John Stossel: 'Who Owns Your Body?'

Source:John Stossel- on prostitution.

Source:The New Democrat

"I confront a prostitute, a pimp, and an anti-prostitution crusader." 

From John Stossel

I'm going to paraphrase political humorist P.J. O'Rourke on this: I'm very conservative socially in the sense that I live a conservative lifestyle. I don't even smoke tobacco or drink alcohol, not even beer, for crying out loud. I don't gamble or even go to casinos. And no, I'm not even religious at all so its not because of some strong religious beliefs why I don't do these things. But instead I don't enjoy these activities and I don't like what tobacco and alcohol do to people, I don't want to become a gambling junky who either has collectors constantly on my ass (if not up my ass) or can't pay his bills because I'm out of money and looking for my next big score at some card game.

And no, I would never even contemplate selling by body for sex or buying sex. I rather listen to a Donald Trump marathon of speeches with him telling everybody how fabulous he is and perhaps end up in coma because of how boring those speeches are. But that is just me.

Again to paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: just because someone is socially conservative as far as how they live, doesn't mean they believe they have the wisdom and knowledge to run everyone else's lives for them. And be in charge of a national adult day care center telling people when they should go to bed, wake up, eat their meals, what they can eat, who they can talk to and about what and how they talk to people.

Being a social conservative means someone who lives conservatively. Not someone who is so hardcore fundamentalist with their religious beliefs that they believe they know exactly how everyone else should live as well. Even to the point that they would force their religious and cultural beliefs on everyone else though government force. 

I might be a social conservative when it comes to lifestyle, but I'm a Liberal when it comes to my political beliefs, as someone who bases all his views not just on politics, but everyone else in life based on the best available facts and evidence. My views are based on reason, not faith.

Prostitution like every other activity in life that comes with risk and in prostitution's case a lot of risk as far as the people you work with, go to bed with and the clients you deal with, but like gambling, tobacco, alcohol, pornography, certain plastic surgeries, are things that have been around forever and are never going to disappear. They'll always be with us whether they're legal or not. So the question then becomes what should be done about them.

Do we put people in jail simply because they're personally involved in activities that aren't good for them and as a result create a gigantic nanny state that makes the Communist Republic of North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran, look like thriving first world liberal democracies, or do we legalize these activities so we can make them as safe as possible and no longer allow people who work in these activities avoid paying the taxes that everyone else hates to pay (except Socialists) but pays, because these workers are involved in illegal dangerous activities . And are obviously afraid to report their income. That is the question when it comes to prostitution or any other dangerous activity in America.

John Cerkez: John Stossel- Censorship in the Name of Islam

Source: John Cerkez-

Source:The Daily Review

Just to the correct the record about something that Mark Steyn said. Islam is not the only religion in the world where their members have killed people in the name of their religion. The Ku Klux Klan and other Far-Right Anglo-Saxon Protestant terrorist groups in America, are responsible for a lot of murders as well. And just like with Christians, the overwhelming majority of Muslims are non-violent, even if they have Far-Right views about how women should be treated and everything else.

Again, as far critical speech of minorities in America religious, or otherwise and perhaps obese people will be added to this group of the specially protected in America with the Far-Left, as well as gays. Perhaps stupid people will be next, which could by itself destroy the comedy industry. Leaving thousands of comedians with no one to make fun of. Do we have a First Amendment and Freedom of Speech, or not? According to the U.S. Constitution we do and even if some government passes a law that bans critical speech, or even hate speech of minorities in their community, it won't stand up because of this little thing called the U.S. Constitution. Americans, don't have a right to be nice or mean or truthful or the right to lie. We have a guaranteed right to Free Speech, which covers all of those things.

Racial, ethic an religious discrimination, are all wrong and even illegal in most cases. But we all have the right to think and say whatever we want to about anyone else. If you don't believe in that, than I suggest liberal democracy is not the right form of government for you. And perhaps you move to Planet Paradise where its so peaceful that not even football and boxing are allowed. Where everyone loves each other and to paraphrase the great sitcom Cheers, where everyone knows your name and everything else. Liberal democracy, is about freedom for the individual. And sometimes what comes with freedom is people doing and saying things that oversensitive tight asses don't approve of. Doesn't mean the oversensitive tight ass has to agree with the language and activity that others are engage in, but government can't stop people simply because they don't like what they see and hear.
Source:John Cerkez

John Stossel: You Can't Say That

Source:The New Democrat

Private organizations have the right to regulate themselves as long as they are within the law and their contractual obligations. They don't have to be fair or even consistent and I don't have a problem with them being able to do this as long as they are a private organization. Even though I tend to disagree with a lot of the decisions as they make when it comes to kicking people off the air as it relates to what they say may be offensive.

