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.
americanus libertae 
The New “Red Light Districts”
Posted: August 20, 2017 in Social CommentaryTags: americanus libertae, choice, civil liberties, freedom, government overreach, gun control, laws, moralist, r.c.seely, red light district, the new red light district
By R.C. Seely
AS THE “MANIFEST DESTINY” MOVEMENT TOOK hold and the United States expanded into the South West of the continent, mining towns started cropping up and with the mining towns saloons and brothels. After the weeks work of digging for precious metals and resources such as coal, the miners wanted to unwind–have a few beers or shots of whiskey, play a few cards or spend the evening with one of the prostitutes. As these mining towns grew and brought in more respectable businesses and families, the need to isolate the more seedy parts of the mining towns became a priority, so they came up with “red light districts” a separated part of town for saloons and brothels. It worked quite well, until the towns grew into cities and isolation wasn’t enough, full on prohibition was the new way to go. So the red lights turned into the “black markets” and the violence that the respectable wanted contained now bleed all across their cities. Eventually the issue of vice management became the responsibility of the states and many brought drinking and gambling back, a couple even brought back prostitution.
Back then the red light districts were a social compromise for the safety of it’s citizens, today they are areas that put the citizens at higher risk. A trend to demonstrate your antimosity towards firearms is to replace the regular light bulb in the porch light with a red one. Basically you are advertising to the world that your home is a “gun-free zone.” That’s a really smart move! Hey criminals, why not hit this house, we don’t like violence of any kind and expect you to respect that. Because that how the real world works. Now to the way a criminal sees it: Hey these idiots just made my job way easier. I think I‘ll go there and do whatever I want. This should be fun.
If you’re against guns that’s fine, don’t get one but don’t let everyone know about it. Not only are you unnecessarily putting yourself at risk but you are putting the whole neighborhood at risk too. You think the intruders will assume that it’s just you who doesn’t have a gun on the block? They might think others feel the same as you and simply choose not to mark their house. A friendly piece of advice if you see red light come up in your street; get a quality alarm, a gun, a dog and sign advertising it all. Your home just become a marked target all because the progressives next door hate the NRA.
Even during the era of the original red light districts gun control was tried and had the same results as today. A few towns tried to outlaw carrying guns in city limits and it was the respectable who obeyed the laws and the cowboys and miners who did whatever they wanted. At least back then they didn’t go around with a sign “We don’t like guns and are completely unarmed. We make the perfect victims.” That’s basically what these people are saying.
I think every home should have at least one firearm, and everyone in that home should be trained in how to use it at the right age. It might be an attitude that is viewed as antiquated but it’s also the safest. Otherwise you are dependent on the police and a lot can happen in the time it takes for them to arrive. Doesn’t it make more sense for you to be able to handle the situation yourself? And having a gun in your home does deter intruders, a study by the CDC demonstrated that. The findings were that most gun deaths are suicides and then the criminals. Harvard replicated the study with the same results. But if you don’t feel comfortable with a gun in your home, don’t get one that’s fine. Don’t make it more difficult for others to get one though by supporting extended gun control measures that don’t work. All they do is make it harder for the law abiding to get protection and easier for the criminals, who still have the black market to turn to, to have their way. In a few places they have ordinances that the citizens are legally required to have a firearm in their homes. That’s just as wrong as these laws that inhibit others from obtaining their tool of self-preservation. Whether you want one or not should be your choice and yours alone. Now turn off that red light before you wake the neighbors.
R.C. Seely is the founder of americanuslibertae.com and ALTV and has written books on pop culture. The most recent, Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society is available on Amazon.