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.
Last night FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) hosted an event here in Silicon Valley. President and CEO Greg Lukianoff appeared and as usual shared humorous remarks. He was joined by Antonio García Martínez, a well known tech executive with deep insights into the industry and target of cancellation at Apple who similarly shared […]
“The Universal Declaration of Human Rights” is a United Nations document that assumes some ideas preexist others. Here’s what I mean. The idea that all people have worth, value, and dignity is a preexisting idea. The idea is in the first line of the U.N. document. Any group or nation which defends the rights of […]
“Your rights get lost when you depart from the original meaning. And then sometimes, wait, it gets worse. Not only does it take stuff away, it puts stuff in there that isn’t.” — Justice Neil Gorsuch
Given this week’s Supreme Court hearings, this quote seemed appropriate. Especially since several Justices put stuff in that isn’t there. Such as statements about 100,000 kids being hospitalized for Covid with many on ventilators. Or that another justice claimed that there were 750 million new cases of Omicron just yesterday. (Even worldwide, that means close to 1/10 of the global population contracted Omicron just this week. In the US? Everyone caught it twice yesterday.) These are the minds that will be deciding the fate of millions. I don’t know if that scares you. It certainly scares me.
Ricochet.com Editor-in-Chief Jon Gabriel is in for Jim. Today, Jon and Greg welcome polls showing just a 4-6 point lead for the Democrat in the New Jersey governor’s race. They also have plenty to say as emails show the National School Board Association and the Biden administration were in contact well before the NSBA publicly asked for the administration’s help in declaring parents domestic terrorists and the Justice Department turned the FBI loose on those same parents. And they have fun with the argument from some on the left that trees need legal rights.
Information has taken on a whole new meaning in the digital age, a time when sensitive data is either too easily accessible or not accessible enough. This issue of access to information encompasses fundamental human rights – specifically the freedom of speech as well as the right to privacy. Because it’s a primary means of […]
We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, That to secure these rights Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…
Among these. A government that doesn’t secure for its citizens the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is illegitimate. Ol’ Tommy J. was specific about that point when he penned the Declaration. But he implies the existence of others. Heck, he does more than imply it; let me quote from further down the Declaration, in the list of complaints:
https://www.ecolandscaping.org/03/landscape-design/when-your-contractor-is-not-familiar-with-ecological-design/ I was glancing over this article (I only link it to show I’m not imagining things) where pretty far into it, an issue came up that I had never expected in the sane world. So you don’t have to plow through it, essentially public construction work or at least landscape construction can end up […]
Science cannot tell us whether we should or should not do or allow something, but it can help us understand what that thing is. Science shows that fertilization creates a unique living human, but it has nothing to say about what rights that human has. The argument against abortion is simply that all humans have […]
AND the Bill of Rights, you self-righteous, finger-pointing, screaming, hate-mongering, divisive—oh, I think you get the idea. Where do you get off telling me about ‘rights’ discovered in these documents in the last decade that scholars and lawyers have been unable to find in the preceding 22 decades? Same-sex ‘marriage’, a fine that’s a tax […]
New “traditions” are entrenching themselves in America. Spontaneous one-man Civil Rights movements and the desecration of historical monuments have become authoritative expressions of the character and legacy of our society. Of course, these are not real “traditions.” They are the product of the fiery passion of democracy, the ardor of Jacobin fiends who have redefined what it means to be American. This is the chaos of a country without Tradition.
Tradition is a gift–an inheritance handed down over generations and not particular to any one person, family, or nation. It includes the mores of ancestors, and their heroes and holidays (as we had in this week’s Columbus Day) that express shared historical foundations. Tradition addresses the little things, like the proper attire at an evening party, even as it maintains great institutions, like the family, marriage, and religion. Though it cannot be explained by pure reason and logic, Tradition is in harmony with Nature, allowing us to better understand man’s origins and the world around us.
Today, however, Tradition is deemed senseless superstition — an arbitrary and expendable personal preference to be rejected at every turn. One cause of this has been Americans’ shared overreaction to the tumult of the Civil Rights Era. Generations formed in the ’60s and ’70s were riveted by the great courageous heroes of this movement and, of course, the natural justice of its cause. But after relentless revisions of history, future generations have failed to learn many other aspects of our culture’s past that are worthy of reverence — historical virtues without which the Civil Rights Movement would not have been possible. Thus, when we welcome immigrants now, we seem so ashamed of our past that we prefer that they bring their own identity, heroes, language, and mores with them rather than share ours as their common inheritance.
A day after another bloodbath in the name of Islam the West is looking itself in the mirror and asking the same questions it began asking itself in earnest almost 15 years ago. How do you fight this? The answer has eluded us as surely as a puzzle missing a piece or two, and the […]
Editor’s Note: This is the second of two pieces we’re publishing today on abortion. Majestyk’s post may be found here.
I’d like to thank Majestyk for the opportunity to respond directly and immediately to his post. I would also thank Tom Meyer and the Ricochet editors for the invitation to offer a counterpoint to Majestyk’s argument. He makes some interesting points which clearly require a reasoned response.
Honesty and good faith demand that I first set forth my position on abortion: I believe that abortion is the intentional taking of an innocent human life; that this is always wrong; and that there can be no compromise. I happily admit that I am fanatical if that term is defined as unyielding in my belief that human life — from conception to natural death — is sacred. In my view any leeway is a devil’s bargain, not simply because innocent lives will be lost, but because a society that authorizes the killing of the defenseless will quickly perish, as we are witnessing in the population collapse that is sinking the western world. Thus the stakes are enormous.
My fellow traditionalists, you don’t get it. SCOTUS did not disregard the obvious authority of states to define marriage requirements. From the progressive perspective, the definition of marriage remains unchanged. From that perspective, what changed is that a wrongfully excluded class of people has been granted access to that which the states continue to define. Preview […]
Many a time, I have gotten into discussions with my lefty friends about the Second Amendment. It usually goes something like this:
Friend: Are you for gun rights?
Friend: Would you be okay with machine guns?
The issue with the any such conversation is the context of the questioning. Is the Second Amendment a right or a grant?