I'm not interested in outlawing fascists thoughts and people being able to express their fascist views whether they come from the Right or Left. As long as they aren't able to pass those views and policies through law. Because that of course would be against the First Amendment even if it does offend some people. Because again we have Freedom of Speech and the First Amendment and I having my right to argue against fascism and the political correctness movement from the Far-Left. Or the moral majority movement or whatever from the Far-Right.

FOX News: John Stossel- Stupid in America

Source:FOX News- TIME Magazine, talking about education reform in America.

Source:The New Democrat 

"5-6-12 John Stossel - Stupid In America"

From FOX News

I take stupidity seriously and when you have a lot of Americans who are stupid, meaning they don't know important basic things that they should know. Like what state the Kentucky Derby is in, (first word being the giveaway clue there) I get concern simply as an American who wants to see my country do as well as it can. And as much as the Great Recession was caused by Wall Street, the fact that our workers especially the ones that lost their jobs during it do not have the skills they need to get another job, or our college and high school graduates do not have the skills that they need to get a good job, you know we have a serious problem.

And as serious as a problem that stupidity in America is, it is also impossible for me as someone with a quick off the cuff sense of humor to just let slide by without making fun of it. I mean seriously we have Americans who know what the latest smartphone is, or what's the latest rehab clinic or jail that Lindsay Lohan is at. But couldn't tell you to save their life who is on Mount Rushmore, what is the Bill of Rights, who was our first President, what was the Civil War fought over. How many states does America have  and you can go down the line.

We have become as a society where whatever is considered hot, awesome and popular at the time and that generally comes from either Silicon Valley or Hollywood, or it is not important "and like so not worth my time to like totally notice". To paraphrase some valley speak. "What is hot is what is now, and history is in the past" and when it comes to learning it is about what is hot and what is now so you can fit in and be as popular as possible. Where you are judged by how many followers you have on Facebook or whatever the hot social network is at the time and what is the latest technology. Instead of being judged based on how much you know and what are your actual skills.

I know this might sound nerdy or whatever, but people who believe that aren't my target audience and those people are the problem to begin with. If you want to be hot, awesome or cool, (and cool might sound old at this point) you might have to be stupid as well. And sound like Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, Sarah Palin, or even Johnny Football soon to be Johnny headed for Hollywood after he gives up on football Manziel. But if you want to be intelligent and successful outside of Hollywood or sports in America, then you have to be intelligent. And that only happens from learning about things that are actually important that gives you the skills to be successful in America.

FOX News: John Stossel- Illegal Everything

Source:FOX News-

Source:The New Democrat

Gee I got a crazy idea. How about we outlaw the big government nanny state instead? Yeah from now on any legislature that votes for or passes big government nanny laws, they get charged with infringing on free adults freedom to live their own lives. Probably would need more technical language that sounds like Greek or something. But I'm not a lawyer, so I don't speak Greek, so I apologize. (Wait what am I apologizing for) And when legislatures try to pass some brain dead idea like this, they can spend time in the jails that they want free adults who they feel are too stupid to manage their own affairs to do time in.

Outlawing lemonade stands, or making it illegal to drive or sit in a car without a seatbelt, or illegal to ride a bike without a helmet, "who do these laws protect?" Nanny statists would naturally say "the people". But the natural response to that would be, "protecting the people from who?" They would be less inclined to answer that question and if you ask a nanny statist with any kind of honesty, they may say "protecting people from dangerous behavior". Who's dangerous behavior" The nanny statist again if they are honest may say "from the individuals dangerous behavior".

Again I'm not a lawyer, so I don't speak Greek or Chinese. But I do speak English real good. (Ha ha) And the people that nanny statists want to protect free adults from are themselves. People who believe in nanny laws want to protect people from themselves. Hey I got a radical idea here. Instead of nanny laws we allow for free adults to make their own decisions. Require that all of the information to be out there so free adults can make the best decisions possible and then hold them responsible for the decisions that they make. More free people on the street, less people in prison.

Source:FOX News

John Stossel: 'It's the Spending, Stupid!'

Source:John Stossel- from this program.

"Listening to progressive media pundits, I'd think the most evil man in the universe is Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform. His crime? He heads a movement that asks political candidates to pledge not to raise taxes.

I think Grover accomplished a lot. But I wish he'd convinced politicians to pledge not to increase spending.

President Obama says raising taxes to cut the deficit is a "balanced" approach.

Balanced …

But what's "balanced" about raising taxes after vast increases in spending? Trillions for war, Medicare, "stimulus" and solar panels. Tax receipts rose—after tax-rate cuts—from $1.9 billion in 2003 to $2.3 billion in 2008, the year the recession started. That increase couldn't keep up with the spending. The deficit doubled—actually, more than doubled—as politicians increased spending to nearly $4 trillion! Our debt, at more than $16 trillion, now exceeds our gross domestic product.

Ludicrous, irresponsible spending is why we're in trouble. As columnist Ron Hart points out, Bill Clinton's balanced budget spent $1.7 trillion. "Adjusted for inflation," he writes, "our federal government would (have) a $200 billion surplus. But instead of increasing government spending in line with normal inflation, under Bush and Obama we are spending $3.8 trillion today. Democrats, who believe we have a 'revenue' problem instead of a 'spending' problem, must also think they have a bartender problem, not a drinking problem."

Source:Reason Magazine 

"Matt Welch (Reason Magazine) questions whether many so-called "fiscal conservatives" have any real interest in cutting government spending. Liberty Pen" 

Source:Liberty Pen- talking about Federal Government spending.

From Liberty Pen

John Stossel: 'Democrats Are Really Anti-Choice'

Source:FOX Business Network- Hadley Heath Manning from the Independent Women's Forum.

"Democrats Are Really Anti-Choice"

Source:Stossel On FBN

I mostly agree with John Stossel here. Left-wing Democrats, not all Democrats are pro-choice, just as long as you make choices that they approve of. If you caught them being really honest, they might say, but not on the record that they believe that Americans should have the right to make good choices with their lives. So they believe that women  should have the right to abortion and women's health care in general and that gays should have the right to be themselves and not be put in prison for simply being gay, because gays are one of those groups that have been historically discriminated against, so leftists believe that gays should not only have the right to be themselves, but protected under law. 

But left-wing Democrats aren't pro-choice in the sense that they believe that Americans should have the right to be make their own personal choices regardless of the consequences. They only believe that Americans should have the right to make choices that leftists approve of. But big government should say hell no and even sanction people for making choices that leftists disapprove of, even if no one is actually getting hurt by the choice.

John Stossel: Governor Gary Johnson- 'A Libertarian For President'

Source:Fox News- Governor Gary Johnson (Libertarian, New Mexico) on John Stossel.

"Libertarian Presidential Candidate Gary Johnson on his efforts to make it to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave." 

From Self Ownership

Source:Fox News- John Stossel.

If Gary Johnson's definition of Libertarian, which is fiscally responsible and socially tolerant, was the official definition of Libertarian, then I think there wouldn't be any need or market for a Libertarian Party today. Because maybe 40% of the country believes that America should be fiscally responsible, meaning that the government pays its bills and doesn't try to do things that the states and localities should be doing or could be done in the private sector. 

Gary Johnson's definition of Libertarian used to be what it meant to be a Republican and not just a Center-Right Conservative Republican. And is probably why Johnson was a Republican for so long before he joined the Libertarian Party was even elected Governor of New Mexico as a Republican in the 1990s. But now Republicans are seen as socially intolerant, as well as borrow and spenders (thanks to the Republican Party of the 2000s) and Democrats are seen as tax and spenders, so Johnson would obviously never be a Democrat. 

But the fact is Governor Johnson's definition of Libertarian, is not how the Libertarian Party is seen. They're see as essentially antigovernment hippies, who don't want government doing anything, including prosecuting criminal predators and perhaps don't even want a government military, as well as seen as right-wing conspiracy theorists. Which is why they struggle to just 5% of the vote, let alone 10%.

JD Talley: ‘John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics’

Source:JD Talley- U.S. Senator John McCain campaigning for President, in 2008.

Source:Real Life Journal 

“John Stossel’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics”  

From JD Talley

We can blame American politicians all we want for our problems in government and society as a whole, but we should at least first know how our politicians get their jobs before we decide to blame them or not. And I’ll give you a few clues which will hopefully give you an idea where our politicians come from: 

Our politicians don’t fall from trees.

Our politicians don’t go down to some central office and volunteer to serve in public office and then are just given the job like they’re applying for charity work or something.

Our politicians don’t wake up one morning and find themselves as U.S. Senator’s or Representative’s, Governor’s, etc or inherit the jobs that they now have.

If you really don’t know where our politicians come from, I’ll tell you anyway: they come from the communities that they are supposed to represent and decide to run for office and are elected by the people that they’re supposed to represent and then sent to that office.

The great political satirist George Carlin once had a comedy monologue called: “Maybe It’s Not The Politicians Who Suck” and his point was all the politicians are doing is what they were elected to do. Yes, you can blame politicians for being dishonest and crooked, incompetent even, but if they keep getting reelected, isn’t there someone else to blame for that?

Politics and government is just like just about everything else in life, because it gets down to personal responsibility. If you don’t like the politicians who are supposed to represent you, maybe you should look at your own too feet and see if you have any self-inflicted wounds there. Or perhaps run for office yourself or do what Ronald Reagan said and vote with your feet. But don’t complain about crooked politicians, if you keep voting for them or don’t bother to run for office yourself, or don’t even bother to vote.  

NC Tea Party: John Stossel- 'What If Libertarians Were in Charge'

Source:NC Tea Party- Nancy Photenhauer a spokeswoman for the Koch Industries.

"Stossel What if Libertarians Were In Charge" 

From the NC Tea Party 

What if Libertarians were in charge? That's sort of like asking what if the kids ran the house? Or if the inmates ran the prison? The mental patients ran the asylum? If this sounds insulting, then I'm getting through, because Libertarians or what's supposed to pass as a Libertarian today, are people who don't believe in authority, let alone government. And when someone is put in charge of something, they become an authority. 

Libertarians today sound like the Right's version of the 1960s and 1970s antiestablishment Hippies. At least the Hippies put what money they had where their mouths were and set up their own communities and communes and moved away from society. Today's Libertarians take advantage of the government sponsored road, are protected by government law enforcement and the military, even send their kids to government schools, and pay the government the taxes that fund those government services. 

Imagine what the Federal Government would look like, if you eliminated every Federal Department. Except Department of Defense, that would rarely do anything, because Libertarians are isolationists.

Department of State that would rarely talk to anyone, because again Libertarians are isolationists.

A Treasury Department that would just print American dollars. You really need a Federal department to do that?

Maybe a Justice Department, but again who would they be prosecuting? Libertarians are against the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.

Libertarians also tend to be against the CIA. So where would the intelligence come from?

The Federal Government that they don't trust and believe in. Libertarians don't believe in Federal law enforcement, so if a murderer murders someone in Tennessee and makes their way up to let's say Ohio, who would go after that person?

Libertarians are also against things like labor laws, minimum wage, so we could return to the days of people making 30C and hour or back to child labor. People working in unsafe working conditions and making basically nothing working there.

That is the state of American libertarianism right now, not that government is too big, but that it even exists is a problem for them. They want a complete free society, but perhaps even in an anarchist sense. And perhaps they would prosecute people who abuse innocent people, but that the Federal Government just wouldn't have any role in it. 

As I blogged last week, Libertarians today and perhaps always don't sound Libertarian. But they sound like Anarchists, that government is incompetent and shouldn't really be doing anything. And ask questions like what can government do, that the private sector can't and again ask most Americans that question and they will name several things. 

Today's Libertarians don't sound like believers in small government, but sound anti-government. Basically across the board. Or they wouldn't ask questions like, what can government do that the private sector can't, or what can government do better than the private sector.

I understand the need in limited government and as a Liberal is something I believe in myself. Which is also something that Gary Johnson the presidential nominee for the Libertarian Party also believes in. He's a Classical Liberal like myself. But more libertarian, where I'm liberal across the board. Governor Johnson is not looking to dismantle the Federal Government. But wants to reform it, so it's doing the things that only it should be doing and does well. Which is where libertarianism needs to move too, for them to ever be a major power in American politics.