Subscribe to

Consider This

in Apple Podcasts

Apple Podcasts

in Google Podcasts

Google Podcasts

in Stitcher

Stitcher SmartRadio

on Android

Subscribe on Android

or the “podcatcher”
of your choice

RSS

I start out with a mea culpa this episode. No, the school where the President sends his daughters does not have armed guards.

A federal judge ruled in December that a North Carolina plan to offer license plates that say “Choose Life” is unconstitutional, saying the state cannot issue the plates without offering a similar product for the opposing viewpoint. So are they going to now have “Choose Death” plates?

CNN would like to say that they play the news down the middle, objectively. They’d like to say it, but on the gun control issue, “fair and balanced” is not quite accurate.

The Washington DC gun ban, passed in the 70’s, was ruled unconstitutional in the 2000’s. What happened to the murder rate during the ban, and after it was struck down, should be instructive when considering the Diane Feinstein gun ban. I have the info from a former prosecutor in DC.

Mentioned links:

4 Pinocchios for a slashing NRA ad on security at Sidwell Friends School

Federal judge rules North Carolina’s ‘Choose Life’ license plate unconstitutional

 Advocacy, Not Journalism: 13 CNN Guests Want More Gun Control, Only 2 Argue to the Contrary

Obama, Biden Announce Gun Violence Reduction Plan (see the first comment)

Read the rest of this entry

Filed under: AbortionGun ControlMedia

There are some surprise consequences from the passing of ObamaCare. (And by “surprise”, I mean “easily predictable”.) Hospitals are shutting down services and the electronic medical records that were going to save us all money may actually cost us more. Yeah, who could have possible predicted that? (Hint: Anyone paying attention.)

In 1999, almost 2,000 children were killed by guns. But in that same year, over 800,000 died from another killer. Just as much a tragedy, but one political party is trying to make sure it stays that way.

Mentioned links:

Southwestern Pa. hospital to stop baby deliveries

In Second Look, Few Savings From Digital Health Records

How many children are killed each year by gun accidents?

Abortion Surveillance — United States, 1999

Read the rest of this entry

Filed under: AbortionGovernmentGun ControlHealth Care

How can something like this be prevented?

How can something like this be prevented?

This past December, the issue of gun control was again pushed to the fore when a shooting at an elementary school 11 days before Christmas killed many 6- and 7-year-olds and their teachers. It was a tragedy which most of us can’t even begin to understand.

To have a conversation about guns –a dialog — we need to consider all possible options. And to do that, we need to find out what works. Not just in theory; we need to know what has worked well over a long period of time. Perhaps we should do what the President does to keep his girls safe. I’d also like to look at the history of school shooting deaths in Israel.

“Israel?”, you might say. “What can a nation with a population of 8 million tell the US, a nation of 300 million, about gun laws?” What indeed. Let’s look at their history of school shooting deaths. What did they do to completely stop school shooting deaths for more than 30 years?

A city in the metro Atlanta area, Kennesaw, GA, passed a law in 1982 that all heads of households were to own a firearm. The law is never really enforced (it has enough exceptions in it if you really don’t want to), but it’s on the books.

What happened in Israel to stop school shooting deaths? What happened in Kennesaw after the  mandatory gun ownership law? Listen in to find out.

Mentioned links:

The SciFi Christian

Wikipedia: School shooting

Wikipedia: Ma’alot massacre

Wikipedia: List of school shootings in the United States

Wikipedia: Gun laws in Illinois, History

Chicago Homicides Exceed U.S. Iraq Deaths: Is It News?

2 teens on West Side among 15 shot, 3 fatally, on New Year’s Day

Read the rest of this entry

Filed under: Gun ControlIsraelMiddle East

In this, the last episode for 2012, I have a special treat.

First, as the countdown to the Fiscal Cliff continues, tax increases seem to be the only way Democrats in Congress think that we can close the deficit gap. But Michael Barone points out that, no, tax increases alone will never be enough. It’s not the panacea that Democrats claim it to be. Another point is that higher tax rates don’t typically produce more tax revenue. So, what is the solution?

And the special treat is a guest contribution by Meryl Yourish. She and I contributed to the late, lamented Shire Network News podcast. She’s now a published author, but she agreed to do a special segment for my podcast. Meryl’s often noticed the many double standards that are applied to the country of Israel that don’t apply to its neighbors. That’s right; it’s Israeli Double-Standard Time!

