LIFE NEWS reports:

From the stage at the recent Women Deliver conference, former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s daughter Chelsea revealed that her much-admired maternal grandmother was the child of unwed teenage parents who “did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.”

Chelsea’s grandmother was born of an unintended pregnancy. And new research shows that her family is not alone in treasuring a person who – if Planned Parenthood had been successful – would not have been born.

—- Comments —-

Alex B. writes:

While the jokes do write themselves – “Chelsea Clinton wishes she was never born” – she knows very well what she is saying. She’s telling other liberals “I am holier than thou. My religious fervor burns so hot, it doesn’t matter to me that I might have never existed if our religion had won a bit earlier. Beat that!”

But this isn’t just about winning the status competition. Fanatical conviction gives great strength. See this discussion of a liberal’s claim that he would not use deadly force against an “active shooter” to save his life and that he’d rather die by shooting than live armed. The relevant part:

Alex B. writes:

Terry Morris writes:

The liberal mental illness articulated by Mr. Coates comes in varying stages. I once had a conversation with a liberal family man, in which I asked a similar question concerning the protection of his family as the husband, father, and head of the home. His answer was that under no circumstances would he defend his family by killing another human being; that he preferred to allow his own children to be tortured, raped, murdered at the hands of criminals, rather than have the blood of criminals on his hands.

People that far gone ought to be institutionalized in my opinion.

Yes, that is madness. But we must also recognize the tremendous strength of conviction manifested in this attitude. This fanatical loyalty to their absurd, abhorrent beliefs, to the point of professing willingness to sacrifice their children to them, is a big part of what makes liberalism such a formidable, seemingly all-conquering force. We will be deluding ourselves if we think that liberals saying “I would rather die by shooting than live armed” is a sign of weakness; it’s the opposite. It’s their immoral, nihilistic way of turning the other cheek, and it gives them a powerful conviction of their moral superiority. And such conviction is a source of great strength.

LA replies:

Yes. People willing to die for their beliefs are strong, like the Muslim warriors who poured out of the Arabian peninsula in the seventh century and conquered everyone they encountered.

Professing allegiance to a point of liberal doctrine even if it means that one could have never been born – what could give a liberal a higher sense of moral superiority and, as a result, strength? Only professing a willingness to sacrifice one’s own children could possibly trump it, and even that is not a certainty with liberals.

Laura writes:

I don’t doubt that Chelsea possesses such fervor, but I also wonder if she understood what she was saying.

Alex responds:

I think she did understand what she was saying, and not just because the daughter of very smart parents is unlikely to be so dumb.

Everything Chelsea says in public now and will say for the next few years is written by the Clinton team, with attention paid to every word. Her role right now is to energize her mother’s potential voters. When the daughter speaks to a liberal women’s organization like Women Abort (I mean Women Deliver), she’s not just mouthing off in front of a random assembly of people – she’s drumming up support for her mother’s candidacy among a key group. This is what she’s been put forward to do by the family. Everything she says has been thought out by very clever people, and every question in response to which she says what she’s been prepared to say has also been pre-approved, such as the questions she was asked at that conference by the Al Jazeera moderator. (Video here; she starts talking at 20 min.)

Remember Sandra Fluke? Everybody was going off about how absurd it was for a 31-year-old student-activist, who sleeps around so much she supposedly spends $1000 per year on birth control, to demand that the public pay for it. Turned out it was just absurd enough to work perfectly with a key Dem demographic – single women with loose morals – to move them to go to the polls. Which was the intended purpose for which Fluke had been found and told what to say. Since public funding of contraception is a done deal now, the way for the Clintons to get this demographic behind them is to assure them that voting for Hillary is a guarantee that if the condom fails, their life is not ruined.

Nothing the Clintons have ever done has struck me as absurd. They are evil and immoral, but they aren’t dumb. I won’t be surprised if at just the right time during the election campaign Chelsea gets pregnant with her first child, to cover the non-loose women demographic.

Analyzing the actions and motives of these people feels like wading through deep slime.

Laura writes:

Very good. You have convinced me.

Please follow and like us: