Chelsea Clinton: A Pro-Abort at Age Six

Saturday, April 22, AD 2017

 

I missed this story last year.  The country really dodged a bullet when it kept the mother of this nutcase out of the White House last year:

 

In a new interview, Chelsea Clinton, the daughter of pro-abortion presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, says she left the Baptist Church at the age of 6 because it has a strongly pro-life position opposing abortions.

Clinton made the comment at a recent fundraiser for Hillary Clinton in an attempt to address evangelicals who question her mother’s faith in God. She said she was upset when teachers in a Sunday School class talked about the wrongness of abortion.

“I find it quite insulting sometimes when people say to my mom, my dad or me . . . that they question our faith,’ said Chelsea. “I was raised in a Methodist church and I left the Baptist church before my dad did, because I didn’t know why they were talking to me about abortion when I was 6 in Sunday school — that’s a true story.”

 

Go here to read the rest.  And to think that self-proclaimed pro-lifers like Mark Shea were supporting abortion-uber-alles Clinton in preference to Trump.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Chelsea Clinton: A Pro-Abort at Age Six

  • Leftists–they demand protection for evil criminals in sanctuary cities, while slaughtering innocent humans in the sanctuary of their “mother’s” wombs, all the while shouting, “We care!” And, then they diabolically claim to be…the intelligentsia.

  • Chelsea Clinton left the Baptist church at age six because the Baptist church was pro-life. The age of reason is seven years of age. Chelsea Clinton never reached the age of reason and is a case of arrested development. So are Bill and Hillary and all pro-aborts.

  • Seen on Instapundit: “The Clintons are the political equivalent of herpes. They keep coming back, whether people like it or not.”

    Thank God that only a small minority of America-hating invertebrates and Soros funded agents provocateurs listen to their constant streams of lies and evils.

  • The Clinton’s.
    The “poster family” of scourging America. Worse than a tool of destruction, they are the first family of Hell on Earth.

  • Roe v. Wade never bore the burden of proof that the newly begotten innocent person was NOT a sovereign person

  • Uh, hold on. What she seems to be saying is she left the church because the talk about abortion bothered her. She seemed to realize it was not appropriate in some way, to talk to a 6 year old about abortion. I am not reading that she, at 6, decided she was leaving because the church was pro-life.
    We have to be really careful with reading comprehension. Read carefully.
    For the record, I have no respect for any of the Clintons.

  • I am second to nobody in my loathing of the Clinton family, but I think Chelsea’s remarks may be being misconstrued. She said, “I didn’t know why they were talking to me about abortion when I was 6 in Sunday school.” I would totally agree with this. To bring up such a horrible, gruesome subject to children that young is to destroy their God-given innocence. Thanks to our sick, oversexualized, pervasive consumer-media culture, children are losing their innocence at ever younger ages. I was fortunate enough to grow up in a time when I didn’t even hear the word “abortion” until I was 13 or 14 years old — and I was horrified when I found out what it was. I can’t even imagine what the effect on a tender 6-year-old psyche would be.

    I obviously am disgusted with Chelsea Clinton’s pro-abortion stance as an adult, but I think what she was talking about in the quote given above was something I could agree with her on: Little children should not be hearing about abortion. It is evil and grotesque and horrifying. Would we take our 6-year-old to an R-rated slasher movie? Of course not. Well, then, let’s not be planting images in their young minds of babies being slashed to pieces.

  • Agreed that a 6 year old shouldn’t be presented with such graphic visualizations of Hell on Earth. But either she wildly exaggerating like her FBI certified lying mother, or whats worse that as 6 year old she thought it was horrifying that some would suggest mothers do NOT have a right to slaughter their own offspring.

  • “What she seems to be saying is she left the church because the talk about abortion bothered her.”

    Assuming this isn’t simply a routine Clinton lie by Chelsea, they do seem to lie as a matter of course about matters great and small, why would a talk about abortion at age 6 have bothered her? How would she have known what abortion was, and if she knew why would the pro-life position have upset her? How would she even recall this at age 36? If anyone was offended, assuming the incident even occurred, I suspect it was her mother.

  • Question: did Mark Shea become more pro-life at the age of six or less? I’d like to know!

  • It’s a lie, without a doubt. Fawn Brodie published posthumously a work in which slicing up Richard Nixon for this sort of thing featured prominently. George Bush the Elder was a great one for goofy cocktail party mendacity (“You look wonderful”). Liberal culture is such nowadays that the comedy people like Michael Kinsley saw in Nixon and Bush the Elder never seems to adhere to the Clintons or anyone else who serves their ilk.

    The thing is, the story makes Chelsea and (implicitly) her mother look seriously creepazoid. Has Cheslea been so encased in protective bubbles that she doesn’t see this, or does she figure she’s speaking to people so bent they’d think a six-year-old contemplating abortion to be amusingly precocious?

    Stop and think about Chelsea’s life. Rude remarks from Rush Limbaugh notwithstanding (which must have stung because they were from an adult but which likely were mild compared to what the cut-ups and mean girls were saying to her at school), she was treated delicately by the media – much more so than Amy Carter (though less so than the Obama girls). Gary Aldrich, and FBI agent assigned to the White House during the period running from 1993-95 said in his observation and that of security personnel with whom he traded stories, Chelsea was an ordinary teenager and episodically quite rude to her security detail (taking her cues from mama, no doubt); the newspapers who presented her as a lovely girl manufactured a fictional character. She has manifest talents, but evidently no one to counsel her on how to deploy them and all to many people willing to hand her plum jobs (why do broadcast networks hire politicians’ kids so readily?). Her mother was best described by Joseph Sobran: “like egalitarians from Joseph Stalin to Bella Abzug, a terror to work for”. Her maternal side grandmother was described by a nephew thus: ‘always pissed at someone; held grudges’. Her paternal side grandmother was an amiable vulgarian with a gambling problem (and something of a lush to boot, by some accounts). She had no sisters, her only aunt has never been part of the family circle, and her uncle’s childless rank-and-file-lawyer wife lived in south Florida. It’s not surprising she’s kinda messed up.

  • Thank goodness that this Clinton seems to be a bimbo.

  • Thank goodness that this Clinton seems to be a bimbo.

    She has a hatful of graduate degrees. She’s no bimbo. The problem is that her whole life has been so scripted she cannot say anything that isn’t spurious or uninteresting. A journalist reading something she’d written said it had the quality of oatmeal in which you find a toenail clipping now and again.

  • What 6 year old leaves a church? Was she raised Methodist after she left the Baptists? Or was her Methodist mother raising her Methodist while she was attending Baptist services with her Baptist father?
    The whole thing reeks of Two Corinthians.

    You know, the cheap knockoff of Royal English Pleather

  • Gee, when I was two years old, I was all for nuclear proliferation….wif my Cheerios!

    Give Chelsea a break children….c’mon. Her parents abused her when she was a kid, it’s in the record, the official record. Mom and Dad have committed every other crime in the book, why not child abuse?

  • Chelsea wonders why abortion was brought up to her as a child. Well, Chelsea, your teacher had a duty to assist in your moral development, because of the distinct possibility that YOUR PARENTS may not recognize–and convey to you–the grave evil of abortion. Is six too young to hear about abortion? I don’t think so. Like the Jesuits used to say, “Give me a child until he is seven and you can have him for the rest of his life.” Those early experiences leave an indelible mark.

Leave a Reply

5 Responses to No Comment

  • If liberals really believe this – that it is pitiful their parents did not have access to Planned Parenthood to abort their children – then why don’t they simply commit suicide? I am NOT advocating this. I do NOT wish them to do this. Such a thought is absolutely horrible. Nevertheless, if liberals think that there are too many humans on the planet (I was conversing with one such person at a pro-nuclear power blog site), then why do they judge their lives more worthy to live and an unborn baby’s life not so worthy? It is not logical, but nothing about liberalism is logical.

  • Edwin Howell and Della Murray were married on 29 June 1918 per the Cook County Marriage Index. The census enumerator called at their boarding house on or about 8 January 1920 and recorded the age of their daughter as 7 months.

  • The answer given the census enumerator in 1930 suggests a date of birth in a range running from April 1919 to April 1920; the 1940 entry suggests April 1920 to April 1921. A witness records 4 June 1919 on her gravestone. Chelsea lied (or recycled her mother’s lie).

  • When I read this on Life News this morning I almost agreed with her. I don’t think she thought that one all the way through. Or else, like most liberals, she is able to hold two competing ideas in her mind at the same time and believe both of them to be true. In this case, it would be that Planned Parenthood could have aborted her grandparent and she’d still be here.

  • Evil has no sense of irony.

The $1 Million Chelsea Clinton Wedding

Saturday, July 31, AD 2010

The estimated cost of Chelsea Clinton’s wedding this evening is $1 million* and that is a very low estimate.

Obscene, simply obscene.

Talk about failing in the cardinal virtues of prudence and temperance.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to The $1 Million Chelsea Clinton Wedding

  • Agreed, Tito, although God knows the Clintons have the money now to spend. Estimates of their net worth as a couple are anywhere from US $40 million-$100 million!

    Actually, I’ve also seen estimates on different news sites pegging the minimum cost of the wedding at US $2 million, and up to $5 million at the high end of the estimates–yikes!

  • The $5 million figure probably included the dowry. I can’t see anyone accepting Hillary as a mother-in-law for less than $4 million.

  • I’ve seen estimates as high as US $12 million, but I stuck to the low estimate in fairness.

  • If the accounting includes the cost of the security detail which follows both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton around, it is less deplorable.

  • I believe Bill Clinton, because he is a former US president, and his family have lifetime secret service protection.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secret_Service#Former_Presidents_and_First_Ladies

  • I think my wedding, all said and done, cost around $5k… in 2002 dollars. 🙂

  • The Pope’s visit to England may cost England $15 million US and the Vatican donation to Haiti was only $250,000 and in 2009 the Vatican donation to all poor countries was 20 million.
    Let’s not single out the Clinton’s as wasteful or neglecting the poor… because of their wrong abortion position while letting our own habits go unexamined because it is Rome.
    I can’t imagine the expenses John Paul II’s visiting habits entailed on people over the years.

  • What if many of the recipients of the money were teetering on going out of business or unemployment, would this sum still be considered obscene?

  • the Vatican donation to all poor countries was 20 million.

    Not taking your figures as stipulated, I would point out that the Church is highly decentralized and the sum of people employed by the Holy See is fewer than 5,000. I think there are around 2,500 employed in the modest diocese in which I reside.

  • Wow, nice to see someone addressed THE burning issue of the day 🙂

    Should the $5 million cost estimate be correct, that would place the Clinton nuptials in the top five most expensive celebrity/millioniare weddings of all time. Even if it costs “only” $2 million that puts it in the same league as Tom Cruise-Katie Holmes, Madonna-Guy Ritchie, Liza Minnelli-whatshisname, etc.

    Of course, what do you expect from a wedding for 1) an only daughter of 2) a former president AND a current Cabinet official 3) who have lots of friends in Hollywood, D.C., on Wall Street, etc. and 4) whose own wedding was very low key and arranged with only a week’s notice (meaning, Hillary may be trying to give Chelsea the bash she never had).

    The cost does include security, because even though Bill, Hillary and Chelsea themselves have Secret Service protection, a lot of their A-list guests probably have personal security details/bodyguards who will also require accomodations.

    I agree the Clinton wedding seems rather excessive and one need not spend six or seven figures to have a joyous and memorable wedding. (I did it for less than $5,000 in 1994).

