Not much–in Obama’s opinion
[courtesy Google Images]
“In the midst of remarks about preschools, minimum wage and pay equality for women, President Obama made a comment about stay-at-home moms that has left many mothers fuming.
“Speaking at Rhode Island College in Providence, Rhode Island, on Friday, the president made a statement that sounds as though he wants the government to discourage mothers from staying home with their children and send them to preschool instead.
According to Obama,
“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. And that’s not a choice we want Americans to make,” Obama said. “So let’s make this happen: By the end of this decade, let’s enroll 6 million children in high-quality preschool, and let’s make sure that we are making America stronger.”
First, if anyone in Washington is truly concerned about stay-at-home moms “earning a lower wage for the rest of their lives,” why’d they ship our industries and jobs to third world nations? Why do they continue to allow and even encourage illegal aliens to enter this country to take our remaining jobs at wages levels most Americans can’t afford to accept? And why, pray tell, did they raise our tax burden so high that fathers can no longer earn enough take home pay to support his “stay-at-home” wife and kids? Why’d government raise taxes so high that mothers don’t merely get to work, but have to work? Why does it take two people (husband and wife) to generate the same standard of living that one man could achieve back in the 1950’s and 60’s?
Second, any parents who are truly interested in seeing their children educated should keep their kids as far away from public (government-controlled) schools for as long as possible. Obama doesn’t want your kids educated and able to think for themselves. He wants our kids removed from their parents and subjected to government-controlled conditioning as early in their lives as possible. Like most collectivists and fascists, Obama doesn’t want our children taught how to think. He wants them taught what to think.
Third, Obama seems determined to prove that he’s the biggest buffoon who ever set foot in the White House.
I.e., just days before the Tuesday Election, Obama is out there insulting stay-at-home moms. What th’ helck is that moron thinking? He’s just alienated another 2 or 3% of the electorate from supporting Democrats to supporting Republicans
Obama is almost as successful at defeating Republicans as he was at imposing gun control.
The man’s a moron with a smiley face. He’s not just an empty suit—he’s a human vacuum. He’s an animated image without a teleprompter.
I thought GW Bush was dumb, but Obama is worse. We can debate Obama’s intellect, but his political instincts are so wrong and so contrary to his own best interests and those of the Democrat Party as to be almost pathological. Is Obama from Kenya, or is he from some lunatic asylum?
Obama’s political instincts amount to a death wish.
I can only imagine whatever new political policies that Obama (motivated by his own vanity) will try to implement during the next two years when he’s hamstrung by a Republican House and (probably) Republican Senate. Will he unilaterally grant amnesty to all the illegal aliens? Will he make ObamaCare even more oppressive? How ‘bout higher taxes for all and more rights for gays?
Will Obama wreak even more havoc on the Democrat Party while he tries to somehow salvage his own reputation and legacy?
I don’t know that he’ll succeed in implementing any more of his grand collectivist programs, but I have no doubt that he’ll try.
Whatta buffoon.
In retrospect, maybe we should’ve elected Joe Biden as President and let Obama to be Vice President.
Fourth, the one lesson in all of this is that whichever political party holds predominant power in Washington will inevitably screw it up and earn America’s contempt.
The GW Bush administration held predominant power and nearly destroyed the Republican Party.
Barack Obama’s administration had predominant power during his first term and has gone on to nearly destroy the Democrat Party.
Why does this happen?
It happens because both political parties are more interested in serving the best interests of their most favored (and wealthiest) special interests. Both parties are more inclined to support the best interests of their special interests than the best interests of the American people. Whenever the special interests gain, the general interests of the people lose.
Because neither political party serves the best interest of the American people, both political parties routinely garner the American people’s anger and contempt.
Whenever either party achieves predominant power, the first thing they do is betray the best interests of America in order to serve their special interests. The American people slowly recognize that betrayal and come to view the predominant party, correctly, with anger and contempt.
Unfortunately, there’s no viable third party to serve the American people. Therefore, whenever one major party betrays us, we get angry and vote for the other major political party—and that party is just as treasonous as the first.
We elect the Republicans, and they betray us. We get angry and elect the Democrats, hoping the Democrats will serve us honorably. The Democrats betray us, we get angry and elect another cadre of Republicans. The Republicans (again) betray us, we get mad, we elect Democrats, etc., etc.
We are constantly faced with the dilemma of choosing to vote for the lessor of two, proven, evils.
As I’ve said for years, we need, desperately need, a viable third party.
Or maybe we need no political parties at all. Maybe we need candidates to vote for based on only their own personal qualifications–and not their political party affiliations.
Whatever we need, it’s apparent that the current system isn’t working.
If the “Road to Hell” isn’t paved with “good intentions,” it’s certainly paved with political parties.