Hillary: “Deep-seated … religious beliefs” have to be changed for abortion

posted at 1:21 pm on April 24, 2015 by Ed Morrissey

David Gibson suggested this might be Hillary Clinton’s “clinging to guns and religion” moment, and he may be right — assuming she survives the corruption scandals in the first place. Last night, Hillary told the Women in the World Summit that the path to Abortion Nirvana will only open up by changing religion, culture, and values to accommodate it:

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,” Clinton said.

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed. As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is. As Hillary admits here — albeit unwittingly — the at-will destruction of the unborn goes against religious beliefs, long-held cultural values, and the structural “biases” that exist to recognize the value of human life. That’s what the “clump of cells” fallacy has to overcome, and as Hillary and the Left have discovered, it’s a tall order. And it’s not just abortion, but also same-sex marriage and forced participation in it, euthanasia dressed up as “right to die” movements, and the rest.

Politically speaking, this kind of hostility to religion plays well … among the “safe space,” “trigger warning” crowd. Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change “deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs” might be the most honest progressive slogan in history, but it’s not going to endear Hillary to the people who got offended by Barack Obama’s “bitterly clinging” comments — which she exploited in 2008 to paint herself as the friend of those denizens of middle America. Those voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.

What does Hillary do to counter this? I’m waiting to hear If you like your religion, you can keep your religion. That will fit the progressive pattern well.

Update: Matt Lewis writes that “Hillary lets the veil slip,” irony apparently intended:

Regardless of how one feels about gay rights or the abortion debate, it is interesting that liberals are finally getting around to openly confessing something all of us sort of know — yet few will say out loud: Achieving a liberal social agenda will necessarily require first extirpating many “deep-seated” Christian values and tenets.

We’ve been pointing this out since well before the “bitter clinger” comments from Obama. But the masks — excuse me, veils — are indeed coming off. Progressivism is indeed a jealous idol, one that does not tolerate a God before it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

You missed the point.

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:20 PM

On your head? No, everyone can see that.

NotCoach on April 24, 2015 at 5:45 PM

My position is that there is no such thing as either an unalienable or inalienable right. It’s an idiotic concept that derives from a throwaway line in the declaration of independence, a document with no legal power whatsoever.

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM

Wow.

This level of ignorance is a keeper. Not even bright enough to read about natural rights on Wikipedia. Instead making up the most idiotic nonsense imaginable as you go along.

Keep up the good work, Mensaloc.

NotCoach on April 24, 2015 at 5:48 PM

Who is John Galt on April 24, 2015 at 5:23 PM

Take out the statement about a midwife, and the rest is true. 100 years ago midwives would have washed their hands. Doctors were another story.

Ignaz Semmelweis was a great Hungarian doctor of the early to mid 1800’s to whom many mothers owe their lives because he made doctors wash their hands. He worked in two maternity clinics in Vienna; doctors worked in one clinic, and midwives worked in the other one. The first had a higher maternal mortality rate due to puerperal fever (childbed fever). The second clinic in which the midwives worked was crowded, yet far more mothers survived.

In a post mortem exam of a male friend Semmelweis observed a similar pathology with victims of puerperal fever, and concluded that “cadaver particles” were being transferred to mothers because doctors and medical students went straight from doing autopsies to delivering babies without washing their hands.

He preceded Pasteur and Lister, and had no germ and bacteria theory to explain and prove why hands should be washed, but for the fact that once doctors did so, maternal mortality dropped drastically.

He was met with derision and indifference, and was only fully vindicated by his death.

The so-called Semmelweis reflex — a metaphor for a certain type of human behaviour characterized by reflex-like rejection of new knowledge because it contradicts entrenched norms, beliefs or paradigms — is named after Semmelweis, whose perfectly reasonable hand washing suggestions were ridiculed and rejected by his contemporaries.

Let me also add that it is my personal opinion as a woman and a mother that midwives of the time, because they, themselves, were women and in all probability mothers, would have learned and done everything they could to save the lives of other women. They would have sacrificed their egos to save lives.

INC on April 24, 2015 at 5:51 PM

Sooo… does nobody else make the connection between what Hillary is saying and what Mike Huckabee said about criminalizing Christianity?

ceruleanblue on April 24, 2015 at 5:45 PM

I certainly do. It’s obvious.

David Limbaugh wrote the 2004 book Persecution with the subtitle How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity in which he documented instances across the country.

This train has been coming down the tracks for a long time and is now accelerating.

INC on April 24, 2015 at 5:55 PM

Not granted by people, granted by a government that you grant legitimacy to.

The government is people. And people on US soil who do not accept the legitimacy of the US government are still subject to US law. And even if your assertion were correct, all you’re doing is moving the tacit acknowledgement of superiority one step back: privileges granted by people whose superiority over you was deemed legitimate by superior people who established the initial government. It still undermines the basic concepts of freedom, equality and natural rights.

Fortunately my concept of freedom doesn’t derive from your hysterical fear of death (i.e. your “faith.”).

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:23 PM

Repeating yourself does nothing to change the fact that you are using the topic to take a swipe at people with whom you disagree philosophically, and by further asserting a “hysterical fear of death” on my part, you are now venturing (back) into the territory of “inventing attributes absent any actual facts”.

Similar to the time you invented the story of US Congresspersons emailing Obama as a witch doctor.

Or the time you invented the story of Republican Senators amending their human trafficking bill.

Or… (ad nauseum)

The Schaef on April 24, 2015 at 6:04 PM

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will,” she explained. “And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.”

This is most chilling totalitarian statement I have ever heard an American politician make.

INC on April 24, 2015 at 6:08 PM

A Warning from Canada: Same-Sex Marriage Erodes Fundamental Rights
by Dawn Stefanowicz

…In Canada, freedoms of speech, press, religion, and association have suffered greatly due to government pressure. The debate over same-sex marriage that is taking place in the United States could not legally exist in Canada today. Because of legal restrictions on speech, if you say or write anything considered “homophobic” (including, by definition, anything questioning same-sex marriage), you could face discipline, termination of employment, or prosecution by the government….

Over and over, we are told that “permitting same-sex couples access to the designation of marriage will not deprive anyone of any rights.” That is a lie.

When same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada in 2005, parenting was immediately redefined. Canada’s gay marriage law, Bill C-38, included a provision to erase the term “natural parent” and replace it across the board with gender-neutral “legal parent” in federal law. Now all children only have “legal parents,” as defined by the state. By legally erasing biological parenthood in this way, the state ignores children’s foremost right: their immutable, intrinsic yearning to know and be raised by their own biological parents….

In Canada, it is considered discriminatory to say that marriage is between a man and a woman or that every child should know and be raised by his or her biological married parents. It is not just politically incorrect in Canada to say so; you can be saddled with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees, fined, and forced to take sensitivity training.

Anyone who is offended by something you have said or written can make a complaint to the Human Rights Commissions and Tribunals. In Canada, these organizations police speech, penalizing citizens for any expression deemed in opposition to particular sexual behaviors or protected groups identified under “sexual orientation.” It takes only one complaint against a person to be brought before the tribunal, costing the defendant tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees. The commissions have the power to enter private residences and remove all items pertinent to their investigations, checking for hate speech.

If your beliefs, values, and political opinions are different from the state’s, you risk losing your professional license, job, or business, and even your children….

Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian citizens were supposed to have been guaranteed: (1) freedom of conscience and religion; (2) freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; (3) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (4) freedom of association. In reality, all of these freedoms have been curtailed with the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Americans need to prepare for the same sort of surveillance-society in America if the Supreme Court rules to ban marriage as a male-female institution. It means that no matter what you believe, the government will be free to regulate your speech, your writing, your associations, and whether or not you may express your conscience. Americans also need to understand that the endgame for some in the LGBT rights movement involves centralized state power—and the end of First Amendment freedoms.

INC on April 24, 2015 at 6:10 PM

Fortunately my concept of freedom doesn’t derive from your hysterical fear of death (i.e. your “faith.”).

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:23 PM

You have no concept of freedom.

darwin on April 24, 2015 at 6:21 PM

My position is that there is no such thing as either an unalienable or inalienable right. It’s an idiotic concept that derives from a throwaway line in the declaration of independence, a document with no legal power whatsoever.

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM

Bmore on April 24, 2015 at 6:28 PM

My position is that there is no such thing as either an unalienable or inalienable right. It’s an idiotic concept that derives from a throwaway line in the declaration of independence, a document with no legal power whatsoever.

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM

You are a special kind of — well… All the founders documents had a purpose. Unalienable was very specific since they were rights not derived from the government therefore they couldn’t be taken away by the government.

melle1228 on April 24, 2015 at 6:38 PM

Fortunately my concept of freedom doesn’t derive from your hysterical fear of death (i.e. your “faith.”).

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:23 PM

SMOD can’t arrive soon enough.

RickB on April 24, 2015 at 6:39 PM

Fortunately my concept of freedom doesn’t derive from your hysterical fear of death (i.e. your “faith.”).

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:23 PM

If your concept of freedom doesn’t derive from something bigger than people, then your concept of freedom amounts to “whatever the person or persons with the most power dictates”…which is in no way freedom.

yaedon on April 24, 2015 at 6:42 PM

My position is that my head’s so far up my arse I can see my eye teeth. Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM

Akzed on April 24, 2015 at 6:57 PM

He!! Is going to be crowded.

fight like a girl on April 24, 2015 at 7:06 PM

Which has no force of law…

yaedon on April 24, 2015 at 5:22 PM

I wish we disagreed. Your infantile responding would at least be amusing.

Ricard on April 24, 2015 at 7:40 PM

Fortunately my concept of freedom doesn’t derive from your hysterical fear of death (i.e. your “faith.”).

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:23 PM

Your concept of freedom isn’t freedom, dumbass. It’s subjugative tyranny. But thanks for playing. Enjoy your consolation prize.

gryphon202 on April 24, 2015 at 7:48 PM

Honestly, who wants to see leftists procreate anyway?

The people who who would choose to get abortions are predominately leftists, who would otherwise raise their children as leftists.

So I don’t see a problem with leftists eliminating their own progeny, it’s a self-correcting problem really.

And the beauty of it is that there won’t be future generations who cry for reparations to be paid, because they’ll have done it to themselves.

The have words for homocide and suicide.

They have a word for genocide.

Yet to my knowledge, there is no word for an entire people who willingly and even gleefully ethnically, or ideologically, cleanses themselves.

Star Bird on April 24, 2015 at 8:23 PM

Yet to my knowledge, there is no word for an entire people who willingly and even gleefully ethnically, or ideologically, cleanses themselves.

Star Bird on April 24, 2015 at 8:23 PM

Insanity?

NotCoach on April 24, 2015 at 9:03 PM

Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth

Of course they believe this because “access to reproductive health care” is liberal code for goverment funded abortion on demand right up to the delivery of the child.

sues on April 24, 2015 at 9:08 PM

Go ahead and allow all liberals, blacks, illegal immigrants grants to about every single pregnancy. This is the only way to stop us from becoming a 3rd world country.

hardrock230 on April 24, 2015 at 9:16 PM

Err, I checked my own facts. 1 to 2 ounces.

Marcus on April 24, 2015 at 5:31 PM

Thanks, but I think you get my point.

Who is John Galt on April 24, 2015 at 9:25 PM

Tlaloc finally left.

He writes like the mayor of Weaseltown in “Frozen” talks. :)

ol….agile peacock.

itsspideyman on April 24, 2015 at 9:37 PM

I’m so glad you posted that. Thank you.

Lourdes on April 24, 2015 at 3:52 PM

You are very welcome.

Socialists, Leftists, Democrats, Communists…they worship that assumption (“separation of Church and State”) but bash the Freedom of Religion. It shows where their interests lie and it’s not in the Freedoms we are endowed with by our Creator but in proliferating “the State” in idolatry.

Exactly.

I challenge anyone to point out any significant differences between the Democrat Party Platform and the Program of the Communist Party USA.

Why will no Democrat accept that challenge?

Because THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES between the Democrat Party and Communist Party Platforms!

ITguy on April 24, 2015 at 9:37 PM

Sooo… does nobody else make the connection between what Hillary is saying and what Mike Huckabee said about criminalizing Christianity?

ceruleanblue on April 24, 2015 at 5:45 PM

I see it very clearly.

As an old HotAir commenter said:

Those who can’t handle the truth,
try to silence those who speak it.

ITguy on April 24, 2015 at 9:44 PM

…When you eliminate “God” from the discussion, you eliminate the protection of UNALIENABLE rights…

Pelosi Schmelosi on April 24, 2015 at 1:44 PM
.

If your “unalienable rights” depend on a myth they aren’t really unalienable, are they?

