Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Tennessee to Revoke Hunting, Fishing Licenses of Deadbeat Parents
FoxNews ^ | September 17, 2008 | Staff Writer

Posted on 09/17/2008 1:19:22 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The state is warning parents delinquent on child support payments that they risk losing drivers licenses, professional licenses and hunting and fishing licenses if they don't pay.

A news release from the Department of Human Services Tuesday says letters are being delivered to parents across the state behind at least $500 and haven't made a payment in more than 90 days.

More than 7,000 licenses were revoked last year for failure to pay, and there are more than 20,000 licenses currently at risk. Professional licenses that could be revoked include those of registered nurses, real estate agents, security guards and teachers.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: bigbrother; childsupport; extortion; fishinglicences; govwatch; parents; tennessee
Now our state is getting serious...

About time...

1 posted on 09/17/2008 1:19:25 PM PDT by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Bet if you took away their right to buy beer, they’d cough up that money.

;)


2 posted on 09/17/2008 1:20:51 PM PDT by Slapshot68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Horrible idea.
Big Brutha at it again.


3 posted on 09/17/2008 1:21:09 PM PDT by snarkytart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

What happens if the dead beat moves to another state?


4 posted on 09/17/2008 1:22:52 PM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

what about the ones that truly can’t pay what the state says they have to pay each month...i know here in florida if they go by the state mandated table it is very hard for a mother or father paying child support to be able to put a roof over thier own head and food in thier stomach...meanwhile the custodial parent is having a ball in most cases partying on the other parents money like it is a windfall....and i do speak from experience....


5 posted on 09/17/2008 1:23:15 PM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zuben Elgenubi

states have agreed to work with each other to make life miserable whereever you move too.....


6 posted on 09/17/2008 1:24:31 PM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

It’s exactly this kind of non-sequitor that means I MUST give out my SSN in order to get a hunting/fishing license. Suddenly my federally-mandated retirement plan becomes an issue at Wal-Mart because some total strangers won’t take care of their own kids - WTF?

How about something more direct & useful - like terminating the deadbeat’s Social Security benefits (tax still to be paid though) and routing his own money to his own kids? Leave my time in the woods out of it.


7 posted on 09/17/2008 1:26:32 PM PDT by ctdonath2 (The average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. - Ratatouille)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The state is warning parents delinquent on child support payments that they risk losing drivers licenses, professional licenses and hunting and fishing licenses if they don't pay

This is wrong.

8 posted on 09/17/2008 1:28:14 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (McCain/Palin 2008 : Palin the Paladin 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

During the last depression, one could blow off steam by hunting, fishing, smoking, drinking, etc.

What are we going to do for fun in this depression?


9 posted on 09/17/2008 1:29:21 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

Yes, it is about time. Now the state should revoke the deadbeat parent’s right to by beer and cigarettes.


10 posted on 09/17/2008 1:29:59 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Yes, it is about time. Now the state should revoke the deadbeat parent’s right to by beer and cigarettes.

The right to use those commodities was revoked a long time ago.

the reason they can still be bought is that the state is greedy for the revenue from sales, excise, and social-engineering taxes.

11 posted on 09/17/2008 1:32:12 PM PDT by elkfersupper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

“About time...”

Well, I agree, and I’m surprised they haven’t been doing this for years, as other states have.

The other thing that should be examined though is whether or not the “deadbeat dad” can possibly even make the payments that the court orders.

There are a lot of cases where “deadbeat dads” are really “dead broke” Dad’s through no fault of their own. A family court has ordered excessive child support payments and there is no appeal process, so they run, and no one benefits.

Then they really do become “deadbeat dad’s” even though they’d rather pay.


12 posted on 09/17/2008 1:33:39 PM PDT by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

“How about something more direct & useful - like terminating the deadbeat’s Social Security benefits (tax still to be paid though) and routing his own money to his own kids?”

I agree completely. If a father can be located, his wages can be attached, as they are in cases of court ordered payments of other debts.


13 posted on 09/17/2008 1:37:50 PM PDT by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

I disagree.

You can already put folks in jail for not paying

this is excessive to me and more far reaching...

we don’t do this to folks who owe on thern homes, credit cards, have fraud judgements against them, rape, murder or daon’t pay taxes

pedophiles can get a fishing license

this is another step to requiring a background check for a hunting licesnse

you just wait and see.

I don’t favor it. Put folks in jail if they don’t pay but all this other stuff is just over the top and let’s be honest...

this is directed at men 99% of the time

can you imagine a law like this directed at just women?

(from someone who paid nearly one million dollars in child support over 14 years to a woman who left me for a rich old fart)

and I’m still raising and paying for them in college now


14 posted on 09/17/2008 1:38:02 PM PDT by wardaddy (I want to be David Duchovny's character on Californication for just one week)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
that is precisely where this leads...

a hunting license will become a privilege just like everything else the state “grants”

I live here, Tennessee sometimes acts like one big stupidassed nanny State from beer regs, to smoke nazis and so forth

I was hoping this would slow down when Steve Cohen went to DC...

15 posted on 09/17/2008 1:41:09 PM PDT by wardaddy (I want to be David Duchovny's character on Californication for just one week)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #16 Removed by Moderator

To: tatsinfla
meanwhile the custodial parent is having a ball in most cases partying on the other parents money like it is a windfall

That may be your personal experience but it isn't the experience of the majority of custodial parents.
17 posted on 09/17/2008 1:47:23 PM PDT by fleagle ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

this is directed at men 99% of the time

________________________________

True. Men who don’t pay for their kids.

These laws are not targeting men like you. But rather the chronic baby-daddies who impregnate as many women as they can without even a thought of their offspring.

And so the state must enlarge the welfare rolls. Or they can get creative and do some real damage to the thugs who “hit and run”.

Again.... this law is not relevant to men who pay their child support.


18 posted on 09/17/2008 1:49:49 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd ( Please Pray for my Kitty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Yes, it is about time. Now the state should revoke the deadbeat parent’s right to by beer and cigarettes.

You can't by beer in TN without a DL. No matter how old you look everyone gets carded.

19 posted on 09/17/2008 1:52:45 PM PDT by ScottyinTN (Stuck on dialup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ScottyinTN

Opps. Make that “buy”.


20 posted on 09/17/2008 1:54:10 PM PDT by ScottyinTN (Stuck on dialup)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Not always. Child support does not stop until it gets to court, so, with an unsympathetic judge, a guy could lose his job, file, wait 90 days, ex won’t show, wait another 90 days for another court appearance, and the guy is on the hook, with no means to pay, for a half year of support. It’s that easy.

Trust me, i hate deadbeat parents as much as anyone, but your claim isn’t wholly truthful.

It sucks that it’s only money that is discussed when discussing deadbeat parents, i absolutely abhor parents who don’t spend every possible minute with their kids. The court does nothing aboutthat, just the money part.


21 posted on 09/17/2008 1:54:17 PM PDT by Travis T. OJustice (Change is not a destination, just as hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

How about we see some of these privileges revoked if you commit a felony, or are on public assistance and stealing money from the government?

Nah, just go after parents who are subject to onerous judgements not based in reality. Got it.


22 posted on 09/17/2008 1:59:16 PM PDT by AbeKrieger (Gore, Kerry, Obama. GOP Hat Trick 2008.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd; wardaddy
So they go after "chronic baby daddies who impregnate as many women as they can ...." Why don't they go after chronically stupid women who participate?

You naively tell wardaddy that "these laws are not targeting men like you." These laws are targeting any poor sap who can't swing the child support.

Responsibility 2nd, here's a hypothetical for you: A guy has a job that pays $50,000 a year; based on that salary, the courts have ordered him to pay, let's say, $1500 a month in child support. The guy gets let go from the job and cannot swing $1500 for the child support.

What happens next? Does the dad get nailed as a deadbeat dad?

I happen to know the answer to this hypothetical. DO YOU?

Divorce, child support, and child custody laws in so-called "Family law" courts (a sick and twisted misnomer if I ever heard one) are shameful in how they treat men and let women off the hook. NO WONDER there is so much teen suicide among boys. NO WONDER more and more young men are declaring (wisely, if you ask me) never to get married. NO WONDER rap lyrics are filled with such hatred toward women. NO WONDER girls, so many of them who've been deprived of a father's love, throw themselves at boys and become sexually engaged at such young ages. NO WONDER girls have such unrealistic expectations of their future husbands. NO WONDER so many young men are confused as to their own sexuality. NO WONDER our culture is experiencing the "metro-male" pansy-assification of the American MAN.

Our sadistic "family law" system, boosted by hysterical tendencies of women, a cultural willingness to deify and even celebrate single motherhood and simultaneously hold females morally and financially unaccountable for it, has treated American men like sh*t for the past 40 years. WE AMERICAN WOMEN SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED when males young and old finally start treating US like sh*t. That they've resisted doing so to the degree they have only shows the truth depth of honor in the male heart, and the utter craven petty wicked stupidness of typical women. I am a woman, by the way, the sister of brothers and beloved men who, along with their children, were emotionally RAPED by the very system you purport is so great.

