Posts Tagged ‘Trump’

By R.C. Seely

ONE OF THE FIRST VIDEOS I DID FOR MY YouTube channel Americanus Libertae Television (ALTV) was an opinion piece about gay marriage titled “A Random Thought.” To summarize, I don’t care what two consenting adults do as long as both are fully informed. What do I mean by “fully informed?” In this case, transgenders have a moral duty to disclose they are transgender to potential partners. The video was done as a joke, thinking the idea that someone would hide this is aburd. I was wrong there.

    Within the LGBT community are extremists who believe keeping others in the dark about formally being a dude is acceptable. Let me see if I have this clear: The gay community has been fighting for decades against “don’t ask, don’t tell” and have been successful in this, only to impose it on those they wish to hook up with? Is this a fair assessment? 

    These few unreasonable malcontents are willing to push back their movement for sex, and they are not even considering how dangerous this position is. Think this through a little bit, when the relationship gets physical and the decieved find out the little secret–how do you think he will react?  Oh what a funny joke… That was a good one! More than likely he will be justifiably angry and turn violent. That would be gays getting hurt, and the tricked incarcerated needlessly for a secret they shouldn’t have been keeping anyway. That was why “don’t ask, don’t tell” was a bad idea, it stiffled the discussion about the issue of homosexuality. Just because it makes you uncomfortable, pretending it doesn’t exist, won’t make it go away. And it’s not unreasonable to conclude these extremists validate their actions because of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. They were forced to hide before, might as well capitalize on it now. 

    That’s also why Trump’s transgenders in the military ban should be thought through, what are the unintended consequences? One is that volunteers negate the need for the draft. As long as they wear the proper uniform in battle, let them fight. Besides, with the sentiments about homosexuals and women in the Middle East, seeing both in battle might deter a few fights. Hmmm… Maybe they are inferior but they got us on the retreat. The ban is currently the only justified reason for anger I can see. For the most part homosexuals are fairly well socially accepted. 

    While a fraction of the LGBT community supports the concept of “uninformed consent,” another wants to advance an policy that is even worse, to completely abolish consent entirely. Let’s take a bad idea and give it steriods! Essentially, this portion of the community is claiming it’s immoral for you to say no to their advances and you’re homophobic. That’s a good way to lose the support of the public. Homophobic is when voters support laws that are clearly discriminatory–bans them from employment opportunities because of being gay, “don’t ask, don’t tell”, or restrictions from adoptions–not making the distinction about who you let in your life and home. Not properly alarmed by this yet? Well, let’s just say every rapist and pedophile will be supporting this, because it’s the end of consent. That’s where this is heading.

    I personally support marriage equality, adoption rights for gays and the end of “don’t ask, don’t tell” because such stances protect others rights to decide for themselves and avoids provable harm to others. The most ethical choice is not to defend simply your rights but everyone’s rights. The only purpose for these laws is to divide us anyway, to keep us from examining the laws that cause provable harm. While we’re talking about transgenders in the military, we’re not discussing “full disclosure.” Marriage equality gets a lot of attention and our consent laws continue getting eroded. 

    Finally to the gay community, in the past there were discriminatory laws against you but your movement has achieved a great level of social acceptance, enjoy that and don’t embrace these new policies. These “Transaggression” policies are a ticking time bomb to all that has been gained and the clock is ticking.

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 at Amazon.

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

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

 

By R.C. Seely

THE 2016 ELECTION CYCLE HAS ALREADY begun and early on it took the turn of one authoritarian progressive versus another authoritarian progressive, with the only major noteworthy distinction being one is a Republican and the other a Democrat. Is that even a big distinction anymore?

With the populist fervor surrounding the Donald–while the “extremist” Rand Paul was practically ignored, by all but his few supporters on Fox Business–it looks like it is becoming more and more immaterial. Maybe an update from the “Party Of the People” and the “Grand Old Party” is in order; how about, for the Democrats the “Party Of the Progressives” and the Republicans, the “Grand Old Populists”. This has not been a recent change in standards by any means, but not all the candidates changes in policy platforms have been either. Most of Trump’s have been, yes, but many of Hillary’s started in college. In college she fell in with her hippie, progressive, popular kids crowd and meet a man who would change her life, George Soros. Soros is a sick a demented human being who enjoys playing God with nation’s economies, simply because he can and has done so many times.

He put the U.S. in his crosshairs when President Bush the Second was in office. He feared the “reckless Texas cowboy” would bring the world endless wars… Ok, so he got that one right. That doesn’t give him the right or moral authority to intervene, especially when his new puppet politician is going around criticizing the Republican candidates for the same thing. Hillary gets money from many different big corporate donors, as did Obama, Soros being a huge donor to both campaigns. They also get lots of money from unions and environmentalists groups, and the (gasp!) Koch brothers, who donate to both Republican and  Democrat campaigns. To the credit of Bernie Sanders, at least he is honest on not receiving corporate donors.

This is not the only common cause for Trump and Clinton, neither are exactly tolerant of free speech. The Donald wanting to revive the Sedition Acts–a set of laws that journalists could be jailed for being critical of politicians or their policies–an idea that Hillary would no doubt support for the Democrat elite. So we should take these candidates at their word, they won’t railroad the general public with a tsunami of new pointless legislature? Yeah, that has worked well in the past. Hillary has her own set of censorship laws to answer for as well, going after “gangsta rap” and trying to give the government the right to decide the content of what is on the air. She pushed for laws to give government entities carte blanc disclosure over the ratings system on TV programs and movies. The past showed how well that worked, when the FCC  was in charge of the enforcement of such guidelines for radio, it nearly killed the industry! Because such guidelines have never been used to protect people from objectionable content, just objectionable ideas, both that are open to interpretation. Making any laws of this kind dangerous.

Besides a labyrinth of confusion, trying to find out where these two candidates stand on the issues, comes their propensity to drift with the “winds of change” of populist opinions. Most notable, Clinton’s support of gay marriage and Trump’s pro-life stance. Trump’s odd defensive of funding Planned Parenthood and Eminent Domain laws, demonstrates a clear sense of cognitive dissonance when it comes to the Constitution in both the parties. With no evidence to suggest that Clinton would be any different, it looks like the most wasted vote would be for one of the duopoly candidates.

If you Liked this article get my new book, VICTIMS OF WHITE MALE: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society, or any of my other books at Barnes and Noble.com, Amazon.com, or other online stores.