From Newsgroup: talk.politics.misc

"So, Steve," people ask me out of the blue all the time, "aside from
wanting to use government power to ideologically emasculate little boys,
is there anything to disqualify Jennifer Siebel Newsom from ever becoming First Lady?"

That's when I finish my martini and ask for another because we're going to
be here a while. This country has a serious problem with crazy rich white ladies who believe that money and woke ideology override parental rights — and Siebel Newsom is today's most dangerous example.

First Ladies generally limit their public activities to "nice" things that decent people everywhere can more or less agree on. Eleanor Roosevelt was
an early champion of civil rights. Jacqueline Kennedy led a White House restoration effort. Nancy Reagan encouraged kids to "just say no" to
drugs. Laura Bush promoted childhood literacy. Hillary Clinton tried to Sovietize American health care and was maybe involved in the mysterious
death of Vince Foster. Michelle Obama ruined school lunches.

My sons really hate Michelle for that, but at least she never had a guy whacked. That I know of.

Granted, some of these examples are better than others — which is just one reason I ordered that second martini.

And that brings us back to Mrs. Gov. Gavin Newsom, or, as née Jennifer
Siebel likes to fancy herself, California's "First Partner" and Slayer of Toxic Masculinity.

I try to ignore the First Partner most of the time, but a couple of clips resurfaced in the last few days that, like a train wreck, I couldn't turn
away from.

This first clip is of her speaking at the 2024 Common Sense Summit in Los Angeles, where she fretted "that boys are moving away from sort of the
more progressive" thinking that she approves of.

captive dreamer
@captive_dreamer
·
Follow
from becoming right wing

https://twitter.com/i/status/2041235573600608391

I'm no fan of Andrew Tate — Vito Corleone would have dismissed him as "a pimp," like he did Philip Tattaglia — and I even had to steer one of my
sons away from him several years ago. But I suspect, as I'm sure you do,
that extreme examples like Tate are nothing more than a justification for indoctrinating everyone's little boys with hard-left progressivism.

Siebel Newsom doesn't want kids exposed to "very dangerous and limiting narratives around, ultimately, what it means to be a girl and what it
means to be a boy."

I.e., actual sex-defined meaning.

"The gov and I, we have three more years," as Siebel Newsom said in that
clip. "We're trying to institutionalize our values so that they carry on beyond our term."

I mean, couldn't we just teach little boys to read and let them make up
their own minds as they reach adulthood?

The question is rhetorical, of course. Siebel Newsom doesn't even allow
that with her own children — according to Newsom, herself. This next clip "If I'm reading a book and the protagonist is a male, I just change the he
to a she."

https://twitter.com/i/status/2040117260853874948

Maybe that seems like a small thing. But I say that taking male heroes
away from little boys through gender-swapping is a form of ideological emasculation. You want your sons to turn pimps like Tate for role models?
That right there is how you do it. If our little boys are becoming radicalized, it's crazy rich Democrat ladies like Siebel Newsom doing it.

The bad news is there's no way the decent people of this country can allow
her to become First Lady.

The good news is… have you seen her husband? He's the crazy rich dude too awkward — and too white and straight — for Democratic presidential primary voters.

I bet that drives her crazy.

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2026/04/07/jennifer-siebel-newsom-is-the- crazy-rich-white-lady-your-mother-warned-you-about-n4951525

--- Synchronet 3.21f-FreeBSD NewsLink 1.2