Obama’s Disregard for Stay-At-Home Moms

Barack Obama

President Obama’s remarks on October 31 to Rhode Island College were pro-women, at least according to some. He spoke of the need for equal pay for equal work, for increased career opportunities for women and improved leave policies for working parents who needed to take care of a sick child. All of these promises, no doubt, were highly attractive to his college-aged audience who will soon be voting in the mid-term election.

What caused a backlash, however, was his seemingly dismissive attitude towards women who chose to stay home with their children. Speaking of his support for government-sponsored preschool, the President said,

And too often, parents have no choice but to put their kids in cheaper daycare that maybe doesn’t have the kinds of programming that makes a big difference in a child’s development.  And sometimes there may just not be any slots, or the best programs may be too far away.  And 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. (Emphasis added.)

Granted, he was speaking contextually about the fact that many lower-income women cannot afford to pay preschool costs and, therefore, choose to stay home. And indeed, 32 percent of stay-at-home moms are living in poverty, as opposed to only 12 percent of working moms (Pew Research Center, 2014). Yet, here and throughout his speech, he measures a successful woman by her career. Never once does he mention to these college students the benefits of a woman staying home long-term with her children. So, when he says, “When women succeed, America succeeds,” he seems to be referring to women who are “full and equal participants in our economy,” not those choosing to stay home and raise the future leaders of our country.

It is notable, however, that America as a whole sees the value of a parent staying home with his or her children. The Pew Research Center reported earlier this year that “Despite the fact that most mothers in the U.S. work at least part time, 60 percent of Americans say children are better off when a parent stays home to focus on the family.”

This speech is not an anomaly for the President, or for the liberal—essentially mainstream—part of our culture. Most of today’s mothers of young children grew up with no-fault divorce, the moral fallout of the sexual revolution and a society where individualism is valued more than sacrificing for the strength of the family. What was, a quarter of a century ago, a movement of high-powered women in business suits for equal professional opportunities—which, by the way, I completely support—is now a new generation of the feminist movement that reduces women to strictly what they can accomplish in the public sphere.

The President’s speech seems to urge his young audience to become the next “Julias” that were touted by his re-election campaign. Julia is smart, savvy and successful—but she is lacking any family but the state and her life is curiously devoid of setbacks that inevitably come when we make difficult, but worthwhile, decisions like postponing our career to care for elderly parents or young children or making financial sacrifices to help relatives in need. Valuing women in the workplace is important, but women’s role in society cannot be properly appreciated without understanding the gifts that they bring as wives and mothers.

The Church, Catholic Mothers and the Family
At the end of the recent Synod, Pope Francis tweeted, “The family is the place in which we are formed as persons. Each family is a brick that builds society.” Of course, the Church’s emphasis on the importance of the family and parents as the first educators of their children is nothing new. In his seminal encyclical Mulieris Dignitatem, Saint John Paul II praised mothers saying, “The moral and spiritual strength of a woman is joined to her awareness that God entrusts the human being to her in a special way.”

Saint John Paul II does not only speak of women raising children in the home, but also of the need for workplaces to be more supportive of families. The Church consistently teaches the value of the family and of nurturing children, but leaves room for parents to discern the work-life balance that will most effectively help their family to flourish.

Consider my friend Cristina from Boston, who successfully worked in the technology sector for 10 years before becoming a mother, and now stays home with her five children. She says “These years stress putting the needs of small children and their formation first” and says that the “payoff is immeasurable.” While she is considering returning to the workforce when her children are all in school full-time, for now she is joyfully at peace in her vocation, explaining “no one aside from a father has as big an interest in forming healthy, happy and holy little souls as a mother.”

However, for Ashley, a teacher from Pittsburgh, working outside the home means that she is living out her vocation as a mother of two and an educator. “Most simply put,” Ashley relates, “I feel a calling to be a wife and a mother and a teacher. By being an effective teacher, I am a better wife and mother. By being a caring mother I am also being made a better teacher and wife. To say that these three roles fulfill me seems limited; I see all three together as the way I best contribute to our society.”

