Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 10:00 — 9.7MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS

The “Freedom of Speech” Thought Police

Freedom of speech is under attack in this county. The irony is that those who call themselves “tolerant” and “free thinkers” are, very often, the ones pushing against this right, both in our culture and via the legal system. Two examples in this episode include a man pushed out of his job because of an unrelated political contribution 5 years ago, and a group of people denied that right because they can speak louder and more than most people. In both these high-profile cases, the “Progressives” are most certainly not for progress.

Mentioned links:

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich Steps Down

Supreme Court strikes down overall limits on political contributions

Read the rest of this entry

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 9:50 — 9.6MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS

Who really killed the traditional bulb, and why?

The traditional, incandescent light bulb is going extinct this year. Environmentalists touted the fact that even the light bulb industry wanted to get rid of them. Yeah, well of course they did. Listen in to find out how this further cemented their hold on the market, using the environmentalists as useful idiots, and the government as their tool.

It has been said that voter ID laws are a solution looking for a problem, that voter fraud is so rare that it’s not worth the effort. Well, the Bureau of Investigations in New York City would take issue with that. They found fraud to be simple (with a 97% success rate) and undetectable. I detail how they did it, and how the government’s Board of Elections sprang into action to stop this. (OK, just kidding about that last part.)

Mentioned links:

Industry, not environmentalists, killed traditional light bulbs

Voter fraud: We’ve got proof it’s easy

Read the rest of this entry

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 10:00 — 9.7MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS

I’m a little under the weather this episode, and my voice reflects that. But I’m here anyway to bring you conservative commentary in 10 minutes or less.

This time around, I’m taking a look at 3 landmark rulings from the Supreme Court last week; striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, striking down a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and telling California voters that they can’t defend their own constitutional amendment if their politicians won’t do it themselves.

Is 50-year-old data better than current information when trying to determine who should come under the Voting Rights Act? Have we learned nothing from the mistakes of the past? The four liberal Supreme Court justices, Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Obama would answer No to both those questions, at least based on the outrage they feigned over the ruling. They can’t seem to bring themselves to believe that progress has actually occurred. Or they’re pandering to their base. Either way, to call requiring these stats to be updated “turning back the clock” is cognitive dissonance of the highest order. The request is that the clock be turned forward, and Democrats are against it. Or they are pretending to be against it, and hoping that their base isn’t paying attention.

Regarding DOMA: Basically, now that states decide what marriage is, the logical end of this is that marriage will mean what anyone wants it to mean, which means it will be meaningless. Since states were redefining an already well-defined term, it fell to the federal government to bring a little order and common sense to this chaos. I didn’t like it, but didn’t see any other good way out of it.

Regarding Prop 8: While I’m against true direct democracy (the ol’ “two lions and a sheep voting on dinner” analogy), the proposition feature of California law has a high enough bar to clear to get something on the ballot to safeguard that. But now the people’s will can be simply ignored, with the ruling of a single judge, and we, the people, have no standing to challenge it at the Supreme Court. Wow.

Mentioned links:

Supremes to Congress: Update the Voting Rights Act

Voting Rights Progress

Three at Last: What almost everyone is missing about the Voting Rights Act decision

SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN PORTION OF DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT, THROWS OUT PROP 8 APPEAL

Thoughts on DOMA and a Reaction Roundup!

Behold: The Democratic Process

Episode 38: What Marriage Is, Why It Matters, and the Consequences of Redefining It [Consider This podcast]

California ballot proposition

Read the rest of this entry

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 9:15 — 9.0MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 9:26 — 9.2MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 10:02 — 9.7MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS

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

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 9:51 — 9.6MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS

Looks like the first debate did have quite an effect on the views of the public. At one point, Romney was leading in New Hampshire. (Yes, that New Hampshire.)

For the past 16 years, global warming has stopped. Climate alarmists are still finding way to be alarmed, pushing out the goalposts to 20 years to see if they should be worried. (Yes, they’re worried about warming, and when it stops warming, they’re still worried.)

Drone strikes by the Obama administration have quintupled over the eeevil Bush administration. The anti-war Left could not be reached for comment, due to the fact that a Democrat is currently in the White House.

Mentioned links:

PollTracker (from Talking Points Memo)

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released… and here is the chart to prove it

Obama’s 262 Drone Strikes in Pakistan

Read the rest of this entry

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 9:17 — 9.1MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS

A single-topic show this time around, one that is designed for you to share on your social networks. The economy is a huge issue in this presidential election, and I give my reasons why I’m voting for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. There is so much riding on this, and the two parties really differ quite a bit on how they’ve shown they’ll handle it.

And if you’re one of those folks who was nudged this way, thanks for stopping by! I hope you’ll subscribe to the podcast, because a) it’s done in 10 minutes or less, and b) no yelling. Really, none.

Mentioned links:

United States Budget Dilemma (video)

More than 400 €1million homes put on the market in Paris since socialist Francois Hollande elected to power

The Truth About Taxes and Redistribution

Senate rejects budget measure containing Medicare overhaul

GOP Rep. introduces Obama budget, measure gets 0-414 drubbing

Instapundit, October 7, 2012

Read the rest of this entry

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 9:24 — 9.2MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS

In this episode is the first of (hopefully) many “intervs”. What’s an “interv”?

I’ve been mulling over the idea of doing interviews on the podcast. The main problem, of course, is that I have a self-imposed 10-minute-or-less format, and most interviews just get going in 10 minutes. So I had to set some rules for an interview that you normally wouldn’t have. And thus was born what I’m calling the “interv”; a short, to-the-point, question and answer format. You won’t hear any clever banter or what either of us ate for lunch. It’ll just be 2 or 3 substantive questions and we’re outta’ there.

The first interv is with Bruce McQuain of the “Questions and Observations” blog, and the podcast “Observations”. I ask him about Romney’s debate performance on Democratic voters, and about why it’s Univision, and not the American press, breaking new stories on the Fast & Furious operation.

You can still cast nominations for “Consider This!” for the Stitcher Awards. Just click here to go to the nomination page.

Mentioned links:

The “Observations” podcast

The “Questions and Observations” blog

The “Blackfive” blog

The HotAir Green Room

Read the rest of this entry

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 10:00 — 9.7MB)

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | TuneIn | RSS

This time, I’m back with a variety of topics, all coming to you in 10 minutes or less.

Todd Aiken talked about “legitimate rape”, and certainly got his 15 minutes (actually, 48 hours) of fame. Conservative and liberal pundits pilloried him for it. But when a liberal tried to make the exact same distinction, conservatives tried to point that out, while liberals … well, let’s just say they were considerably less outraged (i.e. hardly noticed). For the Left, it’s always political.

A study in 2006 of the charitable giving habits of conservatives vs. liberals showed that if you believe it’s your job to help take care of those who can’t help themselves, you will give more of your money and time to charities. Likewise, if you think it’s the government’s job, you’re less likely to be so giving. A new study has come out looking at this issue, and the results are, well, shall we say “unsurprising”.

Do you need a government permit to be charitable? I’m not even talking about running a soup kitchen; I’m talking about handing out free water. Apparently, in Phoenix, Arizona, yes, you do.

What do you think about Todd Aiken, charitable giving, or intrusive government. Leave a comment and join the conversation.

Mentioned links:

The View’s Whoopi Goldberg on Polanski: ‘It Wasn’t Rape-Rape’

The View’s Whoopi Goldberg on Polanski ‘It Wasn’t Rape Rape’ (video)

Smashing the Charity Stereotypes

Who Gives and Who Doesn’t?

Study: Red states more charitable

Valley woman told she could not hand out free bottled water in summer heat

Phoenix Christians Forbidden to Give Out Free Water

Read the rest of this entry