    I gotta say though, and I apologize if this comes off as kinda reverse sexist, it’s easy for a guy to say that money spent on a wedding is “selfish” and should have been spent on the poor… one could make the same argument about money spent on classic cars, boats, trucks, or events like the Super Bowl, World Series, Olympic Games, NASCAR races, etc.

  • Have to say the pope’s visit was uplifting to Catholics around the world. Don’t see how Chelsea’s wedding could bring upon the same spiritual uplifting.

  • Misspam
    Christ thought it was fitting to give the young couple at Cana 120 gallons of wine.
    And their names are never mentioned. That’s a lot of wine and it was great quality which in US dollars could well have been $25,000 just for the second stage of the wine drinking.
    As for how permanent an uplifting effect of a papal trip has beyond momentary exciitement,.. that would be impossible to document…wouldn’t it?

  • The other question: the Clintons have never done anything but government, and they’ve wound up with millions of dollars to blow on a wedding. That points out the flaws of our system better than anything else.

    Mark Noonan

  • “the Clintons have never done anything but government”

    What about the speaking fees and book deals they have made? Yes, I realize their public life is the reason they have those speaking and book contracts, but still, it isn’t the government paying those contracts.

    If PRIVATE citizens and groups didn’t care to hear them speak, and private book publishing companies weren’t interested in what they had to say, they would never have made the millions they now have.

    I’m not saying this because I’m any fan of either Bill or Hillary (far from it), just trying to be factual here.

  • My wedding in 1962: $30.00 for fabric to make my own dress; less than $100.00 for wedding cake. Flowers, probably $60.00. Stipend for the priest-? Stipend for organist: $30.00. Celebrated 48 years of wedded bliss this year. Let’s see how Chelsea & hubby last, hopefully a lifetime. I’ve played organ for many weddings in the past. My theory: the number of years of duration of the marriage is in inverse proportion to the number of attendants AND the cost. One could almost tell at the rehearsal if the marriage was going to be permanent. Pouty brides-to-be, mothers insisting on this and that. One bride was determined there was going to be NO NOISE out on the street; the church was located on a busy boulevard. No child would dare whimper or cry at her wedding. Well, everything was perfect until the photographer dashed upstairs to take photos as the couple came down the aisle; her tripod knocked the organ plug out of the wall and all the sound went down, and then back up, when she plugged the organ in. Those Hammonds had a way of ruining everything…I reminded her that SHE was to admit to the dastardly deed.

  • So….
    She’s Methodist, and he’s Jewish.
    Interesting combo.

    I’d say the Jewish will win out.

  • The bride in the most beautiful and most Christian wedding I have ever witnessed wore a pale yellow dress, with seasonal flowers (from her parents’ fields) in her hair; the groom wore a new business suit. There were no decorations, and the reception was at the house of the brides’ parents. The money not wasted on irrelevancies was used to send the couple on a pilgrimage to Santiago de Compostella after they finished university.

  • “I’d say the Jewish will win out.”

    I suspect not. Most Jews in American today are ultra-secular. The Jewish in this marriage probably lost out long ago. Not that the Methodist will win out either.

  • If he only got $4 million for Hilary as a mother in law, I’d say the Clintons got off cheap.

  • OK everyone, enough of the weak moral relativism arguments of the Papacy vis-a-vis the Clintons. That’s insulting enough when you consider that the Clintons are at best crafty politicians.

    Spending $2-5 million on any wedding is beyond ‘hey look at me’ arrogance. It’s pure elitist ghoulish hubris and it’s even funnier coming from those progressive ‘party for the regular people’ types.

    Bill Banon, thanks for the laugh for comparing the dollar value of the wine at Cana. Wasn’t it a MIRACLE that Jesus used good ‘ol water as the input resource hence a much lower cost than the ‘high quality wine’? Perhaps they forgot to teach/discuss basic economics at that Netroots Nation liberal blogger conference?

    Great stuff!