I am disgusted.

23 posted on 09/17/2008 2:18:52 PM PDT by Finny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
The state is warning parents delinquent on child support payments that they risk losing drivers licenses, professional licenses

Isn't this taking away the ability to pay?

I wonder if voter registration will make the list?

24 posted on 09/17/2008 2:21:45 PM PDT by BerryDingle (I know how to deal with communists, I still wear their scars on my back from Hollywood-Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finny
....by the very system you purport is so great.

I am disgusted.

Whew!! Quite a rant you threw down. And I won't flame back at your stating I think the system is great. Because I don't.

I hate divorce and family courts as much as you. I could go on my own little rant about how evil they are. About how no-fault divorce is ruining America. And on and on...

But BTTT... My point was about baby-daddies. Thugs who knock up the girlfriends they just met last week. Punks who leave women and children for Uncle Sam to raise with our tax dollars. The point I was making WAS NOT about the corrupt divorce courts that are ruining America.

I'm just positing that it is in the State's best interest to pro-activily go after the low class scum could but won't pay child support.

25 posted on 09/17/2008 2:37:04 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd ( Please Pray for my Kitty!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

They do this in Minnesota. I don’t want to spend any time in the woods with irresponsible dead-beats...


26 posted on 09/17/2008 2:39:31 PM PDT by ButThreeLeftsDo (Fight Crime. Shoot Back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana
It depends on the definition of a dead beat parent. If the person loses his job, has tried to find work using Government agency requirements, and cannot find a job, is this dead beat.

If a person breaks his leg, cannot work until back on his feet, is that a dead beat.

Lets be real. This law has to be reasonable. It you take away his or her ability by jail, the other will never get a penny and you have cost the taxpayers for the incarceration. Stupid, unless the person has the means and is able to work the court should decide, not some District Attorney or Department of Human Services in some States.

27 posted on 09/17/2008 2:44:28 PM PDT by Logical me (Oh, well!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
It may be in the State's best interest, but it is NOT in the best interest of human beings. I'm very glad to read that you detest the system as I do, however, THIS IS ABOUT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, and it disgusts me that so many celebrate a law that has already proven to have horrible unintended consequences. This Nanny-State development in Tenessee is just one more step along the way of punishing men regardless and letting women off the hook.

By the way, the answer to my hypothetical: If the dad gets fired from his $50,000 a year job and cannot pay the court-mandated $1500 a month, EVEN IF THAT DAD then sends whatever he can -- say, $1000 -- he is at a very REAL risk of having his driver's license and other professional licenses revoked (great for a guy who's job hunting, right???). That guy has to PAY (in our case, many thousands of dollars) for an attorney to take the thing back to court to have the child support amount redetermined. If he doesn't have the $$ to hire the lawyer, he's caught in a Catch 22. It's bad for EVERYBODY CONCERNED.

28 posted on 09/17/2008 2:57:10 PM PDT by Finny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Logical me; Tennessee Nana
It you take away his or her ability by jail, the other will never get a penny ...

There is another more insidious evil that results. Boys and girls grow up with a perception of the male parenting/husbanding role (and the consequences of "failure") that is twisted, sick, materialistic, and immoral. THAT is where the worst damage takes place, and why these laws are so essentially WRONG.

It's like the FnFMac debacle. The government essentially took away the risk, and hence took away accountability for those leading Fannie 'n Freddie. The "deadbeat dad" crusade takes away the risk and accountability for the other half of the "deadbeat dad" equation. Is it moral to support that?

29 posted on 09/17/2008 3:11:25 PM PDT by Finny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tatsinfla; Tennessee Nana

Kids come first. You made a mistake chosing the person you married and then broke up with. If you MUST break up, take your lumps with the rules that were handed to you when you got married or when you chose to divorce. If you are crying in your beer, remember there are still married couples where only one spouse can work and has to work because 80 hours a week to make ends meet. The conditions of one’s divorce don’t void one’s responsibilities to their children. Gotta admit though, that no fishing thing would make me more attentive to my budget than divorce otherwise would.


30 posted on 09/17/2008 3:24:26 PM PDT by Delacon ("The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." H. L. Mencken)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
But BTTT... My point was about baby-daddies. Thugs who knock up the girlfriends they just met last week. ... I'm just positing that it is in the State's best interest to pro-activily go after the low class scum could but won't pay child support.

