Posts Tagged ‘amlibertae’

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, Americanus Libertae Television and has written books about Pop Culture. His most recent is Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society


am lib pigLADIES AND GENTLEMEN, I’ve set up a gofundme campaign to raise the funds to expand this little initiative. For more information go to Thank you and have a nice day.

By R.C. Seely

“An elephant is killed every 15 minutes,” that’s the war-cry to action by the activists at iWorry a program set up by the David Sheldrick Wildlife Trust, a charity based in Kenya. According to the Trusts’ own, Dr. Dame Daphne Sheldrick, the elephant could be extinct in the wild in about 12 years. Reportedly last year 36,000 African elephants were killed for their ivory ” buying ivory only serves to fuel a trade which results in more senseless deaths of these beautiful animals. We can’t let man-made extinction be the end of this iconic species,” she continued.

Their webpage is not dissimilar to the Humane Society’s format complete with an “adopt an elephant” feature.

On October, 4 2014, the group even held an “International March for Elephants” boasting more than 18,000 participants taking to the streets to petition their government to establish a total moratorium of ivory in their country. Amongst the supporters of this cause is actress, Kristin Davis, from the Sex and the City franchise. “All elephants are under siege,” said Davis.” Elephants have such personality.” That’s one point Davis and I agree “elephants do have a lot of personality” – but it’s not necessarily a pleasant one! Elephants are one of the most ill-tempered and destructive species on the planet, after Alec Baldwin.

Unlike Davis, however, I’m not so eager to foist over control of a trade to any single group or government – not without finding out the specifics of their course of action and examining all options. All that is reported by the Sheldrick Trust is they call for an establishment for a “complete ban” international on ivory and to have the elephant wholly protected. Is that all? While the endeavor is a good one the results are not, as is common with activists the leading with their emotions – going full steam ahead without letting something like facts get in the way of their grand standing.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to see the extinction of the elephant (or any species for that matter). I think the world is worse off without the Tasmanian Wolf, Dodo bird and Passenger Pigeon, but careful aforethought of the best way to proceed is the only way to succeed. The game plan the Sheldrick Trust is pushing for has been tried numerous times without success, an ivory prohibition would be as successful as every other prohibition has been, but in this case it will end with the extinction of the elephant.

The problem that is not being addressed: There’s a lot of money involved here, and that won’t end simply because you want it to. As far-fetched as it might sound the only plan that will work isn’t to increase restrictions on the ivory market, but instead to lift the bans. Set up a legal market for ivory, then you will create a vested interest by a group to protect the species.

Davis is obviously a caring individual (if you’re an elephant at least, I don’t know how she is with people), but caring doesn’t get the job done if you ignore logic. What has any government done to successful protect a species from demise? It was the Australian government that ignored the decreasing numbers of the Tasmanian Wolf, to protect the sheep trade; it was the laws of the United States government that killed the orphan fawn “giggles” in Wisconsin; it was the government that turned a blind eye when at the numerous needy killings of peoples’ dogs by overzealous policemen; and it was the government that took away a man’s pet raccoon, simply because they could. The way to save the animals from extinction are the individuals, the people of the Sheldrick Trust, Kristin Davis, the zoos and other establishments, people who care enough to step in and do something – not callous and ignorant governments, that the same with human activities, only make things far worse.

Like what you read? Get the author’s new book UNConventional Wisdom: Methods of Behavior Modification for the Modern Age, available at or Barnes and

