During a speech in Rhode Island today, President Obama stressed the importance of public pre-school in America, pointing out that the cost of daycare was getting too high.
“Moms and dads deserve a great place to drop their kids off every day that doesn’t cost them an arm and a leg,” Obama stated. “We need better child care, day care, early child education policies.”
Obama explained that in many states it cost parents more money to put their kids in day care than it cost to put them in a public university.
“Too often parents have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper day care that maybe doesn’t have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child’s development,” he said.
Because America lacks public pre-school, Obama said, women often earned less money than men.
“Sometimes, someone, usually Mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the kids, which then leaves her earning a lower wage for the rest of her life as a result,” he said. “That’s not a choice we want Americans to make.”
Creating public pre-school, Obama explained, was not only “good for families” but “good for the children.”
So I watched this video in which Obama flat out says that he favors having the government spend more money on social programs for children, despite the fact that we know that mothers are best for young children. He is not the first to push this, Nancy Pelosi did the same in 2013. This is the view championed by Democrats.
These programs are a boon to the government workers who vote for Obama, because they will be run by secular leftist social workers. This is how they earn their living – by separating mothers from their children. They want to avoid having to please customers in the private sector – that’s too risky. They prefer to take over the job of mothering from a child’s biological mother. That’s safe. You don’t get fired from the government, and you don’t have the pressure of having to care about what customers think of you. This is attractive to people on the left – they want work to be like this, even if it means a child’s misery.
How will he achieve this?
Well, he will raise taxes on the husband, so that the husband can no longer support the family on his own. This will cause the wife to have to leave the children and go to work in order to make ends meet. This way, Obama can separate the child from her parents, and from the worldview of the parents. Instead of having parents working to raise their own child, you have the government raising children to believe what the government wants them to believe. For a secular government, this will probably be that family is bad, that religion is bad, that traditional morality is bad, that the free market system is bad, and that bigger government is good. Think of examples like sex education (abortion advocacy) and global warming (anti-capitalism), if you doubt this anti-family, anti-free-market angle exists.
Does it excite me, as a single chaste man, to get married and be a husband in a world run by feminist socialist leftists like Obama? No.
I am getting up every morning and going to work so that I and my future wife can run my family our way – to promote our worldview and our values. We would be doing the work of raising a family, so we should be allowed to pass on our values. But thanks to feminism and socialism, we have these bloated parasites in government who steal our children from us and then charge us money in order to pay for imposing their disgusting, immoral values on them. The American people somewhere along the line decided that even though I earn the money, that someone else ought to be passing on their values to my children. And this would be all the people who traditionally vote Democrat. They decided that. There are many young, unmarried Christian women who vote Democrat. They decided that. They “feel” that more powerful government is more desirable than more powerful families. Nothing they hear in church teaches them not to vote for stronger government over stronger families.
I would like more Christian leaders to be telling the young, unmarried women to stop voting for bigger secular government. Someone has to get that through their heads – that men do not like sharing the duty of leadership with anyone – especially not with clowns who have degrees in the humanities and could not find private sector jobs serving customers. Unfortunately, my friends tell me that the most common books being read by young Christian women on dating sites are books by A.W. Tozer, Francis Chan, Harry Potter, Left Behind, Phillip Yancey, Beth Moore, Nancy Leigh Demoss, Joyce Meyer, Elizabeth George, Stasi Eldgredge and so on. There is a complete lack of seriousness among many Christian women about marriage and family as it relates to economics, politics and education. It’s not just apologetics that is lacking. Everything is focused on feelings, but the attraction and feasibility of the marriage/family plan is diminishing after each election right under our noses. It is diminishing for men. And there is no marriage and parenting without a man, however much Christians seem to be turning toward and celebrating single motherhood – i.e. – marriage to the secular state.
Young unmarried women, if you expect to get married, you’d better start voting for small government. Small government means bigger individuals and bigger families, and that’s exactly what men who consider marriage and families want. Wake up.
- New Oxford University study links non-family day care to anti-social behavior
- How early can you start to teach children about Christian apologetics?
- Feminist Nancy Pelosi pushes national daycare program
- How the UK government penalizes stay-at-home moms and pushes kids into daycare
- UK offers more money to working women and single mothers, nothing for stay-at-home moms
- Single mothers are better off with a $29,000 job and welfare than with a $69,000 job
- Dennis Prager offers the best concise analysis of the effects of feminism ever
11 thoughts on “Obama on stay-at-home moms: “that’s not a choice we want them to make””
Reblogged this on A Conservative Christian Man.
It’s a good post. You’re right you know, we are replacing men with the government. What some women don’t understand however, is that once you hand government that power, that’s who you serve and answer to. That’s not freedom, it’s simply transferring leadership over to an impersonal, tangled mess of bureaucracy that will never have your best interests at heart. Government simply does not care about you and never really can.
Women have a hard time seeing the deception behind words like that, like how “being a stay at home mom is not a choice we want you to have to make” or how you “shouldn’t be punished with a baby.” Those are hugely offensive words to say, that cut right to the core of who we are as women, and yet they are seldom recognized for what they are.
One thing I’m not sure churches are aware of is how much of an attack women face, how much pressure there is to comply with this New World. Being a wife or a mother are no longer recognized as honorable professions for women, they’re perceived as failures, a “choice” women who have no value are forced to make.
Thanks for this comment.
Do women not understand that?
I really believe many women do not understand. Many seem to perceive the state as a benevolent thing and don’t even comprehend the danger that’s lurking there.
Translation: Government will TAKE your money and do what they want with it.
That is the problem. ITs coercion and manipulation. ITs got to stop.
Reblogged this on Jessica A Bruno (waybeyondfedup).
InsanityBytes has some great points, too. The women passed by the Friedan-era feminists have raised the current generation of young women of childbearing age, inculcating their own unknowing, innocent, trusting daughters in the feminist messages they themselves could not “take advantage of”. What you see now is simply the result of that.
“…have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child’s development,”
It’s kind of scary how blunt progressives are talking these days. 20 years ago, I don’t think you could get away with saying you want the government to program children on national TV.
“Moms and dads deserve a great place to drop their kids off every day that doesn’t cost them an arm and a leg,”
In a similar vein, I guess pre-school being government daycare is no longer remaining unsaid.
Can you explain more about the issues with books by A.W. Tozer, Francis Chan, Harry Potter, Left Behind, Phillip Yancey, Beth Moore, Nancy Leigh Demoss, Joyce Meyer, Elizabeth George, Stasi Eldgredge and so on.
Maybe in a separate post if it’s needed. thanks
It’s just that these are more subjective and devotional, not practical. A practical book would be more like “Politics According to the Bible” by Wayne Grudem, or “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen C. Meyer.