The insanity that is Darlena Cunha knows no bounds and we are about this see that in action. In her article on Time, she is about consistent as a meth addict, have erratically disjointed thoughts, and makes contradictory arguments.
Let’s frisk this article and see if she has a point, if any:
It’s wrong to burden children with a public political message when they don’t understand the implications.
That is a nice ideal to aspire, but we all know that parents try to pass down their values and ideas to their children. That is why we have them, so that they can continue what we started or what was passed to us.
Again, nice ideal but most everything she says later pretty much invalidates this first sentence altogether.
Thursday night, my two 7-year-old daughters stayed up to watch some of the Republican debate. Needless to say, I had a lot of questions to answer.
This quite literally comes right after the last line! Darlena Cunha doesn’t believe in “burden(ing) children with a public political message(s)” and yet she lets her 7-year-olds watch the GOP Debate?
“Mom, why do all these men hate Hillary Clinton so much? Is she going to be our next president?”
“Mommy, is that Donald Trump? I don’t like him. Why does anyone like him? Yuck.”
Do they understand the “implications” of what they said here? Do you they really think GOP candidates “hate” Hillary Clinton? Be honest now! Let’s come back to this later.
Kids have agency. They have opinions. They say the darndest things, and they mean them.
No, they don’t. This is why the legal system doesn’t hold them responsible for crimes committed as kids and why we have “age of consent” laws.
At the time.
This is the very next sentence! Does Darlena Cunha believe that kids have agency or what?
But their framework for those thoughts come from their parents. Their life experience and ability to parse complex governmental, political and legal issues are limited. I am a firm believer in encouraging youngsters to learn about our political process and partake in the discourse surrounding our cultural standing. To awaken a thirst within them for knowledge about our country and their role in our democracy is one of the key roles of parenting.
This was my point when I last wrote on USA Freedom Kids. Parents are responsible for their children and it is only natural to pass down their values, as is EVERY PARENTS RIGHT. This includes conservative parents too. We’ll get to that later.
That said, they are going to pick up what we, the parents, are putting down. And we cannot be objective all the time. We are laying down the foundation upon which we believe our kids will grow best. For my family, that’s a world that doesn’t include Donald Trump as president.
Okay, repeating your thoughts from the last thoughts and thinking you’ve changed gears when you have not. Moving on.
Look, I wish I lived in a world that doesn’t include Barack Obama as president. However reality keeps getting in the way of that, so I have learned to live in reality. How is Darlena Cunha and her children going to deal with living in a President Trump world?
So when I saw three little girls, barely older than my daughters, proudly belting out pro-Trump lyrics in front of a 10,000-strong crowd, I honored their right to their opinions. But there is a huge difference between politics talk in the home and the politics-for-pomp that one of the girls’ fathers, Jeff Popick of Pop Media Network LLC, is peddling.
The three are part of a five-girl group called “The USA. Freedom Kids,” and Popick said the girls “are so dedicated, so intensely patriotic.” The girls are between the ages of 8 and 12. Do they know what “patriotic” means to them, yet? Do they have firm opinions on which candidate they should stump for based on their own life experiences? Do they understand what they are saying? Do they understand the implications of what they are getting into? They aren’t, after all, old enough to vote, some by a decade.
Does Darlena Cunha’s children 7-year-olds know what “patriotic” means? Do they have firm opinions on Hillary Clinton so that they can praise her and condemn GOP candidates who just doesn’t agree with her? Do they understand the implications of supporting a candidate that has very likely broke several federal laws?
Popick has said he “enjoyed providing them an opportunity” and was happy to “watch them seize it.” He gave them an opportunity to sing political jingles, and, sure, there will be fans of the group and positive feedback. But he also opened them up to ridicule, mean comments and public flaming. Are they old enough to consent to that?
Did Darlena Cunha’s 7-year-old daughters give consent to being opened up to ridicule, mean comments, and public flaming by being included in this article? They are 7-years-old, how could they? No, Darlena Cunha gave consent on their behalf.
I bet anyone anything, if you just ask him, Jeff Popick got consent from their parents. The fact that only 3 out of the five-member band showed up to this event, one could logically concluded two of the band’s member parents were not thrill with appearing at the Trump event.
Also, who is ridiculing, saying mean comments, and public flaming these “USA Freedom Kids” members? No one is doing that, that I know of at least.
You cannot use children as public figureheads in political movements or protests. They are too young to give consent, and you may be putting them in danger. Who knows if these kids will be followed by stalkers or become the victims of bullying or harassment because of an extreme stance they haven’t actually taken.
Like when Darlena Cunha put her kids in this article?
While the girls are clearly talented, exposing them to the type of inflammatory reactions Trump elicits from both sides isn’t fair to them.
Again, who is insulting these girls? Could Darlena Cunha give me examples?
The lyrics are accusations. “Cowardice, Are you serious? Apologies for freedom – I can’t handle this!” It is wrong to burden young children with such a message, to face the public, when they don’t really know what they are signing up for.
Actually, these lyrics are quite harmless compare to some of the other slightly troublesome lyrics later on. However this is not directed at children, but adults who are already fans of Trump.
I will concede to that they might not know what they are singing about, but their parents do and signed off on this performance. Consent is with the parents. Agency is with them.
This goes even when you might agree with the message. I very much loved President Barack Obama when he was elected into office in 2008. But my kids will never sing about him in a public way that puts money in my pocket. That is ethically wrong. The school children in this pro-Obama video were almost as exploited as the U.S.A. Freedom Kids are – a large difference being that the educators and producers involved didn’t pocket profits. Still, they instructed a group of children who couldn’t properly decide for themselves on political rhetoric that they then released to the country at large.
Here comes the moral equivalency argument. Darlena Cunha thinks the “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” educators were wrong too, but we should still forgive them because their hearts were in the right place and they were not looking to profit off these kids. There are huge difference between “USA Freedom Kids” and the “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” event.
- “USA Freedom Kids” was at a campaign event, where people came voluntarily. “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” was done at a school where the kids were FORCED to attend.
- “USA Freedom Kids” was clearly meant to entertain people who are already Trump fans/supporters. “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” is a jingle purposely written to indoctrinate other kids.
- “USA Freedom Kids” was done on Trump’s dime to Pop Media Network LLC and, in turned, to the kids. “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” was done on the taxpayer’s dime and time (when they should be learning facts, not opinions), and kids were also not fairly compensated in any way.
The nonsensical ravings of a lunatic mind has long been a source of endless fascination to me. And Darlena Cunha is no exception. Darlena Cunha is perfectly okay with teaching her kids to hate GOP candidates because they disagree with Hillary Clinton, but bulks when “USA Freedom Kids” are fairly compensated to open a campaign event for Donald Trump (whether the owner agrees with Trump is irrelevant). When faced with the “mmm mmm mmm Barack Hussein Obama” contradiction, Darlena Cunha makes a moral equivalent leap in logic and then pardons them for having the right morality or something.
This is about not children’s agency, but parent’s agency. Darlena Cunha clearly believes in her agency when it comes to her children, but she completely forgets that “USA Freedom Kids” have parents and they have just as much agency too or doesn’t believe in conservative parents should have agency.
Whatever the case may be, Darlena Cunha’s half-baked rant cannot be said to be coherent in any way shape or form. How that gibberish mess got publish on Time.com is beyond me.
Well, see ya’ later!