Thursday, August 16, 2018

A horrifying pronouncement from Chelsea Clinton

Really let this sink in:

Chelsea Clinton suggested during a progressive event over the weekend that the legalization of abortion was a boon to the U.S. economy.
At the “Rise Up for Roe Tour,” which kicked off Saturday in New York City, the former first daughter of President Bill Clinton argued that the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade added more than $3 trillion to the economy by women entering the workforce.
“Whether you kind of fundamentally care about reproductive rights and access, right, because again these are not the same thing — if you care about social justice or economic justice, agency — you have to care about this,” she said, according to a clip published by the Media Research Center. “It is not a disconnected fact … that American women entering the labor force from 1970 to 2009 added three and a half trillion dollars to our economy, right?
“The net, new entrance of women — that is not disconnected from the fact that Roe became the law of the land in January of 1973,” she said. “So, I think, whatever it is that people say they care about, I think that you can connect to this issue. Of course, I would hope that they would care about our equal rights and dignity to make our own choices, but if that is not sufficiently persuasive, hopefully some of these other arguments that you’re hearing expressed so beautifully will be.” 
Those millions of Americans who had holes poked in their the tops of their skulls and their brains sucked out, who had their limbs ripped from their torsos - well,, bless their little hearts, they expanded economic opportunity for so many women!

One thing this does is point up the crux of feminism: resentment at having uteruses, at being the half of the species with the bodies in which new bodies gestate. You see, that makes life so inconvenient relative to the lives of men.

Which takes us to a broader verity: Leftism has no use for the individual. What Chelsea wants those in her audience to celebrate is the strides of a demographic group. Per se, there's nothing wrong with that, but that it happens over the corpses of millions of fetal Americans elevates that "achievement" to a grim supremacy over the flourishing of actual human beings with names and aspirations.

This take on what makes life worthwhile is to be expected from the daughter of a guy who took trips on planes full of underage girls to remote islands with his buddy Jeffrey Epstein, and of a woman who looked said guy's rape victim right in the eye, with her hand on said victim's forearm and said, "Bill and I want you to know how grateful we are for everything you've done. Do you understand me? Everything."

Let us pray that there is a swift and fierce backlash, and let us also pray that Chelsea's soul can be freed from the grip of the Dark One.


21 comments:

  1. Polls show up to 60% of Americans not in favor of abortion. Dems should soft-pedal this issue if they want to get rid of Trump, though the Pubs will continually throw it in their faces. Believe it or not, there is a wing in the party that wants to moderate the party's stance on abortion. Wouldn't that be special? Fundies deserting Trump in sufficient numbers to ensure a defeat in 2020? Not gonna happen though, so you can rest easy that you can continually rail against the killers and the skull drillers and continue to totally ignore what good even you might be able to find in the Democratic party.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There is no good in the Democrat party. It is spiritually rotten throughout. There is a handful of Dems - Manchin, Donnelly, Heidtkamp - whom I do respect, but they are outliers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good statecraft, good corporate and banking watchdogs, good stewards of vetted social insurance programs, Where some good remains there is still hope for more, not less.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Dem party is officially - as in this still goes in its platforms - pro-fetal murder, pro-sexual perversity, pro-tyranny (main example: the assumption that when a citizen makes some money, it belongs to the government, which will then determine how much the citizen gets to keep; another example: using the utter fiction of "climate change" to come up with laws and regulations that tell people how to live), pro-appeasement of rogue states.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This increasing tendency to insist that every policy position you disagree with is evidence of satanic and/or demonic possession -- policies almost always involving the recognition and expansion of INDIVIDUAL human rights -- has become disturbing. I believe I'm out, at least until the shininess of your new-found self-righteousness wears off. Cheers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dems dont want a wall and they dont want Trump and that's enough for me to stick with them this cycle. And I'm with Rick on your atavistic diatribes.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Afraid to dispute my assertions on their merits, eh, boys?

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not at all afraid to dispute your disputations. Is that what you want or think you got--for us to be afraid, very afraid? Abortion, gay rights and taxation are constitutionally settled law and just look to our former friends and allies for peace in the international community which has been spurned for the answer to your carping about appeasement of rogue states. The truth there is that our credibility has been seriously eroded within just 1.5 years of a Trump administration you largely agree with. As for global warming, the cause as well as the cure are far from utter fiction.

    ReplyDelete
  10. What the fuck does “settled law” have to do with it?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Um, I thought you'd fall for it, lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's ask Alexa. Alexa, what do people mean when they use the term settled law?

      Delete
  12. "Traditionally, "settled law" or "black-letter law" refers to law that is so well-established that it is no longer subject to reasonable dispute. For example, it is settled law that the essential elements of a contract are an offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to be bound. In the 21st century, there are still disputes over whether a particular set of facts resulted in a contract being created, but no one debates the underlying elements. If I were to claim, for example, that some form of acceptance wasn't necessary for a contract to exist, I would be laughed out of court.

    In common language, however, "settled law" has been reduced to meaninglessness. As the questioner rightly points out, partisans routinely claim that Supreme Court decisions they agree with are "well settled" and past the point of reasonable debate, even though the decisions are in fact contested and far from resolved. And even in legal writing, I regularly see people refer to "settled" or "black-letter" principles that are anything but--as Rob Weir notes, this is nothing but a strategy to avoid debate and difficult questions."

    ReplyDelete
  13. As for your disdain for governmental environmental intervention, opinionation in the NYT today who your ilk loves to disdain, butI and many others of course ignore your invectives against our free press, says we're on the verge of a Green Wave.

    "A Green Wave is coming this November, the pent-up force of the most overlooked constituency in America. These independents, Teddy Roosevelt Republicans and Democrats on the sideline have been largely silent as the Trump administration has tried to destroy a century of bipartisan love of the land."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/opinion/trump-environment-green-wave.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. Even if it's every last person in the US except those who understand that the modern environmental environmental movement is a blatant hustle, it will not change the truth of the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Going all the way back to TR I suppose?

    ReplyDelete
  16. The thing about your truth is that it's just that.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Is that who gets on your hill above the fray during the final conflagration: those who "understand?"

    ReplyDelete
  18. The greed grabbers didn't like it when TR established federally protected land and wildlife. Did that tick bloggie off too when he learned about it? Does bloggie shun these lands like he does public education?

    ReplyDelete
  19. There's no such thing as "my truth." Truth is objective.

    All I'm going to say about Roosevelt and the concept of federal lands, since it barely has anything at all to do with this post or subsequent discussion, is that he heavy-handedly went with a governmental solution.

    ReplyDelete