Liberty Pen: John Stossel- Big Government Like A Jealous Boyfriend

Source: Liberty Pen-

Source:The Daily Review

Here are perfect examples of the dangers of big government. Not government in general, just government that attempts to do too much. Which is try to manage people's lives for themselves and try to protect people from themselves. Like a jealous boyfriend who hasn't gotten the memo, or letter, or phone call, or email, or text message, or v-log that Sally, or whoever, "is so not into you" anymore. Joe, or whoever might have been, "like totally awesome", or whatever before. But now Joe reminds Sally of her Uncle Sam, who at times tries to take the place of her father, or even herself. As far as what responsibilities that she has for her own life.

Big Government and Uncle Sam, sometimes twins sees people as stupid. Well, at least Americans as stupid and I'll admit there are too many Americans who at times look like they've escaped institutions for the mentally handicapped and couldn't name their own mayor, or governor to save their lives, even if they were spotted the last name and perhaps even first name. But people by enlarge are pretty bright and don't need Big Government watching them to make sure that they don't eat too many potato chips, or watch an adult movie, buy a home, talk to people they might approve of, use too much water in the shower, or whatever the case. This is not a Marxist state, government doesn't need to protect the people from themselves. But the people from predators who would hurt them.

I'm not a Libertarian and I have a real role for government and not just as it relates to criminals, terrorists and aggressive authoritarian regimes, that would like to attack us. I believe government does have a role to play to help people who are down get themselves back up so they to can live in freedom. But that is called limited government and limiting government to doing what we need it to do and where it can play a constructive role. Where it doesn't grow so big that it can no longer be audited. Like the Defense Department today and the Education Department several years ago. Government should serve as a public referee and insurance system. Not as a national babysitter trying to prevent people from making mistakes with their own lives and trying to help us by sending us to the worst place possible for humans. (Which is called jail) Simply because we're involved in personally dangerous activities.
Source:Liberty Pen

Stephen Reginald: Screening of Hitchcock's "The Man Who Knew Too Much" November 10, 2015

Source:Classic Movie Man-

Source:The Daily Review

Alfred Hitchcock, is probably my favorite director. He is certainly my favorite suspense/thriller director and action/comedy director, dramatic/comedy director and even suspense/comedy director. He combined comedy with all of the different genres that his movies covered. And if I had to put a list of my top ten Hitchcock movies, I don't believe The Man Who Knew Too Much would be on it. It would be behind North by Northwest, To Catch a Thief, Rear Window, Strangers on a Train, Charade, several of his short films from The Alfred Hitchcock Hour like Run For Doom, with the great Diana Dors. But that is the thing about Hitchcock, he made so many great movies that even if one of them isn't in your Hitchcock top ten that doesn't mean that movie isn't also a great movie. It just means it isn't as good as the others that are on the list.

When you're talking about great leads which are the lead actor and lead actress in a movie, I think you would have a hard time finding a better combination than Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day and then add that Alfred Hitchcock as their director. Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day, are perfect for Hitch, because they are both great actors, entertainers, both very funny and very versatile. And of course in Doris Day's case she is a hot baby-faced adorable sexy blonde, but who was also a hell of an actress that Hitch loved. So they were both perfect for Hitchcock and this movie. Doris Day, in real-life is seventeen years younger than Jimmy Stewart. She still looks great today and was thirty when she did this movie. Jimmy Stewart was in his late forties at this point, but they were still great together.

The Man Who Knew Too Much, is about a vacationing American family in Morocco. Dr. Ben McKenna (played by Jimmy Stewart) and his wife Jo McKenna, (played by Doris Day) who is a singer. Their son Hank, (played by Christopher Olsen) is kidnapped by terrorists in Morocco. They meet a Frenchman in Morocco Louis Bernard, (played by Daniel Gelin) and have dinner with him. Bernard, is actually an intelligence agent for the French Republic. He is killed by these terrorists after having dinner with the McKenna's. And the terrorists tell Dr. McKenna over the phone that if he and his wife don't talk to the police, they won't kill their son Hank. And that is how this movie gets going with Dr. McKenna trying to get his son back, while at the same time preventing his wife from knowing what is really going on. She thinks their son has just been kidnapped by local thugs.

This is not a great movie, at least from my perspective. I don't think it is very believable that terrorists would target the son of an American doctor simply because the kid's parents talked to a French intelligence agent. That tells me they had no idea who this American couple was. It would be one thing if they kidnapped the kid, because their parents are a wealthy American couple and they want ransom. But there doesn't seem to be any financial motivation at all in this movie. But it is a very entertaining movie. Doris Day, is her usable hot sexy adorable self, especially as she finds out that her son has just been kidnapped. Jimmy Stewart, is his usual charming Mr. Joe Average self, who does a great job of playing an average guy in a very complicated situation. And this is a very entertaining movie.

CUNY-TV: Day at Night: James Day Interviewing Ayn Rand, Author, Atlas Shrugged

Source:CUNY-

Source:The New Democrat

Ayn Rand, is the modern inspiration and philosopher of the libertarian movement in America. Whether it is Ron Paul, or a whole bunch of libertarian writers and bloggers like Walter Williams, Reason Magazine, the title Reason, should be a pretty good clue there, they all talk like and believe in the same things as Ayn Rand. "Taxation is theft, people shouldn't be forced to give their money through government to others", etc. This all comes from Ayn Rand's objectivism and what she believed and to a certain extent with the Tea Party she still inspires the Republican Party today. You don't have to put words in Ayn Rand's mouth whether you are a fan of hers, or not. She does that for you and has already so many of her thoughts on paper and in video.

So this and that we tend to agree on social issues and economic issues when it comes to choice, is what I respect about Ayn. Her consistency, she didn't take a position when she thought it was popular and then gradually moved into another direction when it became unpopular. And that extent she would have made a great public servant, but a bad politician, because she had a habit of telling people exactly what she thought and knew. Instead of what people wanted to hear. The complete opposite of Donald Trump, who takes his political positions based on which way the wind is blowing at Wrigley Field. Is the wind blowing in or out. (Sorry for the baseball analogy) If anything Ayn's political philosophy became well-known at the height of the collectivist Progressive Era from the 1940s through the 1960s. So based on the fact she had principles gives people a lot to respect about her.

Reason Magazine: Nick Gillespie Interviewing Greg Gutfeld: The Joy of Hate, Illiberal Speech Police

Source:Reason Magazine talking to humorist Greg Gutfeld.

Source:The Daily Review

I agree with practically everything that Greg Gutfeld said here about the police speech. That perhaps Salon Magazine should be the chief of. But I would just replace the word liberal with illiberal when it comes to police speech. Free speech, liberal. Fascism, illiberal, whether it comes from the Far-Left, or Far-Right. People when talking about the Left and the Right, should be specific about who they're talking about, because not everyone on the Left is a Liberal and not everyone on the Right is a Conservative. If you don't believe in free speech, you're not a Liberal, but illiberal. If you don't believe in private enterprise, you're not a Conservative. Anti-Conservative I guess.

People who think that Christians and Caucasians in general, should be targets and if anything made fun of any chance there is, but that anyone who is not Caucasian, especially if they're also not Christian and don't come from a blue-collar, rural, Southern background, should be under special protection from the Federal Salon Police Speech, are Fascists. And worst they are partisan Fascists. They think they can get away with saying anything that they want and put down the Right for partisan political gains. While at the same time labeling the Right as bigots when they make fun of, or criticize minorities. Racial, religious, ethnic, gays and so-forth.

Anyone who seems somewhat off and perhaps under medication and even off their medication, whether its Ann coulter on the Far-Right, or Islamists, also on the Far-Right, at least in a religious sense, or Melissa Harris-Perry on the Far-Left, who believes kids don't belong to their parents, but the state, are going to get made fun of. But generally not because of the race, ethnicity, or religion, but because they're stupid and crazy. When we are no longer allowed to make fun of stupid crazy people, that is the day we'll see humor essentially outlawed in America and go out of business. And become a country of straight-faced (no offense gays) tight asses. Who look like they haven't had a laugh, or a drink, perhaps a joint in ten years. And America will become a very depressed country as a result. With lines all over the country of people waiting to be able to jump off the bridge.

Bloomberg View: Nick Hanauer & Eric Liu: 'Libertarians Are The New Communists'

Source:Reason Magazine-

Source:The New Democrat

Nick Hanauer and Eric Liu, argued in Bloomberg View, that "Libertarians, are the new Communists, because both Libertarians and Communists, argue for policies that are doomed to fail." I agree that both lets say anarcho-libertarianism, which is essentially a form of anarchism and communism are doom for failure. Communists, argue for a superstate over the individual. Anarcho-Libertarians, (The New Anarchists) argue for the individual over everything else. They consider arresting suspects of kidnapping, (to use as an example) well as kidnapping. That somehow the police don't have a right to arrest people. And that if someone is kidnapped, is up for them to free themselves, or people to voluntarily help them out. Mainstream Libertarians, believe in law enforcement and even national security, to protect the innocent from predators.

Both communism, or as I prefer Marxism, (jury still out on the definition of communism) and anarcho-libertarianism, are doomed to fail. One would bring total unitarian state domination over all individuals. Because they view individual freedom as dangerous to the state and as purely as the freedom to make mistakes. But lets go over to the other side and anarcho-libertariansm. If you want to know what an anarcho-libertarian state looks like, look at Somalia. Look at Afghanistan certainly ten years ago and still to a certain extent today. Look at Iraq ten years ago. This is what countries look like when they can't, or choose not to govern themselves. But they fail for different reasons and are completely different from one another. One, puts all of its faith in the supremacy of the state over the individual. The other has essentially no real role for a state at all, which leads to chaos.

As an actual Liberal, whether you want to call me a Classical Liberal, or a Real Liberal, I prefer just Liberal, or Liberal Democrat, I have a lot in common with Libertarians and libertarianism. I talk with them on a regular basis and we tend to agree on probably all of the social issues and perhaps 9-10 of the economic issues. It is really just the role of government, especially the Federal Government and America's place in the world, where we tend to disagree. Actual Libertarians, both Conservative Libertarians and Left Libertarians, Social Liberals even, aren't looking to eliminate the state and even all taxation. They simply want to send a lot of this power back to the states and private sector in the areas of social insurance, to use as an example and I agree with them on that. To call Libertarians, "The New Communists", is an insult to Libertarians and even Communists. Because both factions are nothing alike and have nothing in common.
Source:Reason Magazine

Anarchist Collective: The Case For Self-Ownership and Property Rights

SourceAnarchist Collective-

Source:The New Democrat

The case for property rights and as I argued last week, property rights extends to one's self which is self-ownership and the case for property rights is the case against Marxism. Who owns you? The state, who assumes responsibility for everyone's welfare, or the individual them self? That is what this debate is about. If you believe in property rights, you're not a Marxist. Other than maybe a moderate Marxist, (if there is such a thing) who believes the state should own all business in the economy, but that individuals should own their personal property. Homes, cars, clothes, food, the responsibility for raising their kids, etc.  You can't have a free society without property rights and that even includes self-ownership. Because the state would then assume full responsibility for everyone's welfare. And be the monopoly over the whole country.

And as a Liberal, of course I believe in property rights, including self-ownership, because I believe in liberty. Self-determination, the right for one to chart their own course in life and be able to make the best out of it as they can while still meeting their responsibilities to pay for the services that they receive, both private and public. And really only Marxists on the furthest Left that you can find, don't believe in property rights. People as Far-Far as Democratic Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders, believes in both property rights and perhaps even self-ownership. From his positions on self-defense, reproductive rights, sexuality, marijuana to use as examples. But believes in a big centralized government to carry out the basic human services that we all need to live well in life. Education, health care, health insurance, childcare, would be examples of that.