By R.C. Seely

Recently there has been a legislative push in the “Beehive State” (Utah) to abandon the current elective system of the caucus and reinstitute the more common questionable-on-it’s-efficiency system of the primary. As you’ve probably gathered, I’m extremely biased against the primary system and the initiative to bring it back – but not without due evidence to support my contempt of the despicable ploy.
First off, the reason for the change to the caucus system was to encourage voter participation and it worked exceptionally well. The results have been similar in the other states utilizing the caucus; Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Washington, New Hampshire, Wyoming and Michigan; Texas and Arizona, have hybrid versions of it as well.
So, why should the state switch back to a flawed system? Who benefits from it? Well, as is the case with most bad laws: the special interests, the lobbyists, and in turn the politicians.
Another point of consideration, is the misleading moniker – “Count my Vote” – it might initially sound like a beneficial policy targeted at helping “the people.” This is far from the case, but that’s the emotional response it’s creators wanted to elicit – pick an unassuming title to sell it to an unsuspecting public. It’s like the Media Shield Law – which was sold on the idea that it protects reporters and bloggers, the “Count my Vote” initiative doesn’t help those it’s supposed to protect – it in fact disables and punishes them. Both laws work the same way too, they silence the little guy, who doesn’t have the huge financial backing – but an independent opinion – and puts them into submission.
Here’s how: With the caucus system, the candidate without the large capital of special interests can compete head to head with the big boys, because it costs a lot less to put on the – town hall style – caucus system, than it is to put on the formal primary. But the way in which this hurts “the people” is that in a primary, your concerns are usually ignored. In a caucus the people there at the caucus get there questioned answered – the ones who care enough to be physically present – get to have their concerns addressed. To some this may sound unfair, but if you don’t care enough to educate yourself about the candidates and the issues – don’t vote! Why should those who are diligent enough to do their homework, be penalized by the uninformed?
The worst tenet of “Count my Vote” is a major change to affect candidate qualifying – going from a signed petition based on the numbers of the populace, to instead having it based on a basis 2% of the party needed. In a state that’s mostly Republican, that means that more registered Republicans would have to sign up than Democrats to qualify. Let’s say the number of registered Republicans in an area is 20,000 under the change, the candidate would need 400 signatures to qualify; in the same area, there is 1,000 registered Democrats and they only need 20 signatures to qualify. That means the majority of that area are not honestly represented! That should have everyone concerned – no matter what your political affiliation, as a citizen of the country, this should be alarming – because by eliminating the caucus and replacing it with this mess it is not voting your vote – it’s discarding it.
For more information on “Count my Vote” go to If you liked this article go to and get any of my books at or