That's all fine and good, but the punishments in these modern day debtors' prison laws aren't in any way limited to the thug baby-daddies who can pay but don't.

Letting the militant feminists obscure the issues and quash debate under inflammatory terms like 'deadbeat dad' is how they twisted our system so badly in the first place. Don't help them out.

31 posted on 09/17/2008 4:48:00 PM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Delacon
Kids come first.

Nothing puts kids first like putting their father in jail for not supporting mom and her new boyfriend. The most important thing a father can do for his kids is participate in raising them. Paying mom is only tangentally related.

32 posted on 09/17/2008 4:51:21 PM PDT by CGTRWK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

I understand that but there are laws on the books already to prosecute.

What’s next?

can’t buy beer?

cigarettes?

can’t borrow money?

it could never end...

it’s an enhancement like hate crimes


33 posted on 09/17/2008 8:50:43 PM PDT by wardaddy (I want to be David Duchovny's character on Californication for just one week)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fleagle

sorry but i beg to differ.....at least in sunny florida...


34 posted on 09/18/2008 5:06:51 AM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Delacon

i didn’t cry in my beer and i fulfilled my obligations and was always there for my kids..but to make a point when my 14 yr old daughter made a choice to live with me instead of her partying mother the only way the mother would sign over custody was if she didn’t have to pay me support...i wanted what was best for my daughters well being and said no problem....its hard enough these days and then to punish a parent that is truly having problems paying what the state mandates by taking away thier drivers license is crazy, now you take away thier means of transportation to get to work and make a living and pay what they can....


35 posted on 09/18/2008 5:15:49 AM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: tatsinfla

Your opinion does not equal fact. And as I’ve learned before in here, there is no intelligent debate available on this issue on Free Republic. I’m sorry for your circumstances but bitterness accomplishes nothing.


36 posted on 09/18/2008 6:03:05 AM PDT by fleagle ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: fleagle

i have seen the system at work in florida have been a part of it so i think i can speak with facts. go online and look at the scedule and formula used by the state of florida to determine child support to be paid for a parent. use this formula using your income and then get back to me. i think you will see what i am saying.


37 posted on 09/18/2008 6:42:21 AM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tatsinfla
Family court stinks, there's no doubt about that. When we have a child we're responsible for it, and in the case of divorced or never married parents we lose touch with much of that responsibility when it comes to how the money provided gets spent.

I just hate it that the irresponsible ones, be it mothers or fathers, set the tone for the attitudes in society about child custody and child support issues.

Whether we like it or not, child support goes to the parent to decide to spend as best as they see fit to support the child. I wish there was a way to see that, in fact, child support payments go to support the child, and not a lifestyle for the custodial parent. But there isn't. Unfortunately, and I do know this from experience, having a child with the wrong person can be hell, not just for a short while but for a lifetime.
38 posted on 09/18/2008 6:58:30 AM PDT by fleagle ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: fleagle

i am not saying and never have said that someone should not be responible for the child they bring into this world....but the system is broken and needs fixed...when a state is taking 1/2 or more of a persons net income for support and leaving that person in a bind to survive on a daily basis is not fair...(note i said to survive)our society today in most cases requires both parents in a household to make ends meet as it is.............


39 posted on 09/18/2008 7:17:55 AM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: tatsinfla
I didn't say nor did I imply you advocated not being responsible for your child and I agree with you that the system stinks.

Do you propose changing the system by requiring that non-custodial parents pay less and custodial parents be required to contribute more? I don't have an agenda here, I'm merely asking.
40 posted on 09/18/2008 7:28:46 AM PDT by fleagle ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: fleagle

ok lets look at a scenario...a man and woman not married both have their own homes that they reside in...on current incomes they make ends meet with a couple extra dollars left over for entertainment...now they sleep together and oops a baby is born...the woman has custody of the child and the man of course is ordered to pay child support..the court looks at their gross incomes and determines that it costs 1200.00 a month (per the table) to support the child...the man makes a little bit more than the woman and is ordered to pay 800.00 a month in child support.... after taxes...insurance (which will go higher since he will undoubtedly be ordered to pay for that too)etc his net bring home is now 1200.00 a month if he is lucky....ok ya with me here...??...now the mother is probably netting around 2200.00 a month between her income and support...do you think the father or the mother if it was reversed can really survive any longer on 1200.00 a month considering todays costs....??...does it really take 800.00 a month to support a child...??...and before you say what about daycare i will add that in the state of florida the noncustodial parent usually is ordered to pay anywhere from 1/2 to all of that also....


