Mr. President: If you had a son … ?

Have you wondered why there’s an inexplicably dead silence among media and politicians when it comes to America’s fatherless children? The discussion is always about “women’s rights” or “a woman’s right to choose” or the struggles of “single mothers.” A politician’s rhetoric is as if children are the lone conception thus responsibility of immaculately impregnated women. The seemingly few men who want the joys and responsibilities of fatherhood are just as slighted as overburdened mothers and parentally under-nourished children are.

[Click on chart to view.] I’ve asked myself if this is happenstance of living in a man’s world: Men’s government, men’s politics, men’s mentality. Most politicians, women and men, seem perfectly content with the one-sided silence. Perhaps that’s an unspoken politics that falls better in line with inflaming overbearingly outspoken women who want what they want when they want it more direly than they want fathers’ helping, making themselves more easily manipulated in the process? Men who, in this century and advanced world, are aided and abetted in escaping all social accountability for fatherhood if not celebrated for it. “Baby’s Mama/Daddy,” are you kidding me? Are America’s women so easily led?

At behest of men I fear women have totally forgotten that the onus of rearing good kids does not and should not fall totally on them. It IS okay to talk about that. We should be talking about it and we need to be talking about that.

Anyone reading this who’s followed politics over the last four-years is probably aware of the 45 Communist Goals published by an FBI specialist in 1958, once deemed critical enough to be recorded in our country’s Congressional Record (1963). And, yes, that is directly related. If you’re not familiar with them remember those years (roughly 50-years ago) as you check off each one since accomplished. And, yes, that is alarming. In particular are the following two, though there are more that just as aptly apply covering the destruction of American morals and traditions, the taking over of school teacher unions and socializing churches:

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influences of parents.

For startling statistics surrounding fatherless children visit Fathers Unite and not the least of which is gun violence, by the way. Or visit any number of other sites that pop-up when searching on the topic, though you’d never guess there were that many given what little we hear of this subject from today’s politicians – including women. Doesn’t that peak your curiosity in the least?

Having finally asked my nagging questions I leave this short article’s good reading (only excerpted here). It’s time this subject became a part of every political discussion laid on “women” and their “reproductive rights.” Or on gun violence and “gun control.” What women and their children – especially America’s children – have a ‘right’ to is the support and dedication of these shameless men – certainly not limited to absent fathers – who have no problem using “women’s rights” and our children for their own self-gratifying personal, financial and political power plays.

America’s Root Problem: A Culture of Fatherlessness

By John Renken

(… excerpted) In case you haven’t noticed there is an epidemic … I mean this both literally and figuratively.  I don’t think for a second  that it is an exaggeration to point to the single most important reason [Americans] are losing ground.  The reason we are losing ground is because we have lost the men!

… This particular epidemic … is a problem in our nation.  When we look at our educational  system we must admit that the vast majority of teachers are females. Peg Tyre in her article “The  Trouble with Boys” shows us that boys are having more difficulties in school as the teaching methodologies utilized primarily suit girls. She concludes that,

One of the most reliable predictors of whether a boy will succeed or fail in  high school rests on a single question: does he have a man in his life to look  up to? Too often, the answer is no. High rates of divorce and single motherhood  have created a generation of fatherless boys. In every kind of neighborhood,  rich or poor, an increasing number of boys – now a startling 40 percent – are  being raised without their biological dads.

Read full article here.

Support Conservative Daily News with a small donation via Paypal or credit card that will go towards supporting the news and commentary you've come to appreciate.

Suzanne Webb

Christian American Patriot, Opinion Commentator. Retired from public and private sector business administration. Unless otherwise attributed all content is opinion.

Related Articles


  1. “Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.”

    No fault divorce in the 70’s. Most divorces are initiated by women since there is a financial gain in it and they are backed by the state. Women 7/10 push men out of the childs life.

    There is no reason for men to be part of a system that wishes to saddle them with burdens all in the name of “for the children”.

    Marriage used to be a contract with enforcable punishments. No fault divorce did away with that.

    1. Drawing more lines in the sand that divide us isn’t a solution. Doing the right thing usually isn’t easy. “Financial gain” is rarely found in divorce, quite the opposite in most cases. I agree the state wrongfully encourages broken families. Becoming victims of “the system” is what all must resist and few are prepared, but there cannot be justification for slighting our children in the process, whatever our circumstances, man or woman. As colloquial as it sounds, the children are what America we will be in 20-years. Our children are our first best and only hope in saving ourselves.

