On September 8, president Obama talked about his African father who separated from his mother when Obama was two years old, eventually moving back to Kenya where he died. Obama, who only met his father only once after the separation, said:
“He was a very, very smart man, but he was sort of arrogant and kind of overbearing, and he had his own problems and his own issues. So my mother always used to say that if he had been around, I probably would have been having a lot of arguments with him all the time.”
“I think that I was lucky, though, that my mother always — she never spoke badly about him, which I think since I was a boy, knowing that even if your dad wasn’t around, that you still were hearing good things about him I think probably improved my own self-confidence.”
“When I look back on my life, I think that — Michelle’s dad was around… Just a great guy. Wonderful, wonderful man. And he actually had multiple sclerosis, so he had to walk with canes, but went to every basketball game that my brother-in-law played in, was there for every dance recital Michelle was in, was just a great family man. And when I look at her dad, I say to myself, boy, that would be nice to have somebody like that that you could count on who was always there for you.”
This is such a fascinating commentary – Barack Obama, a far-left Democrat, talking about the wonderful life that his wife had in her nuclear family. Because while Michelle Obama’s working-class father stayed with the family, the president’s intellectually elite, Harvard-educated father walked away.
So what does this tell you about Obama’s world and the liberal agenda that he supports? Isn’t there just a tad of sentimentalism sneaking into Obama’s language? Or is it much more – a recognition of what is genuine, as reflected in Obama’s own close ties to his wife and children, which he seems to celebrate every day?
Why was Obama glad that his mother never spoke badly about his father? Democrats speak badly about strong men every day of every year, with devastating effect on our culture.
Since the 1950s, the Democrat party, fired by the beatniks and the counter culture ‘hippie’ movement, has been at war with the American family. The ‘hippies’ believed that promiscuous sex was normal, that marriage was unnecessary, that the nuclear family was an outdated concept, and that monogamy was for somebody else. They believed in the “wolf pack” concept of society, that everyone is just part of a big gaggle of people with no familial delineations. Leftist intellectuals have said for years that fathers are not necessary for the well-being of children, and that the influence of rational men is not necessary to the well-being of our culture.
Yet today millions from the ‘hippie’ generation find themselves alone in the world – aging, single, childless and partner-less. And quietly devastated about how wrong they were about love, family and fidelity.
Ahh, the folly of youth.
So what is going on here?
It is called ‘inversion’, in which the Democrats take one side of an issue and then run away from it, for instance, in Obama’s praise of the family life of his wife, or the celebration of marriage among homosexuals. So which side are they really on? Do kids need fathers? Should homosexuals have the right to claim the word ‘marriage’ when it has been actively maligned by the left for 50 years? Why are gays so suddenly interested in an institution that the Democrats have fought against so intensely?
Interestingly, a very low percentage of homosexuals are getting married because the whole ‘gay marriage’ movement is largely intended only for political consumption. Even the two lesbians who sparked the Massachusetts homosexual marriage movement have since ‘divorced’.
Look at Obama’s thought: “I think that I was lucky, though, that my mother always — she never spoke badly about him, which I think since I was a boy, knowing that even if your dad wasn’t around, that you still were hearing good things about him I think probably improved my own self-confidence.”
So he is admitting that the presence of a strong father – even in spirit – is part of a successful life. Yet the media have showcased dysfunctional families almost exclusively on TV, in movies etc. while Democrats and their media friends have routinely impugned strong men. And this has been done for one reason only – to belittle the patriarchal figures that have protected women and led families through millennia. This criticism is intended to destroy the concept of manhood and to create the kind of chaos that allows government to act as the “father”.
Even Bill Clinton once said that he had found “a lot of very good things” in vice president Dan Quayle’s much-slandered 1992 speech on family values. “I think he got too cute with ‘Murphy Brown,'” Clinton said, “but it is certainly true that this country would be much better off if our babies were born into two-parent families.”
“Once a really poor woman has a child out of wedlock, it almost locks her and that child into the cycle of poverty, which then spins out of control further.”
Well thank you Mr. Bill. Conservatives have been saying that all along.
Yet Hillary wrote a book called It Takes a Village, which means that it really takes a whole town to raise a child ‘wolf pack’ style, when conservatives have been saying for millennia that it simply takes two parents, one man and one woman.
So why would Obama’s Democrat party subsidize single motherhood for decades when we know that it has contributed to the destruction of the family? Why do the media relentlessly attack family-oriented people like Sarah Palin? Where is their compassion for the millions of kids without fathers who have lost all chance at a good life? After all, we know that our prisons are largely populated by males who did not have a father to guide them.
Then when Christian theology teaches the value of fathers and cohesive families and love, why is the only response of the Democrats to make sure that school children don’t by chance hear it?
If president Obama is nostalgic about not having a father, cannot he see his way to righting a wrong by supporting a more conservative social agenda that involves strong men in the family, and discourages single motherhood?
Yet just imagine the ramifications if Obama decided that he would support traditional families like his own today. At the same time, of course, the wealthiest liberals like Stephen Spielberg (married, 7 children) refuse to admit that they fully recognize the value of their way of living. Because that would open a pandora’s box of hypocrisy, where liberals would have to explain other positions, like sending their children to private schools while politically supporting the dreadful public schools “for the rest of us” and opposing any alternatives.
In Spring of 2009, Democrats killed a Republican-sponsored scholarship program for 1,700 poor black children in Washington DC to attend private and religious schools. The outcry was so great that the program was reinstated. But it is typical of the elites to try and deny good outcomes for their own constituents if it does not adhere to their leftist ideology.
How many millions more children must suffer under the liberal/media/welfare state without fathers? How long will the intellectuals like Obama and his Harvard-trained father be able to overrule over the needs of children all across America?
The Democrat political positions on the crucial nature of the cohesive family is a farce. Today you will find few Democrats supporting any kind of pro-family agenda because that would be an admission of 50 years of wrong-headed policy. Because finally the position of the Democrat party is to keep people poor and confused so that they can be controlled by their government. And that is the greatest travesty of all.
Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.