Mentioned links:

Why tax hikes will never be enough

Federal Debt, Revenue and Expenditures as a Fraction of GDP

Video–Obama in 2009: ‘You Don’t Raise Taxes in a Recession’

October 2012 Employment Report – Not Particularly Good News

75 Percent of Obama’s Proposed Tax Hikes to Go Toward New Spending

Meryl Yourish – This Writing Life

Yourish.com

Darkness Rising: Book One of The Catmage Chronicles

Regarding the above-mentioned double standard (Yourish.com)

Bibi and the world’s double standard on Israel (Yourish.com)

Read the rest of this entry

Filed under: Budget & SpendingEconomics & TaxesGovernmentGuest ContributorsIsraelMediaMeryl YourishMiddle East

The National Health Service in the UK has something called the Liverpool Care Pathway, which is essentially a pathway to the grave. The LCP is what you might call the Death Panel Protocol. Its intent was to deal with terminally ill patients, but according to an article from the London Daily Mail, it has, like most government programs, expanded a bit, without, apparently, the knowledge of much of the public.

Jon Bon Jovi is a rock-n-roller from my era. Wasn’t much of a fan myself. However, in 2006, he started the Jon Bon Jovi Soul Foundation. According to Wikipedia, the group works with non-profit organizations and community leaders to help establish programs and partnerships that provide the basic needs of food and shelter. A couple years ago, he and his wife opened “The Soul Kitchen”, a restaurant where there were no prices on the menus, and customers who could pay were given an envelope to leave whatever amount they wanted. What if you couldn’t pay? Well, you could still eat there, but there was a condition. This is no freebie.

Mentioned links:

Now sick babies go on death pathway: Doctor’s haunting testimony reveals how children are put on end-of-life plan

Jon Bon Jovi’s charity restaurant opens in NJ

Read the rest of this entry

Filed under: CharityEconomics & TaxesGovernmentHealth Care

Do You Really Own Your Property?

We were told, point blank, that we don’t, by a local government employee.

Here’s the story. In the tiny town we live in, apparently there have been an increasing number of code violations regarding, among other things, people parking cars on their lawns, off the driveway. My wife, returning from our town’ s annual Christmas parade, was pulling up to our house with plans to park on the street in front of our house for the moment. She saw a Code Enforcement car coming down our dead-end street, and parked a little bit further off to the side, thinking that maybe this officer might be concerned that she was blocking too much of the street. In doing this, about 1/3 of the tire width was actually on the grass; a few inches.

When the Code Enforcement office turned around and came back down our street, he rolled his window down and said to my wife that, FYI, he was patrolling for, among other thing, cars on lawns and that, technically, he could cite her for her current parking situation, but wouldn’t this time. In the ensuing conversation, he told her a number of very odd things.

Now, I understand if a community doesn’t want to live in an area where people regularly park on their lawns. I can see erosion issues, and I can understand that this could lead to people who turn their property into auto mechanic yards. He mentioned that cars can leak fluid and it would get into the water supply. (Of course, those leaks from a car on the road would wind up in the storm drain where it would go directly into the lake behind our house, unfiltered by the ground. But he didn’t seem to realize that.) The community decides that it will make certain rules about how you keep your property, and you might get fined for breaking these rules, but it’s still your property. Not according to this guy. In his mind, since the government can create restrictions on what you can do, then it’s not your property. You only have the license to use it. He didn’t go into who actually owns it or who you’re licensing it from, but he was quite clear that  our ownership of the property was an illusion.

And, since I can’t, for instance, use my house as a factory, then I don’t really own that, either.

Really?

Now, my guess is this is just one, incredibly misinformed, random government worker we ran into. But still, is this indicative of a bigger issue regarding what government thinks? Perhaps folks at higher levels still do, in fact, understand the concept of private property, and that having regulations on the use of something doesn’t mean the regulatory body owns it. But really, this is unbelievable.

I can be put in jail for child abuse. Wonder what this guy thinks about my kids.

Filed under: GovernmentNanny State

Back with more topics than I’ve ever squeezed into 10 minutes or less, “Consider This!” is back with a new episode.

A friend of mine posted a graphic of Sen. Bernie Sanders with a  quote from him extolling the results of Social Security, with the tag, “Social Security has done exactly what it was designed to do.” Well sure, in the short term, big government social programs always look good. Think of how Social Security looked in the first 5 or 10 years. People who had paid little or nothing into it got monthly checks from the government. Wonderful.

John Hawkins at the blog Right Wing News polled conservative bloggers on who the GOP should choose at their 2016 nominee. The short answer? Marco Rubio was the clear winner. He was followed by Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal and Paul Ryan. The two who topped the list of those they least wanted to see on the ticket were Jeb Bush and Chris Christie. Then John asked, want to see something scary?

The government recently modified its determination of which states have the worst poverty rates. The new measure incorporates a controversial calculation of relative equality that demotes states that have wide gaps between wealthy people and people with less than one-third of state residents’ average income. This income gap is something that liberals have spoken out against, and believe they have an answer to. But with this new measure included, it’s interesting to see what state dropped to the rock bottom of the survey; California.

A government report released Monday warned that a sudden increase in taxes would result in lower consumer spending next year, and some analysts wondered if the concerns about what could happen might crimp spending throughout the rest of the holiday season. Um, yeah. The Obama administration is just now figuring out what conservatives have been saying, well, pretty much for a generation. In other news, the sky is indeed blue, and math still works.

