It is clear: Leftists think “mother” is hate speech, and they’re working to cancel it

On the surface, Xavier Becerra’s smile is almost impeccable.

But deep down, you know it’s not legit.

And Senator James Lankford more than likely feels the same way. This exchange shows as much:

Lankford took the Secretary for Health and Human Services to task for using the term “birthing people” instead of “mother” in the Biden administration’s $6 trillion budget. It’s the first time that brand of “wokeness” has been used in a fiscal budget report. But it’s not the Democrats’ first rodeo. They first pulled the stunt in advance of Mother’s Day last month.

But… that smile.

Apparently, there are 10 types of smiles. We human beings (“human being” is still a thing… right?) use smiles to show a myriad of emotions. But the Health and Human Services Secretary wasn’t smiling to evoke joy or be polite. Clearly, he was using it to shame Lankford.

Somewhere between the “lying smile” and the “Pan Am smile”, if you will.

At the 17 second mark – in response to Lankford’s request for a definition of “birthing people” – Becerra says, “If we’re talking about those who give birth, I think we’re talking about… (smiles) I don’t know how else to explain it to you…”

Apparently, Beccera thinks treating Lankford like a 5-year old at a Senate Finance Committee hearing is appropriate.

And lest you think Beccera was simply at a loss for words, let’s not forget that the 63-year old lawyer… well… knows his way around a minefield.

This was not his first rodeo, either.

Side-stepping with deception and deflection takes lots of practice. And to do it with a smile? Well, that’s a master stroke.

But where the Republican Senator from Oklahoma would be good to assume the mindset of a 5-year old is in the very subject matter, itself. Any child, from the moment he or she (only “he” or “she”?… you don’t say!) is equipped with common sense, knows not only what “mother” means, but knows just how important they are.

Lankford knows. Becerra knows. But only one of those men was being disingenuous in front of his confreres last week.

What exactly is meant by “birthing people”?

I’m gonna have to go back and look at the language, says Becerra. Yeah. Right.

I’ll give the Stanford law grad this; the only part in that video where he was being forthright was when he said “we’re trying to be precise in the language that’s used”.

Straight-thinking, God-fearing men and women need to focus on that… let the words wash over them like an ice-bath.

That is precisely the game-plan of these Marxist suit-and-tie types. They may cloak and dagger in front of a hearing microphone, but change is what they’re openly and precisely after.

“Mother” is hate speech. It does not dignify those who don’t identify with a particular gender.

Women have penises.

Men have vaginas. And so do “birthing people”.

Do “birthing people” have penises? If so, then from where would the child come?

What is “birthing”?

What is “people” or “person”?

The confusion is absolutely staggering. Coming to an elementary classroom near you.

But it’s not confusion. It’s insanity.

And the left wants to hold our hand down that path. Except replace “hand” with “head”, and “that path” with “in deep water”.

All with a smile.