After seeing this video [warning; some mature language; if that’s not for you then the video is not for you]…
…I decided to craft my own perspective on the three things that were touched on there. Firstly, Donald Trump recently revisited his travel ban from seven different Greater Middle East nations. Secondly, Trump is selling $35 billion of weapons to Saudi Arabia per year for ten years. Thirdly, his replacement of Obama Care with Trump care is being skewed even by the video as mandating coverage denial. Okay, so allow me to break these down from my own unique angle.
Part One; Travel Bans vs Freedom of Movement
Okay, so unlike CNN, Politico provides actually impartial reporting on the travel being partly in effect until October. Apparently the only reasons people from Libya, Sudan, Somalia, Syria, Iran, and Yemen are allowed to travel to America are education and family. For example, they are not allowed to travel here for business trips or to visit musicians who perhaps visited them first.
Now from a foreign policy perspective this makes no sense at all, because the state sponsors of 9/11 are not on the list. That is; Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Lebanon, Egypt, and Afghanistan are, in order from biggest degree to smallest degree, the state sponsors of 9/11 and of ISIS. So if the idea is to stop travel from nations who have sponsored 9/11 and as of 2011 are sponsors of ISIS, then why ban a random slew of nations who has little if anything to do with 9/11 or with ISIS?
As for the immigration perspective this is against the 9th and 14th amendment rights to respectively freedom of movement and equal treatment under the law. Now, I am not denying the negatives of Europe having adopted total open borders, what I am going to say to you is this. That’s not a lesson in how there is anything good at all about nationalism, which spoiler alert there is nothing right with nationalism. Instead, this is a lesson why we need to merge total freedom of movement with the historic Ellis Island vetting system. Basically that means medical exam, moral exam, English class, Civics class, done. And by done I mean “free to formally apply for citizenship”. It has nothing to do with Amnesty because from what I know, amnesty is being arbitrarily granted citizenship without having to fill out any kind of application. And I speak that as a 3rd side of the immigration and refugee debate, a side that says exactly as I do. The libertarian and objectivist hybrid side of the refugee debate.
Part Two; The Weapon Sales To America’s Enemies
Ugh— why exactly are we selling weapons to the biggest-time foe of the seven I singled out above? Seven countries who are known to sponsor Al-Qaeda and the Taliban but nowadays mainly ISIS! Far as I’m concerned, the Hamas and Hezbollah sponsoring nations of Iran, Syria, and Iraq are really just secondary targets of American Self Defense. But selling weapons to those who should be our primary targets is nothing short of suicidal.
And we are selling them $35 billion of annual weaponry for ten years! That will basically be enough for Saudi Arabia and its six fellow ISIS-sponsors to put ISIS up to a massive domination if not destruction attack against the American People. One that will make 9/11 look in comparison like a matter of 3000 people stubbing their toes all at once.
A proper policy with regard to the Greater Middle East, to me, is an instant and soulless ending for the primary foes. Meaning the total destruction of any and all Legit Military Targets under Saudi, Pakistani, Qatari, Emirati, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Afghan control. Not only this I also say include any and all political establishment actors and institutions in those nations as legit military targets. After these regimes are destroyed, we need to bring most of the victors home and leave a few thousand behind to allow a free society [aka capitalism] to take root.
Part Three; Still no freedom of Healthcare choice!
Anyone who interprets me honestly knows I am very into the notion that total freedom of choice is the answer to every question in standard of living. But medically, no, instead We The People have to settle for what I call “Reducing Normal Obama Care to Diet Obama Care”. And here is what TJ who did the video I opened on linking to is saying. He is saying that people are going to be forced to give up their health insurance under this new bill.
Two problems I have hearing this from someone I have my atheism and my live & let live outlook on lifestyles in common with. One; wasn’t TJ very against Obama Care for being, in his words, “A mandate to buy private insurance” and “Essentially just a gift to private insurance companies“? What it really does, from what I can gather, is it gives up on forcing Americans to buy private insurance. And in essence it is the revoking of that corporatist approved gift to private health insurers. And the new bill does this by ending the individual mandate, from what I can read from Wikipedia who TJ screen capped from. No, I am not defending the bill, I am just pointing out features that I don’t think were pointed out in the video. I accept that generally it is not the healthcare reform we need. What is needed?
To me, the answer is in four words. Total Freedom of Choice. Basically this means I think the answer is to pass a bill that has nothing to do with Obama Care or Diet Obama Care, one that does something totally different. One that motivates market competition for insurers to provide the best health insurance possible for the lowest prices that Supply And Demand will allow. That way, consumers will not need to stick to plans where the health insurance companies can treat them anyhow as the companies will get consumer money no matter what. Instead, health providers will only get their monthly profits by treating their communities like family. And that ethic will be for the same reason as the prices: Lack of Subsidies.
Thanks for reading!