Of course, working outside the home and staying at home full-time are not the only choices women make, nor are they necessarily permanent. Since I had my first son several years ago, I have both worked in an office at times and stayed home at others. At the moment, both my husband and I work from home, sharing the full-time care of our two sons. I have made different decisions, depending on what was prudent or necessary at the time.

The stories of these women and the attitude of America as a whole indicate that as a culture, we still value family life as well as careers. While some might measure success solely by a woman’s career path, the Church encourages mothers and fathers to recognize how important their role is as parents not only to the souls entrusted to their care but to the whole of society.

(Photo credit: Evan Vucci / AP)

Caitlin Bootsma

By

Caitlin Bootsma is the editor of Human Life International's Truth and Charity Forum. Mrs. Bootsma received a Licentiate in Catholic Social Communications at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross in Rome as well as a Master's of Systematic Theology from Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College. She lives in Richmond, Virginia with her husband and sons.

  • AcceptingReality

    Family is an obstacle to Statists. Good families raise up children who are strong and independent. A Statist doesn’t want that so he tends to overlook the role of family as if it doesn’t exist.

    • AdMaioremDeiGloriam

      “…overlook…”, naw, this is down very purposefully, but otherwise I completely agree. Welcome to the new AmeriKa.

    • DE-173

      Anything that mediates between the individual person and a choice between society at large and the state isn’t just an obstacle, but a mortal enemy. There is a reason they are after the family, the Church and voluntary organizations, these things stand in the way of dominance.

  • fredx2

    I thought government was supposed to empower us to make our own decisions in life.I guess I was wrong, at least under this President. He wants to make the decisions in my life.

  • Elaine Steffek

    Two things that progressives must do away with or minimize in order to succeed are religion and the family.
    Hence, Obama’s dismissive remarks about stay at home moms.

  • St JD George

    I read that this weekend and my head about exploded. Just when you think it can’t get any worse, another unpleasant surprise. I understand that working is a personal decision that some feel they must make and even though it’s contrary to how I feel I can respect that. But for him to come out and say this the way he did is degrading to women in my opinion, reinforcing the notion(s) that motherhood has no value and the state has responsibility for raising your child. To me, that is the real war on women.

    • St JD: Perfectly put. Those remarks that Pres. Obama made were truly outrageous, and there now should be absolutely no doubt about his views on this subject. Your last sentence was very ACCURATE.

      • St JD George

        Further, through my own experiences I don’t think there is a more difficult or rewarding career than that of motherhood, immeasurable. I always tell my wife that I have the easy job going to work, she has by far the toughest job. We both know though that it is and isn’t a sacrifice, because it is out of the utmost love for each other and our children that we made that decision. Even beyond our children who have been blessed to have her when they needed her, the full responsibilities of being a homemaker are enormous and obviously totally unappreciated by this man. He could have tempered his remarks to those who I know aren’t as blessed as my wife and I and who struggle either in single parent situations or even out of choice, but he didn’t, he degraded motherhood in the broadest possible way reflecting how I believe he truly feels stripped of political double speak.

  • Margaret O

    You might be interested in this excellent article from an
    Australian publication

    Childcare debate has become ‘cold and inhuman’
    by Lucy Sullivan

    News Weekly, August 2, 2014

    The terms of reference for the Productivity Commission’s investigation into funded childcare strike an icicle to the heart. It is to show that institutional childcare is of greater benefit to the economy and to children’s development than care at home by the mother.

    Ever heard of happiness and security? Or are these concepts now quite foreign to government and the modern world?

    As every parent has observed, infants are greatly distressed if handed into the care of strangers, and make it known by their only means of protest — hysterical or miserable crying.

    Individual observation is confirmed in every book on caring for your baby, and in countless psychological studies.

    This, the instinct of attachment, was first described in academia shortly after World War II, when separation trauma had been suffered on a population-wide scale for probably the first time in human history.

    Any childcare in infancy, and long day-care in the early pre-school years before the child can understand and communicate verbally, outrage this fundamental human instinct.

    Childcare does not replace the mother with a stable substitute for love and trust. Staff change frequently and the new loved person may suddenly disappear.

    Any child who has had the good fortune of a stable child-carer will suffer bereavement — equivalent to the death of a mother — when school age is reached and contact is lost forever.

    The childcare debate has become cold and inhuman, turning only on long-term effects, good or bad.

    But what about now? Do we ignore an adult’s bereavement if we can show it will have no measurable adverse effect 10 or 20 years later?

    Suffering is said to endow wisdom, but who chooses to suffer merely for that end, and how would we feel towards someone whose response to our suffering was that withholding aid and sympathy will benefit our cognitive or character development?

    How many of us would choose to work in intolerable conditions purely to benefit the economy?

    Even if the Productivity Commission’s Inquiry into Child Care and Early Childhood Learning finds what it is directed to — which is unlikely in view of reliable past research — have we really fallen so low that we will inflict spiritual pain, fear and misery on the most helpless among us if it can be shown to enhance the economy in the future?

    Some more than others, but most children cry when left in childcare until they have become “hopeless”, as described in the research of the 1960s which played a major role in achieving admission of parents to children in hospital.

    They have learned helplessness — that the expression of their feelings is of no account to the adults around them.

    This is the major deception of the childcare debate: ostensibly, it is about choice for women; whereas it should be about compassion for infants.

    Lucy Sullivan, PhD, is an Australian social scientist. Her book, False Promises: Sixties Philosophy Against the Church: A Social Memoir Enhanced by Statistics, 1903-1993 (Windsor, NSW: Windrush Press, 2012), is available from News Weekly Books.

  • Harry

    The stupidest thing about modern feminism (well maybe not the stupidest, but certainly among the most stupid) was doubling the size of the workforce by convincing Mom her life was worthless unless she went out and found a job, as though the inevitable effects of the Law of Supply and Demand would suddenly be suspended by the magical force of Gloria Steinem’s personality. The magic didn’t work and the inevitable happened. It soon took two incomes to provide the same standard of living that before took only one.

    • Vinny

      Exactly. Lets put the kids to work too – that will bring in EXTRA income.

      • Tamsin

        And 34 million green cards will bring in EXTRA EXTRA income. Obama is a genius.

        • Harry

          I chuckled all day at your remark. ;o)

    • Chris Cloutier

      All part of the progressive agenda to weaken or destroy the family unit. After all the family is where young ones learn a lot about morality, right and wrong, and even some American history. All these and more are things the progressives can’t stand. And if you are looking to control people then you can’t have independent, autonomous units and individuals making their own decisions and living their lives without the aid of the nanny state gov’t can you? No no no!

      • Harry

        Exactly. Did you see where Obama wants government run pre-school because “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.” (emphasis mine)

        Programming? Was that a Freudian slip or what? Obama’s Minister of Propaganda must have advised him that the indoctrination centers (referred to as the public school system by the rest of us) need to be able to begin even earlier to accomplish their task. There must be a few kids that still get through the system with some critical thinking skills. The ruling class simply can’t tolerate that.

        • Chris Cloutier

          Isn’t that what Head Start is all about. Get em young and indoctrinate em.

    • guest

      Be careful here. There was a time when women were made to feel worthless unless they were married and regularly reproducing. That’s not for everyone. Alternatives for women are necessary. BTW doubling the workforce was stupid for the country, really?? Perhaps you are just uncomfortable with women who work outside the home. That trend isn’t going away any time soon; it’s just too good for women, their families, and ,therefore, the whole country. My life, and the lives of so many women I know, have proven that to me over and over again.

      • Harry

        Hello guest,

        Please don’t misunderstand me. I believe the feminist movement, before it got perverted by pro-abortion, godless social engineers, brought about reforms that were sorely needed.

        I have no problem with women in the work force. I have a problem with Mom entering the work force for no other reason than being taken in by propaganda meant to disgrace and stigmatize one of the most important, if not *THE* most import profession there is: nurturing children.