By R.C. Seely

As I’ve mentioned previously one of my favorite and most poignant authors is the late George Orwell, his book was the major influence for my book ‘We the Rodents’ and he (amongst other famous writers, like, Kafka and Voltaire) has had influences on both the Americanus Libertae and my new initiative UnConventional Wisdom. It appears that I’m not alone in my respect and appreciation for the works of Orwell, with President Obama showing a certain amount of knowledge in his manner of legislating. The major difference is that the president seems determined to test the theories of Orwell, where I see them as a dire warning.
His vision appears to be to bring the nightmarish world of 1984 to reality, not only with the invasions of the peoples’ privacy, but implementing the principles of Newspeak – the active role by government to destroy the meaning of words. As one MSNBC reporter had intimated on her show the alias for the president’s main law ObamaCare should be considered equal to the more common derogatory term to the president’s ethnic race. Making this another example of the absurd assertion that anyone who even questions the administration’s ideology must be a racist – that has become the most lazy and dishonest argument by the Obama-media.
That is old news though, there’s a new and more insidious line of propaganda in favor of the Affordable Care Act, but to see it more clearly we have to go back to the beginning of the “Obama-nation.” During his first presidential campaign, then candidate Barack Obama said “if you like doctor you can keep your doctor, no one is trying to take your doctor away from you,” the fine print in his 2,000 plus page signature bill that he didn’t tell you, that this is only if they stay in the field. With the problems of reimbursement and guaranteed increases in costs on their patients, many doctors have left their fields. In a few cases it’s been entire hospitals, including the best in the nation such as, Cedar Sinai and Sloane Kettering. He also promised that costs would go down and that you could keep your insurance, also not true, almost six million people have lost their individual insurance policies due to the regulations in the Affordable Care Act. The costs of the new replacement policies have been, in many cases substantially higher, but if you pay higher that translate to better coverage right? That’s the intimation of Ezekiel Emanuel and architect of the ACA said “if you want to pay more for an insurance company that covers your doctor you can do that….you pay more for certain – for a wider range of choices or a wider range of benefits.” This is a rare moment of honest from the administration; sadly even this isn’t completely true. In some states this is the case, but in most it’s not – even if you pay more you still will likely get shafted under the new health care law.
This is another example of an Obamaian Slip; this is the opposite of a Freudian slip, where an involuntary truth slips out, but instead an involuntary lie. More Obamaian Slips were the major selling points for signing the law: That it would help seniors, that he initiated keeping youth on their parents plan until age 26 and that it would benefit those with prediagnosed conditions.
First off, to help seniors, the system has to have a high enrollment rate by the twenty – thirty year old demographic. So let me see if I understand this, it’s considered moral for the elderly – who should have been saving throughout their lives – to have their healthcare needs subsidized by the youth, who don’t even have any money yet? Morally or practically, that sounds like trying to blood from a stone. Along with those arguments there’s a biggest flaw that wasn’t considered – what if the youth don’t enroll? Which is what has occurred and this disenfranchisement started with the website.     The site had a “disappointing” rollout that was it’s downfall for the tech-savvy youth, think of it like this – you voted for the most new age president, who ran the most proficient and effective social media marketing campaign in history and the webpage for his trademark legislature doesn’t work… this does not compute! The speculation by its proponents is that it was intentional to avoid the backlash from new enrollees having to pay far for their policies, so to stall they built a slow and inefficient webpage – intentional or legitimate incompetence, is immaterial, either way the error has what could be irreparable harm on the healthcare plan. The youth, who were Obama’s strongest supporters, have now his harshest critics and it will be the seniors who will be paying the price for it.
So will the president take responsibility for this, and if not who will take the heat? Since he hasn’t accepted responsibility for anything else under his watch, it’s doubtful he’ll start here. As for the promise to keep children on their parents plan until 26, not Obama’s idea, there were already insurance companies that offered that benefit – stop being lazy and shop around.
For those with prediagnosed conditions – they have the real potential to suffer along with the seniors, not only because specialty physicians will be leaving en mass so the quality of care will be greatly diminished, but under socialized medicine will bring about a lack resources. With prices of medicine devices dropped, those with the money will purchase and stockpile them, so others won’t have access to the, if the long lines to see a doctor don’t kill them first! In Canada, there are lotteries to see who gets to see a doctor! These problems are far from speculation and have been witnessed by pretty much every country that have adopted socialized medicine, with many doctors saying they simply can’t operate if they’re beholden to these restrictions.
What is the driving force for all this healthcare madness? It’s another symptom of the entitlement culture – you’re working in a field that is based on humanitarian intentions, so it’s immoral to be paid for it. Why? Doctors have families; they have bills; they have made immense sacrifices to their trade and yet, that’s still not enough. The Affordable Care Act is a bad law, that’s why it barely passed into law and half the country was against it then, with its numbers growing. It hasn’t even been implemented and it’s already harming the economy and many individuals have lost their insurance, this doesn’t even include the people who will lose their employer provided coverage, which experts predict could be as high as one hundred million people… clearly the worst, is yet to come! That’s why when the celebrities push for you to “get covered,” I say opt out and “Stay Naked.”
If you have any Affordable Care Act horror stories you want to share post them using #StayNaked, on twitter or facebook.

