He had me until the last few paragraphs. Prager threw an otherwise intelligent piece right out the window by pushing the line of a woman’s place is in the home. Though I know that his intent was a much deeper meaning of what is seen (by his target audience for this piece) as an “antiquated” idea and I would never underestimate the importance of the woman’s role in the family unit, but the left just rolled their collective eyes when they got to his conclusion and the message was lost on those whom Prager targets.
Hey, I am all for strong women. Strong women in the home as well as in the professional world. And strong professional women can serve as fantastic role models for young gals... heck, or guys for that matter, looking for guidance and a path into the professional world. Where Hillary fails is that she put morals and ethics aside to achieve her goals. She used her husband and not only allowed him to use and abuse her, but attacked the female victims of her sexual predator husband in the purely selfish interest of wealth, power and fame. She sacrificed self-respect and all credibility and is now one of the most criminally corrupt politicians in this country’s history and she sold out the security of the United States for cold, hard cash.
Ma Barker was a strong woman as well. And in my opinion that is the point Dennis should have wrapped up his argument with. There is no gender bias when it comes to criminals and corruption. Hillary is not a role model, plain and simple. Hillary is a crook.
The father(s) can and do run out on the family but the mother’s ‘choice’ is to kill her kid or raise her or him. That is why Prager ultimately says that if women want good role models for their daughters THEY should provide that counter message to the liberal establishment.