What’s your take? Call me at 267-CALL-CT-0 (267-225-5280) or write me at considerthis@ctpodcasting.com. Or, since you’re already here, just comment on these show notes.

Mentioned links:

BERNIE SANDERS ON SOCIAL SECURITY

Right Wing News

Conservative Blogger Poll Results: Who Should The GOP Choose As Its Nominee in 2016?

Right-Of-Center Bloggers Select The Most & Least Desired 2008 Republican Nominee (Third Quarter Of 2007 Edition)

Polling Conservative Bloggers On The 2012 GOP Primaries

Golden State turns to lead, now leads poverty rankings

Stocks open lower on new fiscal cliff warnings

Read the rest of this entry

Filed under: Budget & SpendingEconomics & TaxesElectionsEntitlementsGovernment

I had a listener comment on one of the previous episodes, and I wanted to respond to his comment, especially the part where his criticism was absolutely on target. I said “I wasn’t guessing” when I contended that Ban Ki Moon hadn’t denounced anti-Christian or anti-Jewish speech like he did with recent anti-Islamic speech, but then I didn’t provide any examples. Listen as your humbled host is properly corrected.

But a more accurate statement isn’t really that much different. I tried to find similar examples, but Google News couldn’t find them. If you can, let me know, but for now it seems to me that, yes, threatening life and property is the way to get the UN’s attention.

Post a comment here or call me at (267) CALL-CT-0, (267) 225-5280,  and let me know what you think.

Mentioned links:

Episode 15 with comments

Read the rest of this entry

Filed under: Free SpeechGovernmentUnited Nations

Episode 21: The Post-2012-Election Analysis

Yes, the campaigning, the TV ads, the debates and speeches, and all the vote counting (well, except in Florida, where it’s tradition to drag that out) are now all behind us, and what do we have now? A Democratic President, a Senate controlled by Democrats and a House of Representatives controlled by Republicans. So basically, the same government we had before the election. The economy has been bouncing along anemically, millions have left the workforce, and of those remaining, a higher percentage of them are still out of work.

And votes for Obama were, explicitly or implicitly, a vote for ObamaCare, and with it the reduction of religious freedom as taking a stand for your beliefs against killing the unborn was considered less of an issue than making sure contraception would be dirt cheap for college students.

So what happened, or more to the point, didn’t happen?

It looks like the Obama campaign had the better “ground game”, as they call it. He got his base energized. Democrats were 38 percent of the electorate while Republicans were only 32 percent. I thought that the Chick-fil-A appreciation day was a harbinger of Election Day, but it was, apparently, only a measure of the evangelical support for Romney.

I won’t be a sore loser. The American people spoke, and congrats to President Obama and his supporters. It’s time to move forward. But forward to where? Listen in.

Mentioned links:

Exit Polls: Obama Gains With Latinos, Romney Gains With Evangelicals

On Second Thought…

30 Reasons Republicans Lost The Election

20 things that went right on Election Day

Read the rest of this entry

Filed under: AbortionBudget & SpendingEconomics & TaxesElectionsEntitlementsGovernmentHealth CareMarriage

This is the last episode before the election, so I’m making one final pitch.

From an economic standpoint, the choice is clear in this election; push on towards Greece, or hold on to economic freedom. Honestly, when you look at Greece, they’ve run out of money to pay for all the perks the Greek people have come to expect. There are people rioting in the streets, I suppose under the mistaken assumption that rioting puts money in the treasury.

While we’re teaching our kids to be thrifty and budget their money, we’re going to hand off to them debt in the double-digit trillions once they become taxpayers. A vote for Obama is a vote for just that bit of, frankly, immorality. And while we baby boomers are trying to collect our Social Security, they’ll be paying for that as well. Again, either we’re pushing towards Greece (the direction the Obama campaign describes as “forward”) or preserving economic freedom for our generation and future ones.

We have to cut spending. If you believe that, when it comes to revenue, the rich should pay more because they have more, then you should also understand that, when it comes to spending, those on whom we’re spending the most will have to bear their “fair share” of the cuts.

I am not calling for a ban on abortion, and, by the way, neither is Mitt Romney. However, if you think a million abortions a year is a bit on the high side, why would you vote for a party who is dedicated (according to their platform, both philosophically and financially) to making sure that abortion becomes equivalent of a civil right?

Mentioned links:

The Salvation Army disaster relief

Europe’s ageing population revolts at longer work and lower pensions

My blog post on the French pension protests of 2003

CBO: National Deficit to Hit Nearly $10 Trillion Over Upcoming Decade

The Sheep and the Goats, Matthew 25:31-46 (New International Version)

Democratic Platform “Opposes Any Effort” to Limit Abortions

Read the rest of this entry

Filed under: AbortionBudget & SpendingEconomics & TaxesElectionsEntitlementsEuropeGovernmentReligion

 Page 25 of 27  « First  ... « 23  24  25  26  27 »