The Man and the Toad, or Simply More
By R.C. Seely

A long time ago, in this very land, a man and his son went out fishing.  They caught many giant fish, but that was not all.
While sitting on a log, a toad hopped up beside the boy.  The boy momentarily surprised by this, reached over and grabbed the toad thinking it would jump away like most of the toads he had tried to catch.  This one he was able to catch without much fuss, almost like that was the animal’s desire. They catch a few more fish that day and head home, the boy with his prize and the man with the fish.  It’s time for dinner when they get home, and while his mother is preparing the fish, the boy goes outside to get insects and spiders for his new pet.  The toad greedily gobbles them up.
After dinner the boy went out to get more bugs and when he comes back to the cage, notices the toad has already gotten bigger!  He throws the bugs in with the toad.  He greedily gobbles them up and before his very eyes the toad doubles in size!  Then the toad does something even more unusual- it opens his mouth and speaks.  He says one word, simply, “MORE!”  Soon the toad isn’t satisfied by mere insects, so the boy starts feeding him mice.  Simply, “MORE!”- The toad barks, after every meal.  It’s always hungry, always wanting.  Soon mice aren’t enough either and he’s fed rats, then rabbits, then dogs.
One day the man is looking for his boy, who had just been feeding the toad.  He sees at the feet of his child go down the gaping mouth of the enormous toad.  He runs to the kitchen to grab a knife, to free his boy from the toad’s bloated stomach.  When he gets close enough to strike the animal, the toad greedily devours the man’s arms.  Simply, “MORE!”- The toad roars.  The man kicks the toad in the belly, making him release his lost limbs, but not the boy.  Using his legs, he puts his arms in a bag and goes to the doctor.
It takes a while to get to the doctor, since he lives miles away.  During this time his arms are rotting away.  When he gets to the doctor, he’s told that there’s nothing he can done to repair the damage done.  The limbs are too rotten and he is given artificial arms instead.
On the way home he stops at a local shop and purchases something to kill the toad.  When he finally gets home, he finds the animal sitting on the couch.  It surveys the room like a despotic king, observing his kingdom.  He lazily looks at the man.  Simply, “MORE!”- He thunders at the man.  The man looks down at the floor in front of the creature, he sees laying there his wife’s shoes.  The beast has eaten his whole family!  A wave of anger floods the man and he pulls back the blade.  Trying to shield itself with his front legs, the man chops them off.  The man pulls back for another strike and takes off the thing’s head.  Exhausted from the events of the past couple of days, the man collapses.  It’s not only from being tired that he falls, though.  The toad’s bite has become infected and he is dying from the wound.  He spends the week in agony; he can’t swallow and finds it hard to breath.  The toad too has a surprise for him; he has regrown its head and front legs.  Not only that, but three other toads, smaller than the first one, have grown from the detached appendages!  Now there all four very large beasts staring back at him.
“My children and I will go now and spread across the land.  We will kill all the dreams of man, together as one, because that is the way we will control him and that is our reason.  He will be submissive or die, like you are now.  None will know freedom, individuality or even happiness.  So good-bye, kind host, because we need more,” the monster calmly states.  With that said, it eats the man.  The toad then puts all its strength to its massive back legs, now bigger than the man, and slams into the door, knocking down the whole wall in the process.  He leads the procession of ravenous brutes out and down the road, a chorus of simply, “MORE!”- As they go.
For years they ravage the land, eating all they can and getting titanic in size.  The smaller are bigger than buildings, and the original toad is  immeasurable in stature.  With no more food, the behemoth eats the other toads.  Only one is left, he pleads to their father to no avail.  Then he asks it, “Why?  Why did you eat my siblings?  Why are you determined to eat me?”
The toad laughs in reply, then answers, “Why did I eat the man and his family after all they had done for me?  Why did the three of you eat so many who put trust in you not to do so?  Would you not eat me if you could?  You already know the answer to your questions.  There can only be one of us in the end.  That is inevitable.”  He leaps forward, causing the earth to shake, and eats the smaller toad.  Without anything else to eat, the toad dies, completely alone.  His kingdom is a silent wasteland and his appetite has destroyed everything in the end, including himself.




The fable ‘The Man and the Toad,’ is about the dangers of cronyism; the toads are the symbols of the collusion between the government, the capitalists, special interests and unions.  As a single entity each is dangerous, but in collusion they are deadly.  As is the case with such things, these entities start small and innocuous, but quickly grow feeding off their host.  When the host dies, they move onto the next to feed off.  At some point all the hosts are gone and the toads are forced to feed off each other, because sharing is not in the nature of the toad, as is the same in government.  The government sets the rules and the example for the rest to follow.  If the government were to lead with a positive example, cronyism would die off.  Cronyism won’t ever die off however, because there will always be self-serving authoritarian government officials. 

The birth of this tale is actually from a dream I had for a couple of days in a row.  It was of a boy getting his arms bitten off by an enormous toad.  After reflecting on the dream, it grew into this tale.

Property of MOJO Publishing 2013