in risk, not just physically but mentally; or one that increases the government’s input in the matter, which will more than likely still put everyone in more danger but might not? 

    As for the death penalty, I do agree with its critics in federal cases, as for local that’s where the debate should continue. With local control, it’s easier to curtail the abuse within the justice system. A higher burden of proof for death penalty cases and updating interrogation tactics by law enforcement is part of the solution. Does this eliminate all the problems? Probably not. The justice system is based on a meritocracy of conviction rates not seeking justice or bringing down crime. Until that changes as well, false convictions will remain the norm, and that means the debate should continue. It’s critics argue that granting any government the right to decide who lives and dies is far too dangerous, going off history they have an excellent point. Even imprisonment or investigation of accusations, has been used as a potential weapon against supposed threats. This danger was born in the United States with President John Adams, in the form of the Alien and Sedition Acts, included in the Acts were pieces of legislation that made it illegal for anyone-including journalists-to criticize the administration without threat of incarceration. Doesn’t this sound familiar? During both World Wars the Sedition Acts were revived, but not for Korea, Vietnam or any current engagements. The illusion was created that the American people largely supported the World Wars after the attacks on the Lusitania and Pearl Harbor and that might not have been the case. By controlling the narrative, they controlled everything. We can banter about the specific semantics involved in the American wars but what is clear is the control created. If the government puts that much effort into keeping it’s war machine going, what would it do to its critics? Falsely incarcerate them, kill them? It’s not like the US government is above those kinds of tactics if one of its citizens is deemed “unpatriotic” or a “subversive.” Remember McCarthyism? And Trump has already started an enemies list. So, all things considered, is it really so imprudent to start reconsidering your perspective if pro-capital punishment?

    So, it appears the people of the United States do have room for further discussion and evaluation about the morality of these issues. Is the more morally consistent stance the one that grants a federal entity more control and yet devalues human life? Isn’t that essentially what you’re agreeing to if you abdicate for legalization of either? Can you be in favor of human life if you’re pro-choice but not the death penalty? Or vice versa? What would happen with a complete moratorium on the death penalty? Are there unintended consequences? We know that prohibitions generally end up with adverse effects, most common being the foundation of black markets, making society as a whole far less safe. The prohibition of alcohol, the War on Drugs and the restrictions on abortion, all had illegal underground markets, offering the desperate these bootlegged goods and services at inflated prices and unsafe conditions. Would a total death penalty ban end up with a black market? Could it result in a real-life punisher? Or possibly Lynch mobs, seeking vengeance instead of justice? We have a historical record to look at with abortion restrictions but not with the death penalty, so all this is speculative. We can study the crime rates in each state, to get an idea of the end results and hope it’s​ not catastrophic if nationally implemented. Deathpenalty.info has a side by side comparison of murder rates in states with the death penalty vs those without, and shows the murder rates are actually lower in the states without. While it fluctuates between a 4-46% difference in the span of 1990-2015, the death penalty states have a higher murder rate. According to their research “the average of murder rates per 100,000 population in 1999 among death penalty states was 5.5, where the average… non-death penalty states was only 3.6.” It appears the evidence is on the side of life in this matter. A certain amount of consensus is required to go forward in changing either policy, which I don’t see coming up in the near future.

    Questions of ethics are-and undoubtedly should be-difficult, they require juggling our perspective of the head and heart. What seems logical can also be construed as cold and callous, and the emotional can be viewed as weak or frivolous. No matter your view, you have to be able to live with what transpires. You didn’t end a life but your advocacy puts the guilt on your hands, doesn’t it? You could argue the death row inmate deserves it, what if he was innocent and succumbed to police interrogation? That means an innocent person still died and you had a part in it. If you call for an abortion prohibition which doesn’t work and simply creates a black market, does that make you guilty? And what if further federal intervention is advanced because of such prohibitions, does that negate the morality? The government has a bad habit of using such actions to validate its encroachment and expand its efforts of control. Is the risk worth it and once down that road can we make the U-turn? From my view, having the federal oversight in either matter is a major ethical violation but trying to squash any contrary opinions is an even bigger one, so let’s continue the debate.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV. He also has written books about pop culture and his most recent is Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society, all his books are available at Amazon.com.

By R.C. Seely

THE CBO ESTIMATES THAT TRUMP’S health care bill will leave 24 million without health insurance coverage-this is the regurgitated line by pundits of the American left. And actually it was 52 million all together, the 24 million is an estimate for 2026, by why quibble over it. According to the AARP, the plan “could have raised premiums on Americans between 50 and 64 years old by as much as $8,400 a year.” CNN reports, “opponents say it could reverse the gains in coverage … since the Affordable Care Act.” The most staunchest critics of Trump’s plan, the American Health Care Act (AHCA), were not the Obamacare supporters but the Freedom Caucus and Tea Party activists. “Conservatives complain that the bill does fully repeal Obamacare and that many provisions are far too similar to the health reform law,” according to CNN reports. But the “proponents of the bill say it would save the individual health market from collapse” this bill would not do that actually. It doesn’t open up healthcare free market options and can only be accurately described by the common nomer “Obamacare-lite.” Speculation has surfaced that Trump isn’t pleased with it either and it was pushed by speaker Ryan. For now the bill has been pulled and meaningful healthcare reform has been shelved.

    The AARP referred to the AHCA as an “age tax” and it is, just not to seniors as the organization claims. A tax is a government imposed penalty without necessarily receiving a benefit, that’s not the seniors who are being taxed but the youth. The AARP Public Policy Institute claims that “the AHCA would allow insurance companies to charge older Americans five times the amount they would charge others for the same coverage.” And? With age, we use more healthcare services, so seniors should be incurring the higher costs since they are using more. Plus, they have had longer to plan and save up for their future financial needs, why should the youth-who have comparatively far more limited income-be taking care of this bill? Most don’t need healthcare until in our forties or fifties and before that there was an inexpensive policy option in place, Catastrophic Coverage, but the Affordable Care Act killed it. Insurance companies aren’t greedy, they simply understand economics and make sensible decisions based on that. The AARP also alludes to collusion between the Trump adminstration and special interest groups, maybe but wasn’t there a special interest group supporting the ACA? Oh right, that was the AARP but that’s different.

    Now onto the other critics. In an email sent out from the Heritage Action for Action PAC:

“The American Health Care Act … was pulled from the house floor because it did not have the votes to pass. This means the house needs to revise the legislature so it reduces premiums, repeals ObamaCare and truly makes life better for the Americans under ObamaCare.

 

 

 

 

 

This is a victory for conservatives.

 

 

The AHCA would have kept Obamacare’s regulatory architecture in place, ensuring premiums remained high. The bill’s defeat was essential-but now the hard work begins.

Conservatives, lead by Rep. Mark Meadows and Rep. Jim Jordon … recognized that the AHCA didn’t repeal the fundamental structure of Obamacare. And rather than giving in to political pressure from leadership and the White House, they stood strong.

So what’s next? It is now clear that the House cannot pass a bill that does not repeal Obamacare’s core regulatory architecture. Congressional leaders and the administration need to go back to the negotiating table.

We now have an opportunity to get [the] Obamacare repeal right, but that only happened because of the conservatives stood their ground and the grassroots America rose up in opposition.”


    So, what’s the solution? Get the federal interlopers out of here! AARP gripes about special interest groups, they should lead the way. There are already free market alternatives, Direct Primary Care for example. Basically, you’re charged a membership and the costs are lower because it’s based on the routine medical care and insurance is used only for major health issues. It treats the individual as an individual rather than part of the masses. Besides lower costs it makes healthcare more modeled towards your specific biological needs. Oh, but you need your “risk pools” there are also Marketshare options in the shared economy. You could give Health Co-op or Liberty Healthshare a consideration. Another option is a Health Saving Account, which are what they sound like, a savings account for medical needs.

    Dr. Ron Paul has talked about his experience as a medical practitioner in the time before federal healthcare as a time of medical excellence and people weren’t worried about being denied services. How could that be? Because doctors had autonomy, they could offer less expensive treatments and at times help the patient pay. With the safety patrol of government medicine and abused litigation, many doctors are afraid to experiment. And they should be. Medical costs are up so high in part because alternatives are outlawed as “unsafe” and many are denied access. Dr. Rand Paul has also presented his alternative to the ACA-all four pages of it-and has made it available for public scrutiny. Unlike Paul Ryan who seems to have developed the same “we have to pass it to know what’s in it” mindset of Nancy Pelosi, the Pauls understand that healthcare is a collection of services and products not a right, therefore for the market to resolve.

    The failure to pass the AHCA has encouraged the supporters of the single-payer system, saying that we should conform to the rest of the world and adopt this model. No, it didn’t get the votes because it didn’t satisfy either side. Neither wants to compromise and Heritage and the Free Caucus are right. What would a grocery store be like if it were run this way? The government said it will pay for a portion of your groceries; but in order to qualify, you can’t buy certain products and you have to go where they tell you. You like Pepsi, well too bad we have a deal with Coke so you have to buy Coke. Oh, and the ones with real sugar, cherry or vanilla are void, and so is the cheaper alternative. You can get diet and organic, though. And you have to buy from the stores we approve, even if it’s not where you want to shop or their competition offers it for less. With free market medicine we get cheaper, better medical technology and services, at the locations of our choosing; with public we get less options, stifling of alternatives through big pharmaceutical alliances, the end of private practitioners and excessive lawsuits in the name of public safety. The plain truth is we ask for more from our local grocery store than medical institutions. The consumer has decided we want choices on the store shelves why not in the operating room? We ask for so much in flavors and gluten-free and less sodium alternatives of corn chips, but are afraid of Health Savings Accounts. Options and innovations make every other part of our lives better, why do so many believe the free market would falter in healthcare? I can’t answer that, in my view healthcare is where we need choices the most. 

    An article in NaturalNews.com discussed this in February 2016:

“Researchers from the Stanford University of Medicine and the National Bureau of Economic Research have uncovered the path towards more affordable healthcare. The path doesn’t consist of … consolidated government insurance plans … healthcare prosperity is less systematic, less consolidated, less controlling and less fear-based. It’s a more open system, with more options that put the patient back in control.

The researchers found out that the answer for more affordable healthcare is simple: Get rid of the government controls and consolidation of physician services and instead create more competition in the marketplace. This doesn’t mean more specialists, more testing and more diagnoses. This excess has occurred because of the loss of competition between individual physicians. 

What used to be several private practices, consisting of one or two independent physicians, has evolved into more complex organizations with more specialized doctors and systems. The competition that used to exist between individual physician practices has … diminished, consolidating care into larger organizations of healthcare providers who can raise the cost because there’s no one in the area to compete with the price. They continue to raise the prices through the years because they know the patients have fewer options and will eventually be herded through their doors anyway.

The larger practices allow doctors to work in groups and exchange information about a patient’s medical history more readily. A bigger staff operating as one can take on a larger volume of patients, but this way begins to treat patients as units on a conveyor belt, as the time per patient dwindles to maximize efficiency within the larger healthcare organization model.

When the costs of all types of doctor visits were averaged, the least competitive markets were found to be the most expensive, averaging 3.5 to 5.4 percent higher in cost. With privately insured individuals spending nearly $250 billion on physician services yearly in the US, this small percentage multiples into tens of billions of dollars.”


    According to a Forbes article, “the time to schedule an appointment has jumped 30% in 15 U.S. metrpolitan areas from 18.5 days in 2014 amid a national doctor shortage fueled by aging baby boomers, population growth and millions of Americans with health insurance.” So the way to fix this is more people insured? Sounds like treating cancer with… more cancer. The argument has become which public healthcare system is better than the other, neither one really. Obamacare, Trumpcare both were set up for social control and not for protecting consumer choice.

     The current healthcare system is sure to fail and the single-payer system isn’t a better option just because everyone else has it. This is a unique country so it shouldn’t be adopting the policies of others, we should do what we do best-innovate. Instead of trying to implement the stale European models let’s figure out something new and different that will satisfy the individual for once. Treat the person like a person and not a number the way they do at the DMV. Stalling the healthcare bill until it has been refined is the best decision the Trump adminstration could have made, the only question is whether or not they have learned from it or repeat it’s mistakes. Will Trump have a healthcare massacre or a close call? In this case blazing the untested trail will lead to promise instead of party cannibalism.