41 posted on 09/18/2008 7:47:02 AM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: fleagle

i was sitting in a courtroom one day and the judge had a father in front of him that was behind on his support...the man was a mechanic by trade....the judge ordered his tools sold to pay for the back payments...now i ask what good is the judge doing taking away the mans lively hood which is going to put him even further behind...if they take a persons drivers license away are they not putting a bigger burden on that person where they now can not get to work...??...i know there are parents that just don’t care and those should be punished but in alot of cases that isn’t what is happening......


42 posted on 09/18/2008 7:50:31 AM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tatsinfla
These are compelling scenarios but you do realize that you're presenting one side of the story here. I won't drone on about women who are left with a child to raise without the benefit of the father's support, be it emotional or financial. There are compelling scenarios on both sides of this issue.

I cannot say whether or not it takes $800 a month to raise a child. No one can. What you're recommending to fix the problem, of which we agree there is one, is to adjust the percentage required of the non-custodial parent to pay? I believe you have a legitimate point there. The standards of living of both parties involved should be a larger part of the equation.
43 posted on 09/18/2008 8:16:52 AM PDT by fleagle ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fleagle
When I say a larger part of the equation what I really mean is that what is being financially demanded of the non-custodial parent needs to take into consideration his or her lifestyle and the impact the monthly payments will make. There also needs to be more flexibility and understanding when there is a financial hardship experienced by either party.

Not to bash lawyers, but heck, let's go ahead and bash 'em, I had one tell me to (exact quote) "take him for all he's worth" when discussing my child support issue with me pro bono. I chose not to take any action and have been more pleased with that decision than I can ever express. No courtroom drama, no lawyers bills, no hassle, and no animosity. My choice isn't for everyone, but I wish more parents would get away from lawyers, and many in society, with the attitude of "let's take him (or maybe her) for all their worth."
44 posted on 09/18/2008 8:23:37 AM PDT by fleagle ( An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. -Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: fleagle

note that i did say:

i know there are parents that just don’t care and those should be punished but in alot of cases that isn’t what is happening......

i do relize that there are deadbeats (mothers and fathers)


45 posted on 09/18/2008 8:27:43 AM PDT by tatsinfla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CGTRWK; Delacon
"Kids come first."

Nothing puts kids first like putting their father in jail for not supporting mom and her new boyfriend. The most important thing a father can do for his kids is participate in raising them. Paying mom is only tangentally related.

AMEN, cgt! The idea of what constitutes putting kids "first" with regard to divorce has resulted in a thoroughly immoral and destructive definition of parenting that is hurting kids, especially boys, far more than mere lack of money would hurt them.

And Delacon, I love Dr. Laura. Yet I risk being tarred and feathered because what I am about to say is sheer heresey in today's "conventional wisdom" (which is an oxymoron, as Rush frequently points out). HERE IT IS: Except for pure protective physical survival, kids don't come first in the really big picture, and never have. Great societies and civilizations didn't happen because men put their drives, dreams, passions, and careers on hold because of their kids. It is a destructive falsehood, and when societies require men to sacrifice their dreams and aspirations on the altar of "putting kids first," men who would otherwise be doing great and innovative things (and setting great examples for their kids) end up unhappy and unfulfilled, while boys receive a horrible example of what it means to be a father.

You want proof that I'm on to something? This whole "kids come first at the expense of the career choices of dads" (especially when mom takes the kids and leaves dad for an arbitrary reason, such as "I'm unfulfilled! I'm unhappy!") started what, about 30 years ago -- that's when you began to see whole homes and households entirely child-focused, instead of adult-focused with set-asides for kids. TODAY we see too often the phenomenon of man-boys and woman-girls still living with their parents in a society where they have every opportunity to make it on their own financially.

NO WONDER! These poor people were raised in a world that absolutely revolved around kids and childhood; everything came to a screaming halt for the kids' "benefit," including Dad moving to another city so that he (still married to mom or not) could do somethign exciting with his life. When the kids grow up and become adults themselves, WHAT IS LEFT????

Conservatives, the truth is that for civilizations to remain moral and progress well, kids must be considered temporary, if serious and blessed and divine, responsibilities. Your primary responsibility lies elsewhere -- to your marriage, to your honor, to your heart, and to your God. ONLY THEN will kids and parenting be right because only then will kids be regarded with the right balance.

46 posted on 09/18/2008 8:55:41 AM PDT by Finny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson