Michelle Malkin: Obama using kids to promote gun control a “form of child abuse and political malpractice”

Michelle Malkin spends the first part of the segment hammering the MSM journalists for phoning it in with easy questions for Obama to dodge or just stupid questions like “if you were a tree what kind of tree would you be”, while real journalists have real questions they want to ask the president.

She then hammers Obama for using children to push his gun-control agenda at his announcement yesterday, suggesting that it’s a “form of child abuse and political malpractice” and that using “kiddie human shields” is just a way for them to defect accountability for their actions.



Unlike many on our side, she also defends the NRA ad instead of throwing them under the bus. Kudos Michelle.

Watch below:

(h/t: Fox News Insider)

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

54 thoughts on “Michelle Malkin: Obama using kids to promote gun control a “form of child abuse and political malpractice”

  1. What a girl. Yeah I know, she’s a woman and not a girl. You keep doing that, and I’ll keep saying, “What a girl!”

  2. Ask these kids why they were there and one mighty say, ” the President gave us a gift certificate to McDonalds it is so cool!” They don’t have a clue.

    I was picturing a silhouette of a child as #5 representing the 60,000,000 plus children “legally” killed by human hands – not hand guns. It would not receive an acknowledgment or hug.

  3. hitler , mao, stalin, castro, morsi they all used the children to pave the path to dictatorship.. you can see all of the pics of the dictators surrounded by kids on weaselzippers.com
    i saw the NRA ad and there was nothing mentioned about sasha and malia… it was in general about presidents children …
    beyond popular belief from the president and the leftards……he is not the only president to raise a family in the WH

    1. Speaking of families in the white house, I don’t remember the Bush girls being ‘off limits’. More situational hypocrisy from the left.

  4. I think he must have learned this “kiddie shield” tactic from his muslim friends in Hamas. Just like a muslim, fire away and hide behind civilians! In this case, he’s firing his pen on our constitution, hiding behind his kid-props! -_-

    (to the CIA lurking and reading this: this is an analogy, it’s not meant to be taken literal!)

  5. And you don’t hear anything about what happened in Libya. It’s clear that Obama just wants it to go away. But it won’t, especially once Hillary finally testifies before Congress.

  6. I could not agree with this little lady more. This Kenyen islamocommie is nothing but a mealy mouth coward and always has been. Has no chance ever of attaining manhood.

  7. Last night on Special Report I heard both Stephen Hayes and Charles Krauthammer attack the NRA for bringing the president’s children into the mix and I thought they were wrong in the assessment because why should anyone’s child be more important than another? Michelle hit the nail on the head in this interview all the way around. So glad she’s among us to speak out.

    1. In that ad, as I remember it, there were no photos of the Obamas’ children, their names were not said. There were only black silhouettes.

      It is beyond ridiculous to avert that simply saying ‘the Obamas’ children’ constitutes an abuse of their privacy.
      Or do all those people now so upset think nobody should ever mention the fact that the Obamas actually have children? Have they become so peon-ified that they think we can gaze at the Obamas parading their daughters when they want, but otherwise must keep quiet?

    1. Sweet.

      I understand why it specifically calls out magazines as covered under the Act, but I do wonder why the bill would consider magazines “Firearms accessories” …….””not essential to the basic function of a firearm.”” Section 7-b.

  8. ” If you were a tree your Majesty, what kind would you be”

    If the answer is anything but “an invasive non-native species” it would be a lie.

    1. “A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

  9. The lame stream media is our enemy.

    Using “props” like children has been practiced by many politicians and dictator’s alike over the years. Frankly, I find it disgusting. It feels like evil. Obama didn’t originate this horrid practice but man, he exploits it like crazy and is a master at hiding behind others.

    Obama is a classic politician and an accomplished liberal at exploiting the moment and all resources available. And the waste-of-skin-media is all too happy the keep their points and comments away from the obvious and avoid any legitimate and relevent topic in order to protect their lord and savior.

    Obama is quite comfortable with this arrangement. He’s comfortable with lying, avoiding the truth and dividing Americans. The lemmings, moochers, and the brain dead are comfortable with this arrangement… as long as they get unearned free stuff (from others). And the media is comfortable with this relationship in order to try and remain in the public eye and garner liberal approval. I avoided saying “relevent” because they lost that credential years ago.

    This is killing America.

    1. well said. Without Global Progressive Media it would all unravel. As you say, it plays well to an audience of fools and natural slaves.

  10. Unlike many on our side, she also defends the NRA ad instead of throwing them under the bus.

    I want names. NRA’s ad is awesome! Their ad isn’t about, or directed to, Obama’s children. It’s about Obama’s demand for so-called ‘gun free zones’ for our children while he has the freedom to choose something safer for his own.

  11. Child abuse? I don’t know about that…

    Child EXPLOITATION maybe, but I wouldn’t call it “child abuse”.

    Maybe that’s what she meant.

  12. Hmmmm…. Those on “our side” throwing the NRA ad under the bus are…how to put this…umm, not on “our side.”

    1. They’re not on our side but on the side of “what’s best for me” and can’t sway from the pundit’s point of view lest they be ostracized.

      1. Indeed. They are afraid of standing up for their opinion.
        There are very many of those, fear of being socially ostracised is very powerful.

        My advice: channel Breitbart, say “So?”

  13. Michelle Malkin must check in with TRS at least twice a day. There isn’t one point in her interview that wasn’t expressed here in the last few days.

    1. See the blond had to get her snark in “always has an opinion”. What is she sitting there for–oh, to repeat liberal talking points having no thoughts of her own.

      1. Yep – I noticed that as well.
        At least she didn’t squirm like Mika B. did the other day on ‘Morning Joe”.

    1. Exactly. That would be called “exploitation”.

      The other side of the argument, which should have been made by the invalids in Republican Party shortly after this “speech”, should have been made by children who SUPPORT gun rights.

      In other words speaking truth to power.

      1. Not trying to be argumentative Martha, but I’m not sure that Obama is the anti-Christ because I don’t think it will be that obvious. He definitely lies and deceives, but only a intellectually bankrupt liberal swallows his swill and most of those because of the indocrination of constant lies by the mainstream media. If Revelations becomes that elementary, we are going to be in for one helluva ride.

        1. He is an evil presence. I don’t know how else to explain it. He is either one of two people. He is either demonic or the devil himself. What am I to think?????

Comments are closed.