R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com, ALTV and an author. His latest book is Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society, is available on Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

I KNOW IT’S NOT CONSIDERED GOOD FORM to criticize another person of Celtic origins-I’m Scottish and Welsh-but I can’t stand Bill O’Reilly. Out of anyone on Fox News, he’s the worst, the most opinionated, pontificating bully trying to show he’s “in touch with the common man.” That persona has gotten him fame and accolades but less an earned respect and more of a taken one. Oh no, I hope I didn’t ruffle his feathers, at over six feet and a fiery Irish temper,  he could be imposing… I guess. O’Reilly has a reputation of intimidating guests of his show to get the truth, they aren’t the only ones to deal with his tirades. The members of his staff that have witnessed and tolerated his expletive laced temper tantrums probably were scared to death of him. One such incident was even recorded and posted on YouTube. Good job with consistency, shouting for the censorship of others yet being a practitioner of vulgarity. The way he treats others is only one valid reason for concern. Frankly, I find his understanding of freedom far scarier than the man

He’s “looking out for you” after all, in the same manner that one noteworthy man will “make America great again” or another gave us “hope and change.” All meaningless platitudes meant to silence their critics who dare demand choices. Who is O’Reilly really looking out for? Not the Constitutionally bound or the anarchists, not progressives or moderates. No he’s looking out for moralists just like him, those who only condone liberty by their narrow terms. If he had his way, the temperance movement wouldn’t have ended and the bootleggers, rumrunners and Baptists would still controlling their theocracy. Bible in one hand and sword in the other is fine for running your own personal life but in a nation that calls itself the “land of the free” we shouldn’t settle for temperance.

What about following the Constitution? Does O’Reilly really care about? Not if it contradicts his moral soapbox speeches, of course like most moralists nothing will change their minds, including evidence that doesn’t support his perspective. Present him with evidence that ending the War on Drugs would end the violence along the border or tariffs and other nationalistic policies make us less free and prosperous he wouldn’t budge. So what if the research into violence on television or the gore in video games causing violent behavior is proven tainted by bias or flat-out disproven as wrong, O’Reilly will continue his boring old line. Let’s make it harder for children to get R-rated material and drugs through federal intervention-even with a prescription. O’Reilly is so opposed to marijuana that he supports the onerous medical marijuana ban. Even if you are opposed to recreational use don’t keep treatment out of the hands of the patient, especially children. Not only is medical marijuana effective as a pain reliever but it lessens-if not eliminates-the more severe symptoms of childhood epilepsy and all without the dangerous side effects of pharmaceutical options. And since medical marijuana doesn’t trash the liver or kidneys, it’s a better option especially for children and seniors, when these organs are the most vulnerable.

Putting aside all that, any intervention by anyone violates the patients rights, if patients want to indulge in a treatment to alleviate their pain they shouldn’t need to stress about possible incarceration. Which also includes their right to end it. That’s right, O’Reilly is against voluntary end of life measures, just die there slowly in agony to preserve O’Reilly’s objections to assisted suicide. Yes, euthanasia of any kind is considered a taboo and distasteful subject but so is a patient living in pain against their wishes.

While he preens about how he protects the innocent from destructive choices in the US, he advocates for the endless War on Terror. The “Culture Warrior” may claim to be an independent, but seems in line with the Republican party in general and defends the nation building foreign policy of both parties.

Bill O’Reilly and his viewers don’t really want freedom anymore than the supporters of the duopoly do, because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Freedom doesn’t mean having to turn to another party to make your personal decisions that are none of their business. If you want to get married, then do it, you shouldn’t have to ask for permission from your state. That’s essentially what a marriage license is. You shouldn’t be worried about being arrested and charged for what you put in your body or anything you do with it, as long as you do no harm to others. If there’s a valid justifcation-including a strong interest for the US-to go to war, then do so with restraint and in a smart and effective manner. Wars are not only costly in money but human lives and in our civil rights, and the call to act is used far too often. Between the O’Reilly temper and his temperance inclinations, he has demonstrated himself a danger to those who desire unrefrained liberty and those critical of him or those he supports. Maybe before we proceed further with the culture war, this Leonidas desires, we should evaluate the outcome or the consequences could be too high.