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 2:18 PM

.
Even if you don’t believe the source of those to be God (or His existence) the concept of inalienable is for you, Tlaloc the individual, to have protections that no man, and by extension, no state can lord over those. There are some precious rights which are of your own sovereign. They guarantee your liberty.
Instead of arguing the source, you argue that no man has any sovereignty from another in any circumstance. Is that really your position?

anuts on April 24, 2015 at 2:41 PM
.

My position is that there is no such thing as either an unalienable or inalienable right. It’s an idiotic concept that derives from a throwaway line in the declaration of independence, a document with no legal power whatsoever.

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM

.
That 4:17 PM comment is going to “live in infamy.”
.
If that’s your position, then you should be lobbying for the United States to be dissolved, and the assets returned to the U.K.

That “document with no legal power whatsoever” is the grounds/basis for the American Revolution, and the instituting of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.

Without it, the U.S. is a bastard/illegitimate country, whose very existence should be made null and void.

Is that your desired end result?

listens2glenn on April 24, 2015 at 10:15 PM

That “document with no legal power whatsoever” is the grounds/basis for the American Revolution, and the instituting of the U.S. as a sovereign nation.

listens2glenn on April 24, 2015 at 10:15 PM

Exactly.

We celebrate the birthday of the U.S.A. as July 4, 1776… the date associated with the Declaration of Independence.

Our Constitution refers to both the birth of Jesus Christ and the birth of the U.S.A. (via the Declaration of Independence) when the Constitution states:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.

July 4, 1776 began year 1 of the USA.
September 17, 1787 was in year 12 of the USA.

For Tlaloc to claim that the Declaration of Independence is “a document with no legal power whatsoever”, is absolute ignorance at best.

ITguy on April 24, 2015 at 10:33 PM

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM

FU.

Kenosha Kid on April 24, 2015 at 11:20 PM

And the Clinton horse you rode in on.

Kenosha Kid on April 24, 2015 at 11:22 PM

Up until now every single time in my life that someone has decided THEY and not I should be the sole arbiter of my religious beliefs…

It’s been a nutcase trying to start a cult; and looking for weak minded followers who would accept they SHOULD be told what to do and not to think for themselves.

I’m not sure this will ruin the pattern.

gekkobear on April 24, 2015 at 11:57 PM

Elizabeth’s child (John the Baptist) lept in her womb when she met Mary, Jesus’ mother.

That’s in the Bible, and I think the translators are going to have a hard time replacing child (or baby, as some translations use) with the words “tissue mass”.

As the liberals are fond of saying, it takes a village to murder a child.

unclesmrgol on April 25, 2015 at 12:08 AM

My position is that there is no such thing as either an unalienable or inalienable right. It’s an idiotic concept that derives from a throwaway line in the declaration of independence, a document with no legal power whatsoever.

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM

Then we are in full and complete agreement that there is no right to an abortion.

Good.

unclesmrgol on April 25, 2015 at 12:12 AM

My position is that there is no such thing as either an unalienable or inalienable right. It’s an idiotic concept that derives from a throwaway line in the declaration of independence, a document with no legal power whatsoever. Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM

Habeus corpus is described as a privilege, not a right, in the Constitution. Why? Because it can be suspended in certain circumstances – unlike rights, which are inalienable and cannot legitimately be infringed by the govt.

Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Yet Progressives declare it is a right that may not even be regulated.

As for the DofI having no legal power whatsoever: it created a nation.

Akzed on April 25, 2015 at 12:46 AM

ITguy on April 24, 2015 at 10:33 PM

.
Just another hit’n’run/drive-by comment, from Tlaloc

listens2glenn on April 25, 2015 at 1:22 AM

Elizabeth’s child (John the Baptist) lept in her womb when she met Mary, Jesus’ mother.

That’s in the Bible, and I think the translators are going to have a hard time replacing child (or baby, as some translations use) with the words “tissue mass”.

While it is in the Bible, it’s only in Luke. Jesus and John the Baptist were rival prophets, and the author of Luke invented a family connection in order to give credibility to Jesus in the eyes of John’s followers. There was no connection like that shown in Mark, and that’s where the author of Luke got his material for that story. The authors of Matthew and Luke each had their goals when writing their Gospels, and that’s an example of one. They each came up with various additions or changes to Mark’s text to further agendas or make Jesus come across better. I’m not saying they had bad intentions with it, but they clearly changed a lot of things to better fit a narrative.

