Preview Mode Links will not work in preview mode

All free!! All educational. All entertaining. All professionally recorded. No empty rhetoric here. Just entertaining learning. Choose from many different topics from the best talent around the world. Earn your American Conservative Masters Degree just by listening. No writing, no assignments. Just listen at the feet of some of the worlds greatest Conservative thinkers. Visit us at

Mar 30, 2018

Show 3012 Stossel. The Paris Climate Fraud, Take the Red Pill, Social Credit Score, Trump's Steel Tariffs, The STOSSCARS!, Crushing Unions, How Free Are You?, Why are Indians Poor?

For a great archive of ReasonTV videos visit-


The Paris Climate Fraud

Published on Mar 19, 2018

President Trump is right to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement! The deal isn’t worth the paper it is written on. But many politicians and much of the media are horrified. Al Gore called pulling out of the Paris Agreement a “reckless and indefensible decision.” Former President Obama said: “This administration joins a handful of nations that reject the future." Really? Have they read the agreement? Stossel interviewed one of the few people who did, City Journal Contributing Writer Oren Cass. He describes the agreement as “somewhere between a farce and a fraud.” Why so dismissive? Because, as Cass told Stossel, “you don't even have to mention greenhouse gases in your commitment. You send in any piece of paper you want, we're going to staple them all together and we're going to call that the Paris Accord.” What is in these commitments (or not in them) will surprise you. China pledged to “achieve the peaking of carbon dioxide emissions around 2030.” That sounds good, except a U.S. government study, done before the Paris Agreement, estimated China would reach peak emissions by 2030. So China pledged to continue doing exactly what it was doing. Yet Cass told Stossel China was one of the better pledges. “India made no pledge to limit their emissions at all. They pledged only to become more efficient…But they proposed to become efficient less quickly than they're already becoming more efficient. So their pledge was to slow down.” Pakistan’s pledge was even more meaningless, simply pledge to reak a peak emission “much beyond the year 2030." Cass says only one country took a different approach, the U.S., which set the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% below 2005 levels, by 2025. “President Obama took all the zero commitments from everybody else, but threw in a really expensive one for us.” Oren Cass and John Stossel don’t dispute basic climate science. Stossel says yes, the earth is warming. Man may well be increasing that. But the solution isn’t to waste billions by forcing emissions cuts in America while other countries do nothing-- while pretending to make cuts. Trump was right to repudiate this phony treaty. Most of us didn’t even know how phony it was. But now we do.


Red Pills: New Generation Wakes People Up

John Stossel

Published on Mar 28, 2018

Citing the movie The Matrix, Candace Owens says she "took the red pill," waking up to see that conventional wisdom is wrong. Now she shares her perspective with millions of people on YouTube.

"I launched my career on YouTube... My second video went trending worldwide with 80 million views," Owens tells John Stossel. She hopes to convince other blacks that Democrats' big government policies are harmful. Owens argues that the big issue facing blacks is not racism or police shootings, but dependence on government. That began, she says, more than 50 years ago with Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." Since then, the rate of black unwed mothers rose to 77 percent. Owens blames the government, "they incentivized mothers not to marry their fathers. That's why single motherhood is up. The government would give you more if you didn't marry him." Owens tells Stossel regulation and overreach hurt the black community. "We've got the government regulating nail salons, eyebrow salons. Government has extended an overreach into every single arena of our lives."


China's Freedom-Crushing "Social Credit Score"

Published on Mar 20, 2018

In America, tech giants know a lot about us. John Stossel says that's fine with him

He knows what information he's handing over and he does it voluntarily. But he says we should worry about becoming like China, where the government is starting to use online data to create 1984 in the real world. China's government has announced that they'll assign a mandatory government "social credit score" to everyone in the country by 2020. It will be based largely on what you do online. Say something that gets censored, you lose points. Same if you watch porn, or are late in returning a rented bike or buy lots of alcohol. China's government boasts that the social credit system will "allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step." "It is a big deal," says Li Schoolland, a Chinese-American libertarian activist who works with Chinese supporters of freedom. The social credit system, she says, will expand to the whole country, what China already does to some government critics. Some of them are jailed. Some are never heard from again. The government will expand the use of lesser punishments under the new program. Schoolland explained to Stossel what will happen to people with low scores: "First [you lose] your job, or you never get promoted ... and your children cannot get into good schools." America's government doesn't do anything like that, yet, but Stossel wonders about the future. Already, police in New Orleans, Los Angeles, and other cities practice "predictive policing." The tech company Palantir analyzes social media and phone location records, tracks people's ties to gang members, and predicts the likelihood that someone will commit a crime. Still, Stossel says he's glad to be in America, where he can criticize the government on Youtube, Twitter and Facebook. He's never been punished for that. So far.