For more on Bill O’Reilly-and other topics of the Victim Culture, read the author’s book Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society.

By R.C. Seely

A SEARCH THROUGH MY EMAIL BUSINESS ACCOUNT  has turned into a drive to rid the nation of all things Trump, including one specifically from CREDO to “Tell Congress: Stop Bannon: No white supremacist on the National Security Council.”

In the petition from CREDO  comes the following:

“Trump and his administration have been playing fast, loose and reckless with our security… and Bannon’s appointment to the NSC is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible decisions he has made since taking office.

It is clear that in the White House, Bannon is the one running this presidency. He is one of the masterminds behind unraveling the Affordable Care Act, the unconstitutional Muslim ban, the anti-immigrant border wall, and the sweeping abortion restrictions coming out of Congress. And now, as long as he remains on the NSC, he has the power to say who among us should be protected and who should be targeted.

Bannon believes … that America should be the center of a new movement of right-wing populism centering on white nationalism.”

 

President Trump, Bannon and certain cabinet appointments do admittedly make me nervous … but not because they are necessarily “right-wing populists” or questionably “white nationalists.” They concern me because they are populists and nationalists, period. These kind of presidents are dangerous without additional monikers attached. They are enemies of the people and the Constitution, because they pick and choose which parts they want to adhere to and which to ignore.

The Trump administration has already shown distain for the first amendment, going to war with the free press. Something which has made a lot of other people nervous as well. And to be fair to CREDO at least there were legitimate concerns brought up with immigration and abortion issues and it wasn’t simply calling Bannon a racist. The Muslim ban keeps out those who could be assets to the nation as well as the terrorist threat, the most ardent opponents of illegal immigration are those who can across legally. Many border patrol agents are from Mexican heritage and are dedicated to the nation’s safety, with an immigration ban we turn potential supporters into part of the problem. What CREDO forgot to mention was the real cause is for the immigration influx is from the unintended consequences of the War on Terror, of course that would also bring up how their War Criminal President Barack Obama has blood on his hands as well. If not for the military intervention, which is sure to continue, these people wouldn’t have been displaced in the first place. Unfortunately this usually is where the discussion breaks down for the supporters of duopoly candidates-which could be why CREDO didn’t mention it but I doubt that’s why-in the first place.

Besides Bannon, there are legitimate concerns with cabinet member Jeff Sessions and Vice President Mike Pence and there should be. Both are moral authoritarians and will also ignore the constitution and will of law when it violates their personal morals. This is esspecially true when it comes to marijuana enforcement, both expressing the eagerness to maintain the status quo federal standard with regards to marijuana, which is at odds with many states rights and the changing opinion from the general public.

So who is Steve Bannon anyways? Before joining Team Trump he was the executive editor at Breitbart news, which is where the claims of racism originates. Since Bannon took over for the late Andrew Breitbart, there has been an increase of racist comments by staff as well as site vistors. Bannon had done nothing to check that. Before that he worked at Goldman Sachs and in the entertainment industry, a resume similar to Trump. Also like Trump both were Democrats and strong supporters of the party causes.

The concern over Bannon for the DailyKos is the Trump adminstrations efforts of “draining the swamp.” Reportedly the mastermind behind the policy Bannon said that “if you look at these Cabinet nominees they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction.”

The DailyKos goes on to say:

“The crippling or wholesale elimination of Federal agencies that ensure we receive such things as clean air, clean water, fair labor laws, fair housing standards, anti-discrimination laws, financial protections, food and drug safety, national education standards the like, has been a goal of [the] far-right … for decades.Their rationale, propagated by corporate and industry funded think tanks … has always been that the existence of these … agencies represents a mortal threat.

The reality is that these extensions of the Executive Branch-the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, for example-exist to serve the interests of all the American people, performing the painstaking and complex task of regulating the very things that make all Americans’ lives worth living.They perform this function because history has clearly shown that neither the Congress nor the states are remotely up to the task of doing it. They have neither the time, the expertise, the manpower, or the ability to handle such mammoth responsibilites in a country of 330 million people.”

 

Yes, the Federal Government is just looking out for you … that’s why they use these agencies to eliminate free market choices and detain people for non-violent offenses that don’t keep us safer from national threats or those among us who wish to do us harm. These agencies have horrible track records and where there are private options available are usually outshined. The TSA, for example, has a 90% failure rate in detecting and neutralizing terrorist threats while private security at airports have a 75% success rate. The FDA has a death rate in the 100,000’s annually. When an environmental disaster occurs, the EPA has been slow to respond and the Department of Education is only about indoctrination and fails to prepare students for the real world. If the Department of Labor had it’s way every occupation would be unionized and that would be the end of all American efficiency and innovation. I know  DailyKos means this article as a scare tactic but its not working very well, the elimination of the public options and replacing them with private ones would make things better. If Trump does that, it will be one of the major boons from the administration, not a blackmark.

Bannon and Trump seem to have come from the same mindset, which only makes sense since they took similar paths. They are both corporatists to an extent, neither respects the Constitution and both are propagandists from the entertainment industry. Thing is, getting rid of Bannon doesn’t really matter, Trump is the president and even without his so-called “puppet master” advisor he will go down the same path. Bannon is to Trump, what Valerie Jarrett was to Barack Obama, or Karl Rove was to George W. Bush. If we are really lucky we end up with presidential advisors who are more than simply “yes-men” but most of them are, since that’s what the president is generally looking for. They want people with more knowledge and insights on the issues but still share their perspective. This is nothing new and doesn’t make Steve Bannon more or less of a threat than any of Trump’s other advisors.

R.C. SEELY is the founder of the americanuslibertae.com and the YouTube channel Americaus Libertae Television. He is also an author, the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society.

By R.C. Seely

THE 2016 ELECTION HAS ENDED WITH THE UNEXPECTED result of the extremely long-shot candidate winning. Not since Dewey vs Truman has there been such a notable upset. No one expected a Trump presidency, not the polls or the election betting predicting it, and the American left has been apoplectic since, taking every opportunity to make their displeasure publicly known. With constant protests, the “Not My President” movement and the non-stop cries of the election being stolen by the electoral college, it is getting difficult to even care.

On the other side, a few of the most hard-core Trump supporters have done all they can to aggravate the Clinton mourners, reminding the celebrities they promised to “leave the country” if Trump won. Others trolling the Clinton supporters online–conservative and libertarian–trying to justify their Trump support. Please! Trump is neither conservative nor libertarian. Yes, those smug Clintonites were beyond obnoxious but you can be the bigger one and let it go.

In between the cheap shots of the reneged promises of the “Orange Menace”, as I refer to Trump, Clintonites have also taken time to express their sadness of the end of the Obama-Nation era. Even now, they are still going on about their savior’s accomplishments, trying to validate their decision of putting him in power. The Obama administration could hardly be considered a success. He didn’t really do much at all, he didn’t close Gitmo or end the War on Drugs. He deported more immigrants than the Bush administration and with his responses to the domestic terrorist attacks he made the racial divide a crater. And less we forget his last minute Bears Ears National Park passing. A recent attack on Yemen–even though the Obama spokesman claimed it was not so–could be one of many interventionist policies by the “anti-war” president. Funny how the anti-war are okay with it when it’s “their war criminal.”

The most noteworthy last minute accomplishment by the outgoing president, is the proud declaration of adding 227,000 jobs and ending his presidency at 4.8% unemployment… and 4.8% is supposed to be a lofty goal? It doesn’t impress me much, but I don’t believe it either and neither should you. On the program The Street Economist Steve Blitz reports that this is not what it seems and has been manipulated. “Almost half… [of the jobs] were in retail, restaurants and healthcare” occupations. If the growth were in more white collar positions, the reports of such economic growth would be more impressive. Blitz goes on to say that because of other economic factors there was “no real wage gains” and that much of the growth was part time. He also speculates that the Federal Reserve is “on its way to tighten” up, in response to the current economic environment. Not exactly the rosy picture portrayed by the Democrats.

Will Trump be any better? Probably not, while Obama was comparably noninterventionist, Trump ran on the fact that he would shake things up and already has done so. Only time will tell, but there is ultimately no valid reason to conclude Trump won’t end his reign with last minute claims and legislature. After all, can you really trust a non-establishment president who has bankrolled establishment candidates? It doesn’t seem encouraging.

R.C. Seely is a Pop Culture Critic and author. He runs Americanus Libertae.com, Americanus Libertae Television and has written books about Pop Culture. His most recent is Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society

 

My new book VICTIMS OF WHITE MALE: HOW VICTIM CULTURE VICTIMIZES SOCIETY is now available at Amazon in print and on Kindle for eBook. Are you victim? Read this book and find out who are the real victims and the real bullies.

VOWM OUTLINE

By R.C. Seely

WHEN I WAS IN TRADE SCHOOL FOR MASSAGE THERAPY, I took a class on living the “organic lifestyle”. It covered how avoiding caffeine, redmeat, and eating only organic foods are best, which on the surface makes sense but is it true? Not necessarily. As I did my own research on the subject, I found out that the organic market has less to do with improving peoples nutritional needs and more to do with taking away our choices. I’ll cover that later; first, let’s cover the arguments and proposed need for organic and raw foods over GMO and gluten laden food staples.

WHAT ARE GMOS? GMO is an acronym for Genetically Modified Organisms. Essentially foods products that are modified using hormones or the entire genetic code is reengineered. This is done for either aesthetic purposes or to increase the size of the product or the whole crop yield.

WHAT IS GLUTEN? Gluten is a binding protein used in many of our foods.

THE PROBLEM Many people have disorders that have caused allergic reactions or make them ill after they ingest gluten, eggs or milk. Some conspiracy theories surmise there is an increase in the percentage of Americans with such allergies and GMOs are responsible for it. The evidence for such claims isn’t very convincing and are rife with incomplete data. None the less, it has gripped the nation with a deep phobia of any and all things GMO or gluten. This is a big problem. Our contemporary – on the go – society is built on these forms of food preservation and production.

Because of our genetic modification our food is plentiful, inexpensive and safe. Thanks to genetic modification, we can grow food almost anywhere on the planet – no matter how infertile the soil. Through the utilization of genetic modification our meat is also safer, weeding out serious disorders in the bloodlines of animals making the meat healthier, leaner and more flavorful.

More than that with the evidence being so sketchy, any form of government intervention would be irresponsible. There are consequences to regulating GMOs and those costs have hurt everyone. Those without allergies suffer increased prices on consumables to have them comply with the regulations. This is immoral as well, since they receive no added benefit for the cost. For those who do have conditions causing these food allergies, they have increased costs through the lack of options in products. The time and funds that should go to research and development of alternatives to gluten, eggs, milk, or GMOs, are going to complying with the regulations.

According to Dr. Fasano, director of University of Maryland Center for Celiac Research, the percentage of Americans with gluten allergies is only 6% or 7% of the populace and those with celiac is even lower. Other researchers claim it’s a lot higher at over 50%, but there are conclusive tests at this time. In the end this is another scam to take another choice from the manufacturer and place it in the hands of a federal agency. That’s the real reason for this, the organic farmers want to push out their competition and they are using regulators to achieve that goal. Do you think congress can create better gluten-free products? Or the president? Or regulators enforcers? No, it will be companies like Monsanto, but only if they are left alone to do so.

By RC. Seely

WITH ALL THE CONCERNS ABOUT INTERNET security, because of the hacking of Sony to be more specific, the Obama administration has been pressured into action by progressive groups such as Openmedia and Demand Progress. The groups claim that Comcast and other greedy corporate entities have kept the internet in chains and need to be reined in. Apparently, from their perspective only the federal government can save the day, making Obama superman? That’s a scary thought! Obama as superman, he would apologize for interfering with the criminal and then assist him in blowing up the building. Is that too inflammatory? I thought I was allowed to make such comments in this country, but maybe I was wrong. With the fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government in our lives, our “superman” Obama has been eagerly waiting to advance a law to curtail freedom of speech and in the Net Neutrality extensions he would have it.