        If so many Moms hadn’t entered the work force for “personal fulfillment” (even though in actuality they already had a job far more important than whatever it was they started doing outside the home), many single Mom’s who have no choice but to be in the workforce would probably be making twice as much money as they are now.

        And Moms who are now in the workforce but wish they didn’t have to be there can thank for that a prior generation of women who let themselves be taken in by poisonous propaganda, thereby driving down the value of labor by unnecessarily increasing the supply of labor.

        My wife and I raised ten kids on a single income. It wasn’t easy, but we did it with God’s help and we had more fun and fulfillment with a house full of kids than I can imagine ever having without them.

        It is not impossible. God is real. He is really there. Prayer works. Many people can make it on a single income that don’t realize it is possible to do so — with God’s help and a lot of prayer. It will get easier to do the more women go back home to spend their days with their kids. What was done can be undone.

        • “I have a problem with Mom entering the work force for no other reason than being taken in by propaganda meant to disgrace and stigmatize one of the most important, if not *THE* most important profession there is: nurturing children.”

          Here’s the problem with your thesis; when one familty sends Mom off to outside employment, they enjoy a direct and conspicuous advantage; it forces others to do the same. I identify with this because my Mother was generally “stay at home”, my Aunt was not-as a kid, I only saw that they hada snowmobile and annual vacations, I didn’t see what my cousins missed.

          Outside employment for mothers passed through the typical four stages all social revolutions pass through:

          Opprobrium
          Oddity
          Option
          Obligation (We’re here dude; so much for “choice”)

          • Harry

            Good point. Even so, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world. The contemporary deterioration of society, the fundamental component of which is today’s struggling families and broken homes, compels one to conclude that whoever took over rocking the cradle when mom went to work isn’t doing nearly as good a job as mom used to do.

          • Harry

            “(We’re here dude; so much for ‘choice’)”

            That edit wasn’t there the first time I replied to you, DE-173. So I will comment on it now.

            Things can change, even those that seem most entrenched. Slavery went from being the status quo to being unthinkable in a few short years, albeit a Civil War occurred in those few years.

            The slavery of a second income seeming essential to the provision of a decent standard of living for one’s family can end, too. When enough adults who now wish they would have had more of Mom’s time rather than having more material stuff decide to give their own kids what is really important, it will happen.

        • guest

          I don’t recall any propaganda that stigmatized or disgraced the stay at home Mom. In fact I recall that job being called the hardest job in the world. And women still do that job with outside jobs as well. Generosity with family still abounds. We don’t need to have 10 children to prove that. A society that allows a woman to be all she can be, motherhood included in that or not, is a good society. I have always been glad I live in it. Moreover, President Obama should not be blamed with discrediting the role of Mother for women of for driving women into outside the home jobs. Women still have free will and free choice. BTW lots of people want a second income because they want more than survival in life, not just to have luxuries either. Post secondary education of any kind for the children, retirement for the parents, and a low to non debt profile require 2 incomes for lots of people like me. No one need apologize for having these things; they are not ungodly. Working for these things requires a lot of faith, too!!!

          • Harry

            Hello, guest,

            No doubt a lot of good, hard working women with nothing but good intentions, who love their family dearly and want nothing but the best for them, work outside the home.

            That doesn’t change the fact that so many moms entering the work force to obtain nonessential material things drove down the value of labor, so much so that that moms who didn’t want to work outside the home did so anyway because Dad’s labor just wasn’t worth what it used to be. These moms entering the workforce exacerbated the problem, which forced more moms into the work force, and so on and so on, until it took two incomes to provide the standard of living that before was provided by one. Now life is very, very difficult for many working single moms and many others who would be making significantly more money if the typical situation was the single-income home like it used to be.

            There is a range of income earning capabilities, some people find themselves at the low end, some at the high end. Some have skills that are not all that marketable. Some have one kind of disability or another that places them at the low end. It will always be that way. We have it on good authority that the poor will always be with us.

            When millions of families who are doing just fine have Mom decide to work outside the home just to obtain the extras in life, they often do make out like bandits. But the good fortune of bandits is always at someone else’s expense. In this case the victims are everyone whose labor now has less value, then those already struggling at the low end of the scale, and lastly those at the lowest end of it who get pushed completely out of the workforce.

            None of this should surprise us when we find college graduates working in fast food places. Where are those who don’t have a college education supposed to find a job?

  • maineman

    You know, this reminds me of something that I don’t think gets quite enough emphasis: this is a man who is constitutionally incapable of hiding his utter contempt for everything and everyone that is not in lockstep with his elitist notions.

  • brucenyc

    A teacher’s job is to answer 1 question for 100 children, a mother’s job is to answer 100 questions for 1 child. Pre-school and daycare cannot replace a mother.

  • Tony

    Would someone please ask Lord Obama to tell us what, ultimately, work is FOR?

    And again, nobody asks what the general effect is when millions of women who AREN’T going to be high earners enter the workforce. This question is related to the question of the family wage.

    And nobody asks what the general effect is when those same millions are no longer to be seen in their neighborhoods during daylight hours.

    Nobody asks anything except questions that can be answered by a bankbook or a resume.

  • DE-173

    There comes a point where you have to just state the obvious. Obama’s upbringing was so screwed up that he has no capacity to comment on family matters, even if there’s a rare minute when his comments aren’t merely political prevarication.

    His diminution of motherhood is a result of his abandonment; it was no accident that in his first campaign. he threw his grandmother under the bus with that racist “typical white person” remark.

    Most politicians are arrogant, dangerous and stupid people; this one is the ne plus ultra in all regards, the political equivalent of batting .420, hitting 75 home runs and driving in 200 in the same season.

    Then again, his infamiliarity with maternity is only exceeded by his infamiliarity with real employment.

    • St JD George

      Given how screwed up his upbringing was and his messed up family I can actually give him some credit for staying in one relationship and seeming to be a caring Dad with more than one political correct token child. That said, his upbringing was so screwed up that should have disqualified him from being able to run for public office in the first place, and I don’t mean birth certificate. How anybody could be raised and mentored by Frank Davis (among others) and rise above the politics of the IL state legislature is beyond me.

      • “I can actually give him some credit for staying in one relationship ”
        Word is that’s done after 2017.

        • St JD George

          I sometimes flirted with the notion of being able to forgive Bill knowing that he had to live with Hill, though their relationship was totally about political opportunism and of their own making. The later could be said of the current occupant as well, and every-time I look at a picture of FLOTUS I see nothing but internal rage and detest that she can barely keep inside. Having said that, POTUS didn’t help himself out any in the dignified way he carried himself at the state funeral in SA for their dear friend Mandela.

  • publiusnj

    I think there is an even simpler explanation for why “statists” don’t like parents watching their kids instead of a daycare center: the daycare’s revenue is taxed while a parent watches his /her child out of love. “Love” doesn’t generate taxes; non-family service-providers’ revenue does. In fact, the Tax Collector and the Market hate everything about families because husbands do things for wives without demanding pay for it and wives for husbands and parents for children and children for parents. That makes for less in taxes for the State and a smaller addressable market for the “Market.” Sure, the Market likes weddings which create wonderful sales opportunities, but once married, the market wants to break down marriages because there is truth to the old saw that “two can live as cheaply as one.”

    Not surprisingly, the government creates incentives for Divorce (the head of household tax rate and EIC and other credits are actually more favorable for a divorced couple with relatively even earnings and a couple of children who can be divided up for benefits purposes than if they remained married) and the Market attacks marriage as much as it can. Ever listen to the awful way existing marriages are treated on TV? Why? Because politicians think very short term. And so the Culture rots.

    • DE-173

      In fact, the Tax Collector and the Market hate everything about families because husbands do things for wives without demanding pay for it and wives for husbands and parents for children and children for parents. That makes for less in taxes for the State and a smaller addressable market for the “Market.

      There was a time when “the market” wanted married men with wives and children, they were more stable employees.

      That was before the state began fusing itself to the market; now the market wants wives working because it doubles the labor supply; and provides a more docile workforce. That sad thing is that we are systematically removing the most intelligent women from the gene pool.

      I recently had a discussion with someone about the glass celing; I pointed out that for most of human history, you were more worried about the floor-there were few times the celing was important; such as my Grandfathers concerns with the thousands of tons of coal and eath that was above their heads.

      • Guest

        Good post, but I don’t know about “a more docile work force.” The women who get into education aren’t exactly docile.

        • Tamsin

          Perhaps “docile” in the same way illegal immigrants and lots of H1B visas keep wages down for employers.

          Agreed that teachers are not docile insofar as they are unionized.

          • Guest

            Too political, Tamsin.

            The lack of docility is due to the loss of femininity and an effect of both the sexual revolution and the Feminist movement.

        • DE-173

          I probably used the wrong word. Pliable would be a better word. I first noticed this working for a certain “rocky” insurance company in the 1990’s.

          For most of its history, it had restricted the hiring of college graduates to the upper eschelon of management, by the time I arrived, they had decided that they needed college grads throughout the organization, in large part due to the increasing deployment of computers.

          As a result, middle management was weak, insecure and ineffectual, except for the really upper reaches where people like Scott Pierce (brother of Barbara Pierce Bush) ran the joint. The middle management could easily be led into nonsense like “care bears” and “reingineering”.

          When my cohorts and I arrived, we tended not to go along with this sort of nonsense. (As well as a project that involved drawing flow charts of the most minute activities on 6 foot wide rolls of butcher paper affixed to walls which would then be “reviewed” by senior management to determine that which is superfluous or inefficient, it was funny warching them attempt to conceal their lack of knowledge)

          In any case, those of us that just didn’t salute every crazy idea (or the ten (10) name changes in a decade) that came along without question, we were labelled “the college hires from hell”. If you didn’t know, you aren’t suppsed to question the idea that Kwanzaa doesn’t deserve a place along Christmas or Channukah; or observe that gay pride month or any other inanities of corporate life are merely designed to select thoughtless drones.
          Women, with the exception of one, were noticeably absent from this group. Of course the one woman in this group outdid the rest of us, she questioned the nature of the constant reorganizations in the form of a letter to the editor of a local newspaper.

  • Guest

    Obama can solve a whole slew of social problems if he subsidized stay at home moms to raise their kids instead of subsidizing working moms. The social costs of a failing public education system, juvenile delinquency, unwanted and non-marital pregnancies, all can be greatly diminished. Notice I didn’t say “Congress can solve…” since now the Imperial One can simply suspend all functions of the Constitution with an executive branch and its own administrative law powers.

    But I see he’s in favor of helping working moms when they need to tend to their sick kids. Today, “sickness” is not always manifested by physical symptoms alone.

  • Tamsin

    Where women are free to choose the timing and pace of motherhood, they will choose more (or less) wisely. The timing and pace of children appearing on the scene will depend on the woman, her husband, and their material and spiritual and family resources. If women (of any education level) make bad choices and are “saved” by the government, they will never learn, as individuals or in teaching their own children, to make good choices.

    I strongly object to government subsidizing motherhood through the tax code, making me pay to protect other women from their own choices. Women who are anonymous to me, with whom I am not in fellowship.

    And so we end up with a president who pushes more “free” universal (and anonymous) childcare, even after decades of HeadStart making absolutely NO difference in the lives of disadvantaged children, other than as a jobs program for some poor mothers to work caring for children so that other poor mothers can work not taking care of children. Which is a bit like paying one woman to dig a hole and another woman to fill it.

    I think our polity would be a lot healthier if everyone, up and down the line, had to face
    the true costs of raising children.

    • JP

      “I strongly object to government subsidizing motherhood through the tax
      code, making me pay to protect other women from their own choices. Women
      who are anonymous to me, with whom I am not in fellowship.”

      Why do you object? The government subsidizes retirement? And the government’s ability to pay for tens of millions of pensioners is directly proportional to the number of young people paying taxes. Mothers, in other words, at the very least are raising tomorrow’s tax payers.

      • Tamsin

        I understand a Catholic desire to “go get” something for natural families from the government; many are advising Republicans to make this argument for the good of the future of the Republic. But, there are strings attached. These strings are woven through all the arguments that families can be defined by government, therefore by majority rule, by individual declarations of “who you love”, which was affirmed in US v. Windsor, and has been and will be extremely destructive to the natural family.

        BTW, young people know that Social Security, as built, will not be there for them. The alternatives include pure socialism.

      • DE-173

        “Why do you object? ”

        Because in practice, we are paying people who are not ready to be mothers to get have children. They are too young, to immature, unwed and economically unemancipated to be GOOD mothers; on the other hand, they are good little serfs, eager to trade their vote for support and baubles.

        Just as a wedding doesn’t make a good marriage; giving birth doesn’t make a good mother.

        • Tamsin

          A young mother needs cranky old mothers like me around to give advice along with my money. 😉

    • DE-173

      “I think our polity would be a lot healthier if everyone, up and down the line, had to face the true costs of raising children.”

      Yes, but that would work against the institutional dependency that left relies upon through the vast millions of dependent voters who’ll say yes to anything as long as their support is maintained.

  • TERRY

    Thanks for pointing out something that is ALWAYS there, so often that we might tend not to notice it.

    • TERRY

      This was meant as a reply to maineman

  • TERRY

    Reading this I began chuckling uncontrollably. I couldn’t figure out why until I remembered bo lending his august presence to a 15k din-din at gwynnie”s place in la-la land a few weeks ago when she referred to herself as a ‘working mother’.

  • Mike

    Yes, of course money power puppet Barack Obama wants our nation to go further into debt to the private central banking cartel, and for parents who opt not to go for welfare to pay asinine amounts of money for money power indoctrination that is “early childhood education”. As long as kids accept feminism and homosexuality as natural at age 3, it is essentially irreversible.  Even Barack Obama himself called it in his comments exactly what it is- “programming” 

    The money power also wants more women in the workforce, creating more “competition” in the market in order to drive the cost of labor down. This also creates a workforce more subservient to the orders of their masters. Since decent jobs are (artificially and deliberately) scarce, the prize goes to either the people willing to kiss the most ass,  or the person most willing to sell their soul and get their hands dirty. (and not in a good way)  Women are for the most part better at taking orders then men, which is why the money power wants them in middle management positions. 

    Of course single moms can’t afford to raise their kids. It this way by design. This forces them to send their kids to such government indoctrination programs (and get further into debt) while they slave away at 4 minimum wage jobs.  This is why most people now a days choose not to have kids, because they CAN NOT AFFORD THEM, a point that  “conservatives” convientely ignore. 

    Yet “conservatives”  want to believe that it is the “statists” that are the problem (and not the crooks that FUND the government)  and that the “free market” will somehow produce a different result, as if the market was not completely controlled by the same satanic monopolistic forces with the same agenda.  

    The “market” INHERENTLY wants less people. It also wants to completely eliminate the idea of families and communities that work together, because a nation of isolated individuals is MORE DEPENDENT on the forces of the “market”, which only aims to increase its power by any means necessary.  Since  the “market” doesn’t need that much labor anymore to accomplish its goals, it resorts to population control through covert and overt means. (people forget “Libertarianism” is a socially Darwinist economic theory) 

    “Conservatives” have absolutely no idea HOW to produce the “decentralization of power” and create a society that cultivates traditional  values .   Hint: it takes the FORCE of law that TAKES AWAY power from the satanists.  Strict simple laws (not weak 2000 page ineffective legalistic nonsense full of loopholes) that ensure that such a thing never happens again. 

    If you don’t regulate monopoly, it will rear its ugly head once again. But of course that would violate the “non-aggression principal” which is doublespeak for what it really means: don’t attempt to interfere in the workings of criminals who want to play god. 

  • Zephaniah

    One must look at this from a socialist point of view… he degrades women who stay home b/c he needs them to be in the work force to pay more taxes to support those who are living on the government dole..the lazies and the ‘takers.’…. socialism! The more they can keep in the work force, the more $$$ they can use to support their voters.

  • Jean Allen

    I admit I haven’t read all the comments before mine, but I agree with most that I have read. So far, though, I haven’t seen anyone point out his use of the word “programmed” with regard to (the government) rearing our children because (let’s be honest here) the government never bungles anything they try to manage, right? But “PROGRAMMED”?!?!? If that word isn’t telling about ulterior motives here, I don’t know what is! Heck, there’s nothing ulterior about it. Sicko.

  • stemmed

    This article rests on a strawman argument. Obama is clearly discussing the difficult choices impoverished women have to make in order to survive. Low income women have to choose between working to feed their families, and staying home to care for their children. What kind of choice is that? Do we really want a society where a woman is pushed out of the workforce because she doesn’t have daycare options? If people are so against ‘government handouts’ such as foodstamps and WIC, shouldn’t they support the ability for a woman to work in order to feed her kids?
    Despite pointing out that 32% (one third!) of stay at home moms live in poverty, this article does not acknowledge that women and poverty was a central theme to Obama’s speech.
    In addition, people seem to forget that the Obamas made the stay at home mom choice for their own family. Michelle Obama did not work when her husband was a senator, instead she stayed at home with her children, despite having a law degree. If Obama did not value stay at home mothers, then why would he and his wife make this choice for their own family? Clearly the issue is not that some women stay at home by choice, but that many women stay at home due to poverty.

    • publiusnj

      Michelle stayed at home? I am not surprised. If that is true, though, she had what I can only assume is a no-show job with the University of Chicago Hospitals as their VP for Community and External Affairs. A lucrative no-show job, if that is what it was. According to the couple’s 2006 income tax return, Michelle’s salary was $273,618 from the University of Chicago Hospitals, while Barack had a salary of $157,082 from the United States Senate. I remember reading that she got that job (or got a big increase) shortly after her husband got elected to the Senate.

      In 2006, moreover, she earned another $51,200 from her slot on the Treehouse Foods Board of Directors.

      • “I remember reading that she got that job (or got a big increase) shortly after her husband got elected to the Senate.”

        If by “shortly after” you mean the day after, you are correct, sir.

        • publiusnj

          Is this a case, though, where “post hoc ergo propter hoc” is NOT a fallacy? I don’t mean to sound naive, but the sequence might just be a coincidence….or not.

          • In as much as a salary increase is the result of conscience human action, and not some abract phenomona; the only way this is coincidental is that it was based on some political polling result that had Obama’s election as a virtual certainty.

            If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has feathers, it’s probably a duck, or in this case the exchange of money for favor.

    • GG

      I am sure many women would love a no show fake job that paid hundreds of thousands of dollars. The notion she was a stay at home mom is about as genuine as G. Paltrow claiming she is a working mom. It insults intelligence.

    • He was a Senator with the enormous perks that entails and then after something like 143 days, he was a candidate for president, she was employed as his cheerleader in that effort, so what? She worked when he was state senator; we know because she received a huge pay increase the day after he was elected.

  • Objectivetruth

    My wife sacrificed her career to have a better job staying home raising our kids and I’m damn thankful she did.

  • sarah

    My husband has abandon me and the kids for the the past 5months now, and refuse to come back because he was hold on by a woman whom he just met, for that, my self and the kids has been suffering and it has been heel of a struggle, but I decide to do all means to make sure that my family come together as it use to, then I went online there I saw so many good talk about this spell caster whose website is Dr.kokotemple@gmail.comso I had to contact him and in just 3days as he has promised, my husband came home and his behavior was back to the man i got married to. I cant thank the spell caster enough what he did for me, i am so grateful.

  • Cindy

    Thank you so much for writing this Ms. Bootsma! It is a tragedy that our modern society continuously tries to fix the ailments of our society with government programs, rather than the family, which is the only place many of these issues are resolved.

MENU