The Philly Soda Tax Scam

Published on Mar 13, 2018

Want a soda? It costs a lot more in Philadelphia thanks to a new tax on artificially-sweetened beverages. A 2-liter bottle of Coca-Cola that once cost $2 now goes for $3. Politicians and activists applauded when the bill was signed. They said the tax was needed to fund early childhood education.

But John Stossel points out that the tax has unintended consequences. It harms local businesses. "It's a bad tax," Melvin Robinson, owner of Bruno's Pizza, told Stossel. His store is on the outer edge of Philadelphia, so his customers just cross the street to avoid paying the tax. Philadelphia City Councilman William Greenlee defended the tax, saying "we're raising enough money to put 2,700 kids in Pre-K and to open 11 community schools." The pizza parlor's customers didn't think their taxes were being well spent. "Preschool? I doubt that very much," one man told Stossel. "The Mayor says he is helping people," Stossel replied. "He ain't helping me. He is tearing me up," the customer answered. Another unintended consequence is that soda sales are down in Philadelphia, but liquor sales are up. When Stossel mentioned that to Greenlee he replied. "I don't know about that," laughing, "cause we have a liquor tax, too!" Philadelphians already pay 44 taxes: including state income tax, sales tax, cigarette and alcohol taxes. "You should be rolling in money," Stossel told Councilman Greenlee. "But there's a lot to do out there, John," he responded. Yet a lot of the money goes to non-essential projects. The Office of Arts and Culture receives $4 million, to fund things like "Hip Hop Fundamentals." "They're funding the arts," Stossel told Melvin, the pizza store owner. "What arts? People trying to live!" he replied. Melvin has just one request for the politicians: "Stop stealing. That would be nice." Stossel doesn't think the politicians are stealing, but they do pay themselves three times Philadelphia's median wage, and pass bad laws like the soda tax.


Trump's Steel Tariffs Will Hurt Americans

Published on Mar 6, 2018

The Trump administration says a steel tariff will be announced in the next 2 weeks to preserve American industries. John Stossel says that won't work

 George Bush tried a similar tariff. Steel production hardly rose at all, and 200,000 jobs were lost in American industries that depend on steel. Trump is also using the 25% tax as leverage to get Canada and Mexico to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement. He calls the current deal "such a disaster." But Stossel says NAFTA has been good! Avocados were once rarely eaten in America. They were hard to find in the winter because American producers can't grow year-round. Mexican farmers can, however, and since NAFTA, Americans buy 4 times as many avocados. American producers weren't hurt much -- they still grow roughly the same amount they did before NAFTA. But consumers are much better off. People think NAFTA harmed manufacturing. Trump points out that "before NAFTA went into effect, there were 285,000 autoworkers in Michigan. Today, that number is only 160,000." That's true, but it's mostly due to technology, not trade. Robots do work humans once did. Looking at total production of cars and car parts, American auto output is up since NAFTA. Stossel points out that trade also enables amazing things like iPhones. Apple gets raw materials from 63 different countries, and sends the raw materials to 34 different countries for processing. Multiple countries then assemble the products. All that helps make phones affordable, and profitable to produce. Stossel says: Yes, trade hurts some Americans. But it helps many more of us.



Published on Feb 27, 2018

It’s time for the Oscars. Hollywood will give actors awards ­for what Hollywood thinks are the best performances.

