Kyrsten Sinema rejects family values; claims stay-at-home moms 'leech off their husbands'

Arizona socialist and Democratic senatorial candidate Kyrsten Sinema once agreed that it was just fine for Americans to join the Taliban. She accused of President George W. Bush of "Crowning himself King of the World for Life," and of putting arsenic in the nation's drinking water, and referred to Arizona citizens as "racists."

Now she has made it clear of her contempt for stay-at-home mothers.

In a 2006 interview with Scottsdale nightlife magazine 944, the socialist went berserk when describing women who stay at home to care for their children and run a household. "These women who act like staying at home, leeching off their husbands or boyfriends, and just cashing the checks is some sort of feminism because they're choosing to live that life. That's bullsh*t. I mean, what the f**k are we really talking about here?"

Well, for one thing, we're talking about what was once traditional in a standard household--the mother stayed home, took care of raising the kids to a degree, cooked and cleaned while the father was out earning a living.

Good fathers would help their wives with doing things around the house, but there were gender roles and nobody had a problem with that until the second wave of feminists came around to tell women how to think.

Sinema was once married to a BYU classmate but later divorced him. [Lucky guy.] Fortunately, she has no children and is a strong advocate for killing babies in the womb if they pose an inconvenience. She co-sponsored the Women's Health Protection Act, which has almost nothing to do with women's health, but almost everything to do with allowing mothers to kill their baby while it was still growing in the womb.

Carol Tobias, president of the National Right to Life Committee told the Senate Judiciary Committee:

We find the formal title or marketing label, "Women's Health Protection Act," to be highly misleading. The bill is really about just one thing: stripping away from elected lawmakers the ability to provide even the most minimal protections for unborn children, at any stage of their development. The proposal is so sweeping and extreme that it would be difficult to capture its full scope in any short title. Calling it the "Abortion Without Limits Until Birth Act" would be more in line with truth-in-advertising standards.

The bill would subject any law or government policy that affects the practice of abortion, even indirectly, to an array of sweeping legal tests, designed to guarantee that almost none will survive. The general rule would be that any law that specifically regulated abortion would be presumptively invalid. The same would be true of any law that is not abortion-specific but has the effect or claimed effect of reducing access to abortion. It is apparent that those who crafted this bill believe that, where abortion is involved, immediate access to abortion, or any stage of pregnancy, is the only thing that matters.

In her 2009 obscure book, "Unite and Conquer: How to Build Coalitions That Win--And Last,"  Sinema wrote: "I don't mean that we should all of a sudden abandon our principles and adopt moral relativism. I just mean that we should consider the idea that perhaps people with views different from our own come about those ideas honestly and that those ideas aren't inherently evil."

As long as those ideas are the same as hers and aren't about mothers raising their children in the centuries old way.


Please click the "Follow" button in the margin and be sure to get the latest Brain Flushings at a computer near you. Also, please visit the ads on this page because it helps the economy and me.

Tweet