And if you go over to the Far-Right, you'll find Neoconservatives, who believe in security and morality over liberty. And don't even believe in the Right to Privacy and have suggested that it doesn't even exist. And want a superstate when it comes to national security and social issues to see to it that no one is behaving immoral and is threatening the security of the country. So under a philosophy like this, people could own their homes and business's, but no Right to Privacy. So government could literally break in to one's home without even having a warrant if they believe someone is behaving immoral. Not just to break in to save someone who is being raped, or being assaulted, or about to be killed. But stop stop people from watching an adult film. Perhaps a non-married couple from having sex, to use as examples.

Its the Far-Left that tends to get accused of being against property rights and self-ownership. But the fact is most Socialists now in the world even and just look at Europe, believe in property rights. Its just really the Marxists on the Far-Left who are against really any form of individuality and self-expression, because they see it as a potential threat to the state. And if you go over to the Far-Right, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the Islamic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, they'l by law will tell women what they can wear in public and force them to be sub-servant to their men. But by in large on the Right at least in the West, property rights and even self-ownership, are very popular and common. At least with the Center-Right. People in the West at least both Right and Left, all believe in at least a certain degree of individual freedom. Because we understand the benefits of self-ownership and property rights.

Heidi Fleiss: Hollywood Madam (1995)

Source:IMDB- Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss.

Source:The Daily Review  

"A documentary crew from the BBC arrives in L.A. intent on interviewing Heidi Fleiss, a year after her arrest for running a brothel but before her trial. Several months elapse before the interview, so the crew searches for anyone who'll talk about the young woman. Two people have a lot to say to the camera: a retired madam named Alex for whom Fleiss once worked and Fleiss's one-time boyfriend, Ivan Nagy, who introduced her to Alex. Alex and Nagy don't like each other, so the crew shuttles between them with "she said" and "he said." When they finally interview Fleiss, they spend their time reciting what Alex and Nagy have had to say and asking her reaction." 

From IMDB 

"The so-called "Madam to the stars," Heidi Fleiss talks to Crime Watch Daily about her past, her infamous black book and what she's doing now." 

Source:True Crime Daily- Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss.

From True Crime Daily

Source:The Daily Review- Hollywood Madam Heidi Fleiss.

Did Heidi Fleiss break the law? Well prostitution is illegal in Los Angeles, California and the United States and that is the business she had. So of course she was guilty of breaking the law and Los Angeles and the Feds were simply doing their job when they had her arrested and later convicted of running a prostitution ring. 

But what was Heidi Fleiss guilty of? Prostitution, which is the selling of consensual sex between a prostitute and a client. The prostitute is paid for having consensual sex with their client. Generally the prostitute is a woman and the clients tend to be men. And where Heidi comes in is that she's guilty of running a business that involves the selling of consensual sex. Not running a hitman operation, or selling immigrants, money laundry, or any other business where innocent people are hurt simply for doing their jobs.

So Heidi ends up doing about two years in prison in the late 1990s for running a business where a consensual service for payment is involved. She wasn't in prison for murder, rape, assault, bribery, child pornography, child prostitution, where innocent people are hurt by predators and intentionally so. She did time in a Federal prison for selling a service that two people consensually agreed to. And ends up taking resources from the criminal justice system, law enforcement, prostitution and prison, at taxpayers expense. Money that could have been used to put away, gee I don't know, about dangerous criminals. 

I'm not an expert on Heidi Fleiss, but I believe a big reason for why California and the Federal Government, went so hard at her, is because she was so good at it. And perhaps looking to make an example of her.

Heidi, wasn't called the Hollywood Madam for nothing. She was not only based in Los Angeles, but had a lot of L.A. clients in the Hollywood industry. Including Charlie Sheen, who in 1997-98, wasn't exactly at the height of his career dealing with alcohol and other drug addictions and when he was working doing movies that flopped. 

That is how you become a millionaire as a madam by working in Hollywood and getting confidential agreements with their clients. Because no one wants to go to jail, especially for consensual sex. 

Is Heidi an angel, I don't think she even looks like one, let alone is one and has personal issues with how she deals with people. But we're not talking about a criminal who hurt innocent people for either money, or because she enjoys hurting people. And this not someone who should have been in prison for what she was involved in.