But they leave out a most important category: political actors. John Stossel says that’s wrong because politicians deceive people just as much actors do, so some of their performances deserve recognition. So Stossel created the Stosscars! The Stosscar awards go to the best and worst performances by politicians. Here are some of this year’s winners (and losers). The Stosscar for “Best Performance by a Rich Elitist” goes to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. In her eagerness to trash Trump’s tax cuts, she described $1000 bonuses as “crumbs." “Best Performance by a Democrat” goes to San Francisco DA George Gascón. After California legalized weed, DA Gascón promised to drop thousands of past marijuana convictions. “Best Democrat on Free Speech” award goes to Senator Elizabeth Warren. At a Senate hearing “Exploring Free Speech on College Campuses” she said: "It's dangerous to suppress speech. First, suppression can backfire. Instead of shutting up individuals with disgusting views, it becomes a launching pad to national attention." The Stosscar for “Best Defense of the Constitution” goes to Senator Rand Paul for his fight against FISA renewal. Link: Senator Paul demanded the NSA and FBI follow the Constitution and get warrants before they listen to Americans’ phone calls that may have been picked up during surveillance of foreigners. Unfortunately, he lost that fight. The “Worst Act of Bi-partisanship" Stosscar goes to Senator Mitch McConnell and Senator Chuck Schumer for their budget deal. Link: It added billions of dollars to our unsustainable debt, and cut almost nothing. Finally John Stossel gives a Lifetime Achievement Award to Dr. Ron Paul for his years of constantly challenging the enemies of liberty.


Supreme Court Ruling May Crush Unions

Published on Feb 22, 2018

Monday the Supreme Court hears a case that could block unions from forcing government workers to pay union dues.

John Stossel was forced to pay union dues when he worked at CBS and ABC, and he says government workers should have the right to choose whether to pay. Of course, that would weaken the power of union leaders. Teacher Rebecca Friedrichs says their power should be weakened. She tried to fight people she calls “bullies" at the California Teachers Association. She was trying to save some teachers’ jobs during the last recession by getting all her fellow teachers to take a slight pay cut. She says the teachers were willing to take a cut-- to save jobs, but the union would not even allow her to survey the other teachers. So Rebecca decided she no longer wanted to pay union dues. She sued the California Teachers Association and her case went all the way to the Supreme Court. Observers said Rebecca was likely to win. But then Justice Antonin Scalia, who would likely have ruled in her favor, died. Without him, the case tied 4-4; that meant the union won. Now, Scalia has been replaced by Neil Gorsuch, and the court will hear a nearly identical case next week brought by plaintiff Mark Janus. The union being sued is America's largest government workers' union, the AFSCME. Their Director of Research and Collective Bargaining, Steven Kreisberg, tells John Stossel it would be unfair for the court to make public-sector unions like his "right to work." Kreisberg suggests that the plaintiff "simply doesn't want to pay [dues] because he'd like to get those [union] services for free." Stossel asked Rebecca about that. Her answer: "I never asked for [union] representation... I don't see it as a benefit... the benefits aren't worth the moral costs." By "the moral costs", she means the harm in supporting a union that she thinks harms kids and teachers with their bad policies. Stossel says he hopes the court will make government-worker unions "right to work", because (quoting Thomas Jefferson) forcing someone to pay for something they don’t want is tyranny.


How Free Are You?

Published on Jan 30, 2018

Are you living in the freest country? Not if you live in the United States.

The new “Human Freedom Index “ by the Fraser and Cato Institutes, ranks countries by both economic freedom -- like freedom to trade, amount of regulations, and tax levels -- plus personal freedom, like women’s rights and religious freedom. America rose seven spots in the latest report, to number 17. But it's still far from where it once was. Report co-author Ian Vasquez tells John Stossel that America "used to be a 2, 3, or 4 and then government started to grow. It started to spend more.” President Bush signed the Wall Street bailouts and increased regulations. Obama continued increasing regulations and upped America's top tax rate. Stossel says a good ranking matters, not just because it’s good to be free, but because freedom allows people to prosper. The countries near the top of the rankings, like Switzerland and Hong Kong, tend to have less government. Stossel says places with less government are better places to live. The top of the list: Switzerland Hong Kong New Zealand The bottom: Libya Venezuela Syria You can see the entire ranking at


John Stossel - Why Are Indians Poor?


Published on Dec 15, 2014

Manny Jules (Former Kamloops Indian Band Chief) and Dr. Terry Anderson (PERC Executive Director) discuss how government policy keeps Indians poor and dependent.


Subscribe to my YouTube channel: Like me on Facebook: Follow me on Twitter: