"Newborns Welcome"
By epicure35
@epicure35 (2814)
United States
February 2, 2011 3:18pm CST
As I was driving through a residential area, I saw the following sign on a house which purports to be a child"care" center. I was appalled and my heart sank into my stomach.
Isn't it enough that flaming liberal/marxist/NWO types like Hillary Clinton, who would like to subjugate our families to the dictates of the UN, the NEA, teachers' union in her corner, wanting to take over our children at preschool level for political indoctrination, and so much negligence and criminal activity in some of these "licensed" day"care" centers?
I lament what is happening in my country. Families and family life are considered of little worth to many in our governing bodies as they see a strong family as a threat to their power and influence. Strong families make for a strong country, and so we are weak and subject to exactly what is happening in and through our corrupt government today, as Obama advertises for "moms" to go back to school and leave their children in the care of others. Fathers in the home have become almost non-existent.
A child was meant to be nurtured in a one-to-one relationship with a mother and father, for safety, protection, education and a moral base. Is it no wonder many of our young people are angry, confused, search for gang affiliation to replace a stable family, are suicidal, and become brutal bullies?
Surely there is at least one responsible adult member in each family who can care for their own young children.
This sign gives new and frightening meaning to the term "cradle to grave".
5 responses
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
2 Feb 11
"Fathers in the home have become almost non-existent."
Do you have any facts to back up this statement or is it just your personal opinion based on limited personal observations?
Down here in Hooterville, two parent households vastly outnumber single parent households. I would not, however, cite our small community as statistically representative of the entire country without looking at some facts...so I did.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau report "Families and Living Arrangements 2006;
"Just over two-thirds (67 percent) of the nation’s 73.7 million children younger than 18 lived with two married parents in 2006. Also in 2006, there were an estimated 5.8 million stay-at-home parents: 5.6 million mothers and 159,000 fathers."
The report does not address two unmarried parent households but you know as well as I do that they exist as well.
I do agree with you that having a stay-at-home parent is the ideal situation for a child. I was fortunate enough to be able to stay home with my children for many years but not every family is able to do this and survive financially. There is a fine economic line between living in a "safe" neighborhood and an "unsafe" one, a good community and a bad one, attending a good school or a substandard one. Since all children have to grow up in the environment outside of the home as well as the one inside, which is more important?
@spalladino (17891)
• United States
3 Feb 11
You've gone slightly off track, epicure, so allow me to bring you back to the point I was originally making. More often than not, both parents in a family work outside of the home out of economic necessity. It's not simply a case of wanting to drive fancy cars or wear the latest, upscale fashions but, rather, the ability to raise your child in a particular socioeconomic environment vs a lesser one. Schools are part of it but not the entire pie.
@cupkitties (7421)
• United States
3 Feb 11
Where I'm from many legit businesses are held in houses. If you drive down town you'll find many of what looks like a normal neighbor hood of houses that are really doctors offices, dentists and etc. They usually cater to people that can not afford to pay a lot of money for what the big offices charge.
@epicure35 (2814)
• United States
7 Feb 11
My point was that babies thrive in their own houses and not in the care of strangers who, even if they wanted to , could not nurture as intimately and tenderly as the parent charged with the responsibility of so doing.
@Adoniah (7513)
• United States
2 Feb 11
If there is no Father in the home and the Mother chooses not to collect welfare, how can she go back to work without putting the child in some form of care? Not everyone lives near relatives or even wishes to leave their child with relatives. Or maybe, relatives do not want this.
Now I do not like this...I abhor the idea of a baby being cared for my someone other than a parent. But, society has failed horribly. People have children today with no intention of ever being the primary caregiver. Even people who do not have to work. Mother's who spend the day shopping or going to the club, still put their little darlings into daycare. They say the child needs to "socialize" Right...They need a parent that they can obey and learn from. Someone they can emulate and honor. Someone who will teach them right from wrong and hold them when they cry and forgive them when they do wrong.....
@epicure35 (2814)
• United States
2 Apr 11
Adoniah, think about the abuse our children endure at the hands of parents and the school system. It's all wrong.
Back in the 70's and 80's when our families were being destroyed by "NO-FAULT" DIVORCE, our government, which was fully aware of the consequences of divorce, e.g. poverty, crime, gangs, etc.- (having held Congressional Hearings on broken families years before), knowing full well that children would suffer now the loss of TWO parents when (usually fathers) leave and mothers are left to support children, REFUSED to provide at home work for women so that they could be on site to protect their children and be gainfully employed, rather than turning children over to the school system, allied with government for purposes of economics and indoctrination. In the age of computers, this could have been easily accomplished, and still could, even without computers.
But the agenda of the government is to take over our children and our sovereignty.
The "cumpulsory secular education" our children are held hostage to is destructive of morality and mercy.
As America continues in its apathy, complacency, and self-gratification, our country continues to self-destruct.
When you go off the "God" standard, there are no standards left; when you deny truth, there is nothing left but lies.
Deception abounds, as the Bible declares it hallmark to the end of days.
@luram626 (30)
• Philippines
3 Feb 11
I do agree with that, that children must be nurtured by their own parents, there is really a big difference when a child grows with their parents around, it's a big impact to the child's growth. Couple's should think and plan how they should rare their family without risking their children's tender minds experiencing that their parents were out of sight when they need their help or taught them some good manners, and they are left in the care of strangers that we do not know if they are taken good care.
@epicure35 (2814)
• United States
7 Feb 11
Thanks, luram, for your insights. When I was studying Child Development in college, one of the main points made was the importance of the nurturance in a one-to-one relationship of a child with his parents. Countless examples were given of other situations wherein strangers were "caretakers", including orphanages in India, and the harm it did to what you refer to as "children's tender minds". You are so right and studies prove it. But, common sense works as well; the devotion and caring is so important, and the intimacy of the family structure is critical.
@Catana (735)
• United States
3 Feb 11
You use "purported." Do you have any reason to believe that the child care center isn't what it claims to be? Why are you assuming something's wrong with it? And why are you trying to make a big political deal out of something that's a necessity for some parents. Would you rather the mother go on welfare so that she can stay at home? Do you have any idea how degrading that can be, and how it does more to destroy families than being able to work or to go to school so that the future will be better for the whole family?
@epicure35 (2814)
• United States
7 Feb 11
Catana, the point is and has been for some decades now that our "government" has known for decades that broken families means more crime, poverty, etc. and, instead of urging mothers already burdened with having to be "two" parents to leave children home unattended or in the care of strangers, could EASILY have created at home jobs for "displaced homemakers", with the advent of the computer and other technologies.
But, the intent of the government, including the school systems, is to take over our children, a la Hillary Clinton and the NEA and subject our families and parental authority to corruption, as in the UN.