On February 26, the FCC is going to be reviewing its position in our lives. If Tom Wheeler – the current head of the FCC – agrees with the Obama administration that new restrictions and regulations are needed, this will basically be a reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. What are the implications of this? Well, nothing good, unless you are an Obama lapdog. When the Fairness Doctrine was in place during the Roosevelt administration, it nearing killed radio, because the general public was losing interest. They didn’t want to hear from the social democrats or progressives emotional preaching. The claim was that because the results weren’t the same, his progressive policies must not be given equal treatment by the radio industry – it never occurred to him that maybe the public didn’t care to hear it. This is what Obama believes is the case with the internet. The public loves him, so there must be something non-egalitarian in the internet, right? Sorry, superman the internet is already open and free, it’s just a lot of people don’t agree with you.

The internet, under the new guidelines, would mean censorship and higher prices for all. Despite the promises made by the Obama administration or the FCC, there will be no distinctions between the small no-budget blogger and those who manage the large power house media organizations. The fees will be less, but those who weren’t charged before, would be now. It’s also a very unnecessary move, the free market already regulates itself. Many internet organizations already offer free options for their sites, with fees only for additional features. Some say this is unfair. That doesn’t make sense, you should have to pay for extended services.

Freedom of speech is such a cherished and needed right, it is the pillar for a free society, something that we take for granted and others covet. Our nation has always been unique that we have that freedom and our leaders have been looking for ways to curtail our speech when it becomes “inconvenient.” Starting with John Adams, our second president, who wrote the sedition acts. Jailing journalists and pamphleteers writing scathing editorials about Adams. During World War I, president Wilson brought these laws back, incarcerating critics of America’s involvement in the war. Roosevelt also used such laws during World War II. That’s why the criticism of the Vietnam World seemed so intense, it was actually allowed! Our freedom of speech is so valuable, that so many fought to death for it and our most egotistical representatives fought – and continue to fight – to destroy it. The internet is the last refuge for such freedoms and worth fighting for, if we let the government neuter it we will regret it.

By R.C. Seely

The comments by Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services director, is a stark demonstration of the blind, organized disconnect between elitist progressives and the American public. This is the same thought process Dr. Jonathon Gruber has, that the people are “too stupid” to understand their choices and we intelligentsia need to make them for you. I know what is best for, so let me do it.

This is also the same thought process employed by Barack Obama and his cohorts. Her comments should troubling to the administration, though, because they cast doubts on the narrative that the president is always right and has suffered disenchantment from the public in large. That the blind admiration and devotion by the Obamaites has crumbled, and they now see and feel the harsh reality of “hope and change.” To say there’s a problem with the brand name is tantamount to an admittance of failure by the administration – a point to which, I would definitely be agreement on – and not only frustrations about his name sake law, ObamaCare. If there is an issue with the name of the law how about altering it to a more fitting one – The Horrible Care Act.

With the numerous failed intentions and broken promises of the ACA, it’s an extremely appropriate change. Between the debacles website – that millennials won’t forget; the over six million booted from insurance policies they liked – projected to jump to over one hundred million after the temporary moratorium for businesses expires; the doctors leaving their practices in droves, and some entire hospitals refusing to accept patients with ObamaCare coverage; to the false promises to seniors, and instead proposing an expiration date for those in their early seventies. Then there was the promise millennials could stay on mommy and daddy’s insurance until age 26; an unnecessary guarantee, not only because most of us don’t really need insurance until we get into our forties, but also the market already provided it for the youth, with carriers already offering this provision. That wasn’t the only option either, there was catastrophic coverage and lower priced coverage, dismantled by the ACA. Lastly, it has to be mentioned that the reported numbers of new enrollees is questionable, many having enrolled in Medicare not ObamaCare, but counted on the ACA tally sheets. The only demographic that hasn’t been reported damaged by this law is those with prediagnosted conditions, but I’m sure they will get hit by this legislative atomic bomb as well.

In reflection after writing this article, maybe Mrs. Sebelius has a point of adopting a new title for this act of federal larceny. That way the public will be reminded the next time a politician try to advance a bad law, that doesn’t help anyone but the state. Then maybe they might think back on the litany of grievances brought on by the law that no one wanted but was forced on us anyways, in the end by a single vote.