op-ed

Obama’s record isn’t kid-friendly

Amy Frederick President, 60 Plus Association
Font Size:

The D.C. rumor mill of late has President Obama dropping Joe Biden from the ticket this year in favor of Hillary Clinton, but I don’t buy this for a second. If Obama drops Biden for anyone, it’ll be for Oprah.

Cracks in the cloak of secrecy surrounding my yet-to-be-confirmed suspicion of an Obama-Winfrey ticket emerged last week when the president shifted into campaign rhetoric that verged on the mushy side of the Lifetime Network. That’s right, Obama finally addressed the plight of that long-forgotten and all-too-neglected segment of the American population — “the children.”

While campaigning in Iowa, Obama said, “Part of what 2012 is about is … framing this larger debate about what kind of country are we going to leave for our children and our grandchildren.” I know, this is typical campaign pabulum, but as a working mother of three children who range in age from less than a year old to five years old, this caught my ear.

And despite the fact that at times I get a little frustrated with my little ones for grinding Cheerios into our upholstery, I don’t need the president to remind me that, like all parents, my husband and I spend nearly every moment of our time that isn’t claimed by REM sleep thinking about our children, their futures and what kind of country we’re leaving them.

Obama’s posturing as the nanny-in-chief of his ever-growing nanny state isn’t a surprise. But what is a surprise is just how much crummier Obama’s record appears when viewed in light of its effects on our children. Nearly all of the horrendous consequences of his policies will explode in the future, when he and his caddy will be far from the blast zone.

In the world that Obama plans on leaving our children, the U.S. military will be as imposing as the Jamaican bobsledding team, Americans will be some of the Brazilian oil industry’s “best customers” and everyone will drive glorified golf carts that have an annoying habit of randomly catching on fire. Obama is also leaving each of our children with a $62,500 bill to pay for the $5 trillion he will have added to the national debt by the end of his first term. This record is about as kid-friendly as story time with Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

As parents, we all strive to teach our children crucial life lessons and impart whatever wisdom we can, regretting that most of what they learn will come from life experience, the cornily named “school of hard knocks.” But our kids’ world isn’t going to make much sense to them when they become old enough to reflect upon this president, the man who at one point held their futures in his hands, then splayed his fingers.

Unless the liberals succeed in scrubbing clean from our schools all memory of the great men who built this nation — from Washington, to Jefferson, to Rockefeller and Carnegie — future generations will wonder when we liquidated America’s exceptionalism, and why.

That’s a question I hope I never to have to answer. The “for the children” rhetoric is the refuge of the morally bankrupt and the intellectually dishonest. While the pandering Obama employs children as campaign props, his policies make clear that he views children as nothing more than the adults of tomorrow, compliant citizens who in time will be ripe to be controlled, taxed and indoctrinated into a world where greatness is a relative concept and liberty is a hazy memory.

President Obama’s glib words perfectly illustrate the dangers the liberal “what about the children?” crowd represent. While people of all political persuasions customarily give politicians a pass when talking about “the children,” we ought to hold in the forefront of our minds during the 2012 campaign that nearly every word and deed of Barack Obama’s first three years in office has gone toward creating an America that no sensible mother would approve of.

Amy Frederick is the president of the 60 Plus Association.