Clinton Family Values vs. Chelsea’s Conscience
Clinton Family Values vs. Chelsea’s Conscience
Although Chelsea Clinton has reached physical maturity and become a mother, she has done so without being raised by parents who were adults. Moreover, as Wikileaks has revealed, Chelsea has evidenced moral leadership of the sort that has not been seen in her parents.
The Hypocritical Clinton Family Religion
With a semantic slight of hand, in 1992, Bill Clinton pushed back on a family values political movement rooted in the “self evident [teaching from] Nature and Nature’s God” and said that he wanted instead a government that ‘valued families.’”
Of course, Clinton’s retort was incoherent. Yet this incoherency was immediately celebrated by the left, by Clinton’s base, who view themselves as intellectually superior than the founding fathers, the family values people, and especially Dan Quayle.
More hypocritically, while the left defines itself as a social movement, the left’s defining attribute cannot tolerate fidelity to a single social principle. Their defining distinctive rather rests on their anti-social war against natural law. This war is actually a proxy for a bigger game, a bigger war, one which ultimately wars against the creator of natural law, God Himself.
If the left’s crusade against patriarchy and for the putative equality of women with men were sincere, why then does the left
- imply that women are moral monsters who are permitted the option of killing a child whose existence they consented to spawn? Never mind that stay-at-home mom’s report the most satisfaction of mothers in any profession, the left is at war with this accommodation of patriarchy. Hillary sarcastically said that [instead of her legal work] she could have “stayed at home and baked cookies.” For all her legal activities, including an aggressive attack on a child victim of rape, one suspects that Hillary does not feel deeply satisfied.
- turn a fawning eye to leftist alleged rapists, like Bill Clinton, and slut–shame his victims? Never mind that there is an order of magnitude greater sexual offense and crimes alleged against Bill Clinton than against Donald Trump, Chelsea has never encountered a mainstream press reporter meaningfully probing her assessment of her father’s sexual conduct, while Ivanka Trump is constantly grilled about words for which her father has already apologized.
- make adoption so expensive and so regulated, while making abortion so inexpensive, accessible and funded by a resentful public?
- make, even when there is probable cause, obtaining a DNA sample from an admitted adulterer, Bill Clinton, cost hundred of thousands of dollars and years of delay, as to deny Bill’s alleged biological son, the poor and black Danney Williams, the knowledge of his paternity? And the media conspire.
- turn a blind eye to the subjugation—including beatings (Koran 4:34) or sex slavery (“right hand possessions” Koran 4:3, 24; 33:50…) or religious apartheid (Koran 9:29)—of almost 30% of the world’s women, i.e., the women of Islamic countries and Islamic neighborhoods in non-Islamic countries?
The left sacramentalizes elective abortion—sex for someone else to die for—and then labels itself as the political and cultural policeman insuring “zero tolerance” for sexual harassment of already born women.
The Democrat elite celebrate taking God out of our national creed. Elsewhere, the leftist doctrine is analyzed, showing the left’s reluctance to stigmatize social ills and, in the name of science, one sees the left prohibiting criticism of an origins narrative that is devoid of evidence and elementary distinctions.
The Democrats’ war against God is undertaken with such ferocity and insanity, that coherency, humanity, and unborn children are sacrificed to the cause.
Feigning social justice by marketing her resume as one which has been devoted to women’s and children’s issues, Hillary’s actual career
- has been that of a corporate lawyer
- had her inner circle at the state department populated not by wise diplomats and peace-makers, but by corporate bankers to facilitate a crony network enabling the Clintons to extract personal benefit via pay-for-play leverage at the expense of national security and international peace.
Hillary does not merely have not any positive accomplishment to show for her decades of “service,” Hillary’s resume reflects intense cronyism and the destruction of social power at nearly every turn.
There are only two ways to engage in economic activity. There is the application of intelligence labor to capital for the production of goods and services. In this scenario, wealth is created. In the free market, profit is a measure of both one’s positive service to others and one’s self-sacrifice. With such a virtuous pedigree, profit can be celebrated as a metric of altruism. This is the morally rapturous means of economic engagement.
In contrast, Hillary’s economic activity has been birthed and developed in the other means. Hillary has engaged in wealth destroying ventures where wealth earned by the saps pursuing the free market service to others, the economic players, is given to politically favored souls. Although the transaction begins as zero-sum venture, the usurpation of the economic means by the political means reflects a loss of social power. The destruction of social power by the state ushers a culture change of favoring the continuance of the anti-social work of the state and the consequent hostility of exercise of social power by the citizenry. The redistribution of wealth from the economic players to the politically favored is not only the heartbeat of nearly every national government today, but of every criminal network.