The author of Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, for example, and tried to make Jesus fit as many Old Testament prophecies as he could, even when it made no sense. He didn’t understand Zechariah 9:9, which is why he has the wacky story of Jesus riding two donkeys at once to “fulfill” that prophecy. Don’t get me wrong, I’m as pro-life as the next guy, I’m just saying that verse is propaganda and doesn’t really work as proof.

Calas on April 25, 2015 at 1:30 AM

Hillary: “Deep-seated … religious beliefs” have to be changed for abortion

President Preacherwoman, the religious leader of America.

farsighted on April 25, 2015 at 6:47 AM

The authoritarian – or is it totalitarian? – impulse is very strong these days among the Democrats. We don’t need a Hillary replacing the petty dictator we have at present.

grumpyank on April 25, 2015 at 7:59 AM

If abortion is not murder then what is it ?

steveracer on April 25, 2015 at 8:09 AM

Go to hell Hillary.

rplat on April 25, 2015 at 8:24 AM

I think we can all agree, that the entire nation would be far better off, if President Obama’s mother would have had access to reproductive health care, where she could get a free abortion, on demand, now, and without apology.

Star Bird on April 25, 2015 at 9:03 AM

If abortion is not murder then what is it ?

steveracer on April 25, 2015 at 8:09 AM

It is murder.

But if leftists are gleefully willing to ideologically cleanse themselves for the benefit of mankind by ridding us of their offspring, then who are we to stop them?

Star Bird on April 25, 2015 at 9:06 AM

Every single person in this country is free to be as Christian or as Jewish or as Muslim or as Atheist as they want to be – and to define that however they wish.
Nobody is free to demand any degree of fealty to their screed by others.

verbaluce on April 24, 2015 at 3:35 PM

Unless you’re gay, in which case you can demand that a Christian baker show fealty to your screed, because it’s not a religious one.

Or unless you’re pro-abortion, in which case you can demand that Christians not only show fealty to your screed, but demand that Christians tithe to support it through taxes… because it’s not a religious one.

They made mistakes, but the right insists on pretending they were perfect gods bestriding the earth.

It’s unseemly, frankly.

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:20 PM

Much like the left does with Barack Obama, you mean. Do the words “sort of God” ring any bells?

Not granted by people, granted by a government that you grant legitimacy to.

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:23 PM

If we have no rights, but only privileges granted by the government, where do we come up with the authority to grant or deny legitimacy? We grant them legitimacy, in other words authority, and they grant us rights, in other words authority. Whence comes such authority? Does it spring full-grown from Barack Obama’s forehead? Apparently it doesn’t exist at all until that circle jerk that passes it back and forth from citizens to government exists.

Not conincidentally in return for this supposed eternal afterlife they just happen to be entitled to tell you what to do in the real world. They also, surprise(!), are entitled to some of your money.

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:39 PM

Which is only given voluntarily by those who agree with them. And that’s apparently oh so heinous to you. And yet when a government does exactly the same thing via the medium of people with guns, demanding that you comply with their wishes or lose your freedom, your property and/or your life, you’re cool with it. Why is that? You’re only okay with it if it’s compulsory, enforced by the threat of violence? Really?

Fortunately my concept of freedom doesn’t derive from your hysterical fear of death (i.e. your “faith.”).

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:23 PM

So what is “your concept of freedom”? From where I sit it appears to be, “I can claim to be free so long as the government gives me permission to, but that freedom does not include anything the ruling clique finds politically uncomfortable.”

It’s an idiotic concept that derives from a throwaway line in the declaration of independence, a document with no legal power whatsoever.

Tlaloc on April 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM

That document bears precisely the same relationship to US law that a company’s mission statement bears to company policy. For exactly the same reasons.

Are you not intelligent enough to spot that for yourself?

GrumpyOldFart on April 25, 2015 at 10:18 AM

If I were Tlaloc, the descendant of black slaves legally brought to America and legally owned as chattel property of the time, I think I would be hesitant to declare I had no inalienable rights.

Dolce Far Niente on April 25, 2015 at 10:51 AM

If abortion is not murder then what is it ?

steveracer on April 25, 2015 at 8:09 AM

.
* * DEVIL’S ADVOCATE ALERT ! ! ! * *
——————————————————————

“Abortion is a woman’s right to choose to rid herself of a ‘parasitic-lower-life-form’, that is going to be a MAJOR INCONVENIENCE to her for the next nineteen (or more) years.”

Even if she carries the ‘parasitic-lower-life-form’ to full term, and puts it up for adoption, she’s still going to be MAJORLY INCONVENIENCED for a time period of approx nine (9) months.

Any right-thinking person can clearly see how unacceptable this arrangement would be to a woman, who has much higher plans for her life than (ugh) motherhood.”

.
Does that describe the feminists pretty well?

listens2glenn on April 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM

If we have no rights, but only privileges granted by the government, where do we come up with the authority to grant or deny legitimacy? We grant them legitimacy, in other words authority, and they grant us rights, in other words authority. Whence comes such authority? Does it spring full-grown from Barack Obama’s forehead? Apparently it doesn’t exist at all until that circle jerk that passes it back and forth from citizens to government exists.

We shouldn’t bother to fight for the rights of leftists, when leftists don’t even care about their own rights.

Consider this; what if the Nazis had gleefully placed themselves into ovens instead of the Jews? Would anyone care? Think of all the problems that would have been solved, and the untold joy that could have been had from those leftists doing away with themselves.

But today’s euthanasia enthusiasts like Tlaloc are happily willing to eliminate themselves by eliminating their own descendants. I say good riddance.

We really shouldn’t look a gift horse in the mouth here.

Star Bird on April 25, 2015 at 10:56 AM

Dolce Far Niente on April 25, 2015 at 10:51 AM

…meaning that according to his legal philosophy, Congress could re-institute slavery basically by just saying, “Oops!,” declare him to be a slave, and he’d have no legitimate grounds for complaint.

Personally I think he would, but then I’m an evil right-wing bigot, dont’cha know.

listens2glenn on April 25, 2015 at 10:52 AM

To frame abortion as a “women’s health” issue is to equate pregnancy with contracting an STD.

Chlamydia is such a nice name for a girl, don’t you think?

Think of all the problems that would have been solved, and the untold joy that could have been had from those leftists doing away with themselves.

Star Bird on April 25, 2015 at 10:56 AM

When a leftist rails about “hatred,” what he’s actually doing is berating you for being insufficiently cheerful about your trip to the gas chamber.

But as I have said here,

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/22/apparently-no-one-at-msnbc-pays-taxes/comment-page-2/#comment-9381206

it’s an absolutely logical and consistent position.

Once you accept the premise that “rights” are not inherent in human nature, but shorthand for an artificial construct of government-granted privilege, the rest follows perfectly logically. There is no principle so important as to even challenge, must less trump, the fundamental proposition that the central government must always have more and more power, because that power is the sole source of all advantages in life.

You didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.

GrumpyOldFart on April 25, 2015 at 11:13 AM

Hillary-Religious beliefs have to be changed, and I’m the one that if you elect me president will repress any religious belief I find politically offensive by executive order.There are no inalienable rights other than sexual proclivity reproductive choice and my husband’s DNA stains on intern’s blue dresses.

redware on April 25, 2015 at 11:37 AM

Star Bird on April 25, 2015 at 10:56 AM

.
You have, of course, the right to believe whatever you want to … but I’m going with ‘recognition-of-God’, and what His word to us states as being acceptable standards of morality.

Murdering ‘leftists’ is just as wrong as murdering conservatives, or anyone else for that matter.

The “right-to-life” is not a respecter of anyone’s ethnicity, or political ideology.

It IS, however, a respecter of behavior.

If any one (or more) citizen(s) should murder another, we do reserve the right corporately (as a country, state, borough, or township) to impose the “death penalty,” upon conviction after a proper trial.

If we just allow leftists to use abortion upon their own descendents-to-be (or descendents-to-was), then life for ALL members of mankind is cheapened … no exceptions.

listens2glenn on April 25, 2015 at 11:57 AM

I wish we disagreed. Your infantile responding would at least be amusing.

Ricard on April 24, 2015 at 7:40 PM

Please enlighten me. How have my responses been infantile?

yaedon on April 25, 2015 at 12:28 PM

listens2glenn on April 25, 2015 at 11:57 AM

I completely understand your point of view, and I respect it because I know that it comes from a place of goodness. I once shared it.

But honestly I’m tired of trying to save leftists from their own idiocy, and have decided that I’d prefer to encourage their natural self-destructive instincts.

Leftists cause and create so many problems not just for themselves, but for everyone else around them that are forced to endure their authoritarian lunacy. So I’ve come to a place where I honestly can’t see any value in trying to save their children. President Obama helped me come to this place, by making me wish his mother had exercised her womanly right to choose.