      1. Oh yes, it’s always for the children, uh huh… Maybe we should take the guns because it’s in the best interest of the children? They would never do that right….. *cough*sandyhook*/cough*

        I’m going to guess that you are a conservative and that you opposed Obamacare’s mandate, but did you know, that fathers or as the state likes to call them “non-custodial parents”, were already being required to have insurance. Now of course they were only being required to carry insurance on the child, but you can’t have insurance on the child unless the one buying it is covered to. Welcome to the party…

        Ever seen the show Two and a Half Men? Do you really think Alan’s position is a joke? Art imitates life and that is the position MOST men find themselves in currently. They have an overbearing ex who threatens with her attorney every time she doesn’t get her way. But it’s all for the children….

        All those “convicts” you see on the side of the ride cleaning it in prison suits, aren’t actually convicts. They are “deadbeats” who have fallen behind on their child support and have been placed on probation and what not. It seems that the pimp daddy state thinks that it’s not right to make prisoners work for their keep, but “deadbeats” should… how the hell is that?

        The pimp daddy state puts shackles on the men and yell, “Mush! Mush! For the children!” and then when we refuse to do absolutely everything the way the state or the “custodial parent” wants then we are labeled “deadbeats” and marginalized to say we don’t care for the kids. Bullshit! It’s the same crap they play with race.

        You need to wake the hell up and realize the line has already been drawn to divide us. I am TELLING YOU that the line was no fault divorce. I’m TELLING YOU that “for the children” is the line. I’m TELLING YOU that labeling all the men in America as deadbeats was their plan for destroying families and is the line. They have already been doing it for years by labeling “custodial, non custodial”. So pull your head out of your butt and look into it. Or, put your head back into the sand and shut up.

        1. There is no discussing with a tunnel visioned know-it-all, especially bitter ones reading their own personal story where it doesn’t belong and hasn’t been projected. So Obama (the state) wins – again. Thank you for your help with that. I’m telling you, stop thinking of youself long enough to start thinking of a country. Until we do, this crap only gets worse.

          1. You’re an idiot. This has nothing to do with me. I have no kids you obtuse witch.

            Good day.

  2. Suzanne, you don’t know what you are talking about. I am a divorced woman who was designated custodial parent with the right to establish domicile. My ex and I had agreed before the court hearing on child support and visitations. Our agreement was as follows $25 per month and my ex could get his son any time that he wanted to visit him, so long as we didn’t already have unchangeable plans. We get into the court room and I was told, “No that’s not enough money for what he makes. He should pay you $680 per month, and that he should only get standard visitation. That’s what you deserve.” We had to argue that we’d already made arrangements and would be sticking to those. We got what we wanted and he never paid me $25 per month it was more like $400-500 he paid without me asking or forcing him to do so. He also has insurance on our son. I went to the Department of Health and Human Services trying to find cheaper insurance for our son and was told I qualified to put him on Medicaid and that if I did I would be out of pocket $0, but the ex on the other hand would be responsible for all doctor visits and medicines. I wouldn’t have to worry about asking him for the money because the state would just go ahead and take it out of his paycheck for repayment. I declined the insurance and we kept him on the one from his dads work. This is what happens all of the time, I know many women who do exactly what the state tells them to and they don’t have to work or anything because the child support takes care of their car and rent and anything else they want, and the state takes care of the rest of their out of pocket expenses for their children. This is what is and has been destroying American families. This was the line that was drawn a long time ago.

    1. Which is exactly the point of my article. You are arguing with yourself. _I_ know exactly what _I_ am talking about.

      Thanks for sharing your story. It is a most regrettable one that all of us must work together to fix; and no ones implies the fix is an easy one.

      1. No the point of your article was, “Look how bad all these fathers are for not being in their children’s lives.”

        1. ShootFirst: “No the point of your article was, ‘Look how bad all these fathers are for not being in their children’s lives.’”

          You’re wrong, ShootFirst. I’d say you could not be “more wrong,” but something tells me you probably often are.

          No, that is how You read the article, which speaks volumes considering it had nothing whatsoever to do with that. Thanks for proving my first point.

Back to top button