Before the passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913, the United States was, in the main, an exception to this way of doing “business.”
In response to Donald Trump’s call for her to return that money, without giving the serious and true accusation any response, Hillary was content to mock Donald with facial expressions and thereby denied even the possibility of so many women being oppressed or that the oppression of women in Islamic lands is worthy of such political discussion.
But which of these possibilities Hillary’s mock implied, i.e., what exactly Hillary mocked, Hillary chose not to let us know. Does Hillary deny the Koranic sex slavery sanction? The beat your wife verse? ….
But Hillary’s response nonetheless communicates truth about Hillary. Hillary’s behavior reveals to us that the important matter does not concern parsing aspects about the morality of women’s rights, but Hillary’s acquisition of wealth and political power.
Bankers for me, tax collectors for thee. The appearance of women’s rights for my campaign and the appearance of opposing women’s right for yours, you deplorable.
While in 2004 Hillary declared that “marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman,” one wonders if this statement reflects Hillary’s pangs of conscience and wish to hide a rumored string of adultery which includes lesbianism.
With the blooming of the political LGBT rainbow whose end now drops pots of anvils atop the businesses of gentle Christian bakers and other entrepreneurs—whose integrity does not permit condoning people whom they love to a deathstyle which robs, on average, 10-20 years of one’s life—Hillary has sided with the LGBT anvil dropping.
Curiously, Muslim bakers in America whose religious training likewise causes them to abstain from facilitating an LGBT celebration, do not experience the LGBT anvil dropping.
Bill Clinton’s Behavior
Clinton family values emanate from the 600 lb gorilla in the estate, President Bill Clinton. Bill has allegedly admitted to being unfaithful not merely thousands of times, but with thousands of women. Apparently among the most tightly correlated rules of sociology is the rule that such pathological sex addicts are also homosexual.
Yet according to one of the Arkansas troopers, Hillary has lamented her inability “to get f**ked in [the Governor’s mansion].”
Having warred against the organic sexual paradigm sown into the chromosomal roles XY and XX, the Clintons have traded love for its counterfeit, lust. And they don’t know why they are so miserable. The left wing religion is not merely a theoretical ideology for the Clintons. They are unfortunate enough to practice the war that they preach.
The brightest soul in the Clinton family belongs, hands down, to Chelsea. Although Chelsea has mitigated her father’s sexual abuse of women, Wikileaks has told us that Chelsea has had pangs of conscience manifested in
- concern about the illegality of using a tax-exempt organization, The Clinton Foundation, for personal gain
- interest in her father’s sexual conduct compelled her to read the Starr Report
But a person functioning according to her conscience, in a sea of people who fight against their consciences, can cause problems. Usually this entails political problems for the one with a conscience. But in Chelsea’s case, she belonged to the biologically favored Clinton family. This meant that as a favored Clinton Foundation employee Chelsea could operate with a good conscience herself and prick the consciences of others. Neither Hillary’s nor Bill’s consciences are positioned to aligned with such leadership. But apparently Chelsea’s moral leadership drove the COO of the Clinton Foundation to near suicide.
While the left stigmatize Chelsea’s alignment with her conscience for this, sane psycho-analysts fault the conscience-resistance network, that is, the supporting beams for the entire Clinton Foundation, as the responsible party for this near suicide. Laura Grahamfelt was suicidal because she was fighting her conscience along with the rest of the Clinton Foundation sans Chelsea. Because Chelsea could not be fired or Alinsky-ized, Laura experienced a more acute internal moral conflict. And this is how I speculate Ms. Grahamfelt came to be suicidal.
By returning to Danney Williams, our brief discussion of Clinton family values comes a full circle. I imagine it is safe to conclude that Chelsea’s curiosity about her father’s sexual conduct has made her aware of Danney Williams. While none of the Clinton family’s consciences are comfortable with a father abandoning his family, Chelsea’s conscience has considerable experience guiding her behavior and thoughts. Chelsea’s conscience wants to be free from the dark examples set by her parents. Chelsea’s conscience wants her to be a virtuous public voice. Unfortunately to take a further look at the role Chelsea’s conscience plays in guiding her behavior, we cannot count on the press to ask explicitly for Chelsea’s take on Danney Williams’ identity struggle.
Article by Pieder Beeli