And let’s be perfectly honest here; leftist’s own euthanasia enthusiasm is a clear indication, that they themselves fully understand that the by far the best “socio-economic” solution to just about everything is the wiping of their own kind off the face of the planet.

And at the end of the day, I’m not murdering anyone. They’re thankfully doing it to themselves.

There’s a saying that’s thrown about that says something to the effect of; never interfere with your enemy when he’s committing suicide.

So to hell with them. I honestly no longer care how many of their own kind they decide to kill.

Star Bird on April 25, 2015 at 12:33 PM

I wish we disagreed. Your infantile responding would at least be amusing.

Ricard on April 24, 2015 at 7:40 PM

Oooooh. Are you referring to a prior Hillary post?

I wouldn’t call that infantile. I’d say it was more adolescent. :-D

Does it bother you that we agree, yet I have a sense of humor? What’s your objection?

yaedon on April 25, 2015 at 1:46 PM

Elizabeth’s child (John the Baptist) lept in her womb when she met Mary, Jesus’ mother.

That’s in the Bible, and I think the translators are going to have a hard time replacing child (or baby, as some translations use) with the words “tissue mass”.

While it is in the Bible, it’s only in Luke. Jesus and John the Baptist were rival prophets,

Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. There’s no evidence of rivalry between them. There was a bit of rivalry or jealousy between some of their respective followers, but the Bible makes no attempt to hide that fact.

Note that not just Luke, but Matthew, Mark, and John — in short, every one of the four gospels — record that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. All the gospels speak highly of John.

This “rival prophets” speculation leading to the claim that Luke just invented stories to smooth over the rivalry has the veneer of claimed expertise, but it’s wrong.

and the author of Luke invented a family connection in order to give credibility to Jesus in the eyes of John’s followers.

That claim depends on the assumption that nobody would have penetrated the lie. As Paul put it, “this thing was not done in a corner.”

It also effectively calls Luke, the most careful historian in the New Testament, a liar.

There was no connection like that shown in Mark, and that’s where the author of Luke got his material for that story.

Wrong again. There was already an oral tradition of many of the things Jesus had said and done during His ministry, and there were multiple people who were alive during the time of Jesus and knew Him when both Luke and Mark were written, who could confirm if details were true or false.

Luke didn’t have to rely on Mark for his material, though he appears to have used all available resources.

The authors of Matthew and Luke each had their goals when writing their Gospels, and that’s an example of one. They each came up with various additions or changes to Mark’s text to further agendas or make Jesus come across better. I’m not saying they had bad intentions with it, but they clearly changed a lot of things to better fit a narrative.

All literature is written for a particular purpose, with a particular point of view. The details are selected that best fit that purpose. That does not make those details false.

The author of Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience, for example, and tried to make Jesus fit as many Old Testament prophecies as he could, even when it made no sense. He didn’t understand Zechariah 9:9, which is why he has the wacky story of Jesus riding two donkeys at once to “fulfill” that prophecy.

It sounds like you don’t understand parallelism in Hebrew literatute. The phrase, “riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass” doesn’t mean Jesus was riding two donkeys at once. It just describes the donkey as both “an ass” and “a colt the foal of an ass.” It was both a donkey and a donkey colt.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m as pro-life as the next guy, I’m just saying that verse is propaganda and doesn’t really work as proof.

Calas on April 25, 2015 at 1:30 AM

Idle speculation.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 25, 2015 at 9:19 PM

Agree that she is just trying to sucker the left into supporting her. It might even work, considering those liberals trying to defend this.

What she actually says in this pander-piece does not have to make sense, so it’s kind of pointless to debate positions her scriptwriters found in a scrapbook of liberal lunacy.

Bottom-line is that Hillary cannot be trusted at any level, by her opponents but especially by her supporters.

virgo on April 26, 2015 at 12:28 PM

It seems like only yesterday when HRC was telling us that dissent was patriotic. I guess it’s only patriotic until Democrats win, then it’s a crime.

Socratease on April 26, 2015 at 1:47 PM

If you like ObamaCare, you are gonna love HillaryLiturgy.

WestTexasBirdDog on April 27, 2015 at 12:07 AM

Hillary: bitterly clinging to abortion on demand.

MominVermont on April 27, 2015 at 9:06 AM