Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
For the Children
For the children is an expression frequently invoked in the past by a number of Democrat politicians, but based on their actions, it seems a very empty proposition. Then there are those who have no clue at all what a commitment to children and family means, such as in the case of Keith Olbermann. Here again, I will quote Megyn Kelly for illustration of my point:
Even Keith Olbermann was saying similar things, comparing Tucker to a nazi. He also, for good measure, decided to tweet about me because I said Tucker is going to be better off without Fox, and he said something to the effect of “You got fired from Fox and NBC, what would you know about it?”
So first of all, you mistake the circumstances of my departure from NBC, sir. That’s all I’m allowed to say about it. And as for Fox, there were widely reported facts that I was offered $100 million to stay there, but the record is very clear that I left voluntarily because I wanted to raise my family.
Something you don’t know anything about because no one would marry you, and you have no children. You have a cold, lonely life in which you’ve become a bitter, bitter man. Something I wouldn’t know anything about because my life is joyful and I’ve managed to raise my own children, and someday, I hope you have that pleasure, but I don’t have high hopes of that happening.
Issues about children and family have been on the front burner for several years now. Roe v. Wade has been canceled by the Supreme Court essentially ruling that there is no constitutional role for the federal government related to abortion. This is now an even hotter political issue dividing the politics of the two major political parties.
Public education has been at the top of that list as well since that has been the pathway for beginning indoctrination of the children in an anti-American viewpoint dominated by socialist collective ideas. Embedded in this indoctrination have been ideas designed to diminish the role and influence of religion and family in caring for the children culminating now in official government and corporate policy positions advocating for trans-gender proposals to bypass parental authority in allowing unalterable medical procedures to be performed on minors below the age of consent. Some high-level operatives are now saying that children belong in the care of the government rather than parents.
All this is very sad. I say this from my own personal experience. The biggest and most important change in my life came when I married and started a family with my wife. Our family members are the most valued earthly material objects present in our lives.
Today I am sharing living accommodations with one granddaughter who recently gave birth to her first, a daughter, my third great-grandchild. With this one, my experience is slightly different since I’ve seen her every day since she was born almost three months ago. The number of times I see her in a day, for example, exceeds what I was able to do when my own children were born because of work requirements. I cannot imagine, while seeing this, why any potential mother would forego such an experience by choosing to abort a baby conceived.
Being pro-life has given me three children, seven grandchildren, and now three great-grandchildren and made me even more pro-life and for the children.
Tucker Carlson gave a talk just prior to his termination from Fox News in which he said he had been persuaded that the government, corporate, and media in America had been acting in the interests of the American people, that he could now see that what he had thought for these many years was false and he was ashamed, that what was important in his field and his life is truth and I guess that’s where he wants to go. I’m with him on that score.
The direction being forced on the people today by our leaders is not for the children.
Published in General
Also, the killer objective measure would be the National Debt.
This is not an accurate summary of the Dobbs decision. That decision held that the federal constitution does not require any abortion to be legal. It did not hold that the federal government has no role in the regulation of abortion. The federal government does regulate abortion, in the partial-birth abortion ban, which has been upheld by the Supreme Court in a decision that was not reversed by Dobbs.
Bob, I don’t know what you’re referencing here. What did Carlson say? Your description makes it seem that Carlson said that the government, corporate, and media elites have been correct, and that Carlson has been wrong. This seems unlikely, to me.
Of course, now we have to define children. Are they still children until twenty-six when they go off Mom and Dad’s insurance?
I have heard people referring to the air guardsman who linked documents as a child.
Where does being a child stop? When are people supposed to grow up and put on their working man’s hats?
This might derail the thread, but what changed since the time of the 18th amendment? At that time, it seems that Congress thought that a Constitutional Amendment was needed for them to prohibit something. Now, it seems that no one worries about Congress banning something. Heck, when Pelosi was asked if the ACA was constitutional she basically replied, why would we worry about that?
Just the opposite. When Carlson said he was ashamed that was in reference to his believing over the course of many earlier years in his career that those entities mentioned were operating in the interest of the people. In the more recent times, Carlson realized that position was false and and that government, business, and media had little interest in truth or in what serves the people and he was interested in truth. So he had been wrong in his view but now he has it right and he is only ashamed of having been wrong earlier.
This corresponds in some ways to my own thoughts about how I viewed these entities in my earlier years and how differently I see them today. Maybe they have changed but I think much was there that I didn’t see all along.
There was a change in commerce clause jurisprudence in the 1930s and 1940s. The leading cases were NLRB v. Jones and Wickard v. Filburn. These remain the law, upheld by the bulk of the conservative wing of SCOTUS. Justice Thomas appears to be the only one concerned about this.
The commerce clause is the basis for a great deal of legislation, including the federal anti-discrimination laws, regulation of medicine and drugs, work safety regulations, and product safety standards.
The challenge with Obamacare was the mandate, not the idea that the federal government could regulate insurance.
Edited to add: The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) didn’t grant power to Congress. It actually established that alcohol was illegal, whether Congress agreed or not. Granted, the amendment had to be approved by a Congressional supermajority, but it was something that could not be changed by a subsequent law (other than a repealing amendment, which occurred). So I don’t think that you can conclude that the 18th Amendment is proof that at the time, Congress thought that it lacked power to regulate alcohol. I do think that, at the time, there was a question of whether or not Congress had such power.
Thank you. Congressional overreach usually gets blamed on the commerce clause. Thanks for the addendum. I better understand the 18th now. It seems similar to the 19th. I finally read it after another round of Repeal the 19th jokes this year. It says that states can’t prohibit women from voting. Therefore, if it was repealed, women wouldn’t lose to ability to vote right away. A state (or I suppose Congress for it to be national) would have to also pass a law restricting women from voting.
I sure hope she’s not done yet.
What strikes me so much about my great-granddauthter who’s a little over ten weeks now is the current almost daily change in her. She seems to be gaining some realization that part of what goes on depends on her so you can see the awareness in her face, the smiles start, her attention focuses, a lot of movement of arms and legs when she is awake lying on her back, and today I saw her arching her back so turning over is not far away. These are just some of what I can see, her mother, of course, gets much more.
It is hard to accept a potential mother foregoing all this.
Just the same, children can be usefully exploited for their partisan political purposes. So they really do care about the children.
The way any mechanic cares about their tools?
If we are going to have workers support old age people not working, then we should, in order to be equitable, tax the childless more than those who have or have had children. A lot more. Enough to offset the work my children will be doing to support them in their old age.
In fact, maybe it should be the more kids you not only have, but had, reduces your taxes accordingly. Forever. I did my part raising kids, sort of thing.
Maybe get credit for taxes actually paid by the children. So, no benefit from children who aren’t actually productive.
Nah, I had to raise them. Money now, money then, money forever!
The Childless musty pay!
The childless cost society less than people who produce criminal children.
Eh, what’s a few criminals. National Sales tax and they will pay plenty despite themselves. You can’t barter yourself a car, you got to pay for it.
Gimmie my money now!
That happens now. There are deductions and child credits.
But only until they turn 18 etc.
I don’t think the child credits work for those parents who don’t turn their children over to others and pay those others for what in many cases is indoctrination.
More!
Seriously, child credits don’t come close to the cost of raising kids. If we were serious (which we are not) they would be a lot higher.
Shouldn’t that be in the deductions rather than the credits since one of the reasons for the credit distinction is that one must show paying someone else to do the caring and teaching function? The parent that takes care of this should get the same benefit as one who pays someone else.
I think all education should be paid for in a voucher system controlled by the parents, while we are at it.
And nobody – especially no Democrats – would ever set up schools to accept “credits” and give kickbacks to the parents, nosirree!
Is that a voucher that can be cashed by the parent who home teaches?
I would say that there would be less reason to do that, but, yes I don’t see why not. I think you would need to demonstrate in some minimal way the kids are getting educated, but a basic standardized test could do that. Of course, the performance differences from married couples and single parents will be immediately said to be racist.
We are not a serious nation though. We tax people regressively with both FICA and property taxes (baked into rent) and take that money and spend it on people. I wonder if we just let them keep more of it to start with how it would go.
Please note, on none of this am I making a proposal for how it should all go.