Just when you think Queen Hillary can’t do anything to appear even more out of touch with logic or reality, she does. In fact, her definition of “pro-family” may be certifiably nuts.
While GOP candidates were on stage last night discussing economic policies to help American families, the Queen took to Twitter and declared what’s “really pro-family” in her book:
Hat tip to Twitchy:
What’s really pro-family: Supporting equal pay, paid leave, affordable child care, and Planned Parenthood. #GOPdebate
— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) November 11, 2015
You read that correctly. An organization that kills babies and sells their parts is now a pro-family policy! Yeah, because nothing says “family” like abortion! (Though, to be fair, perhaps Planned Parenthood is included in this line-up to help pay for the other benefits Clinton promises — fiscally sound plan to use the sale of baby parts to fund these family programs.) And to take a stroll through the incredulous responses to Clinton’s mind-blowlingly illogical and twisted tweet, it seems the majority missed her attempt at pandering with perks — and instead focused on the insanity of including Planned Parenthood as “pro-family.”
@HillaryClinton Killing your unborn child is “pro family?” Seriously? — Chris Scalise (@scause1701) November 11, 2015
Can’t think of anything LESS pro-family than slaughtering innocents and harvesting their organs. https://t.co/0P5dismqG1
— Jimmy Parris (@jimmyparris) November 11, 2015
@HillaryClinton Do you read the shit you tweet? Nothing say pro-family like killing your offspring..
— Red,White & F#*k You (@Patriot762x51mm) November 11, 2015
Even those who appeared to be sympathetic to the rest of the list scratched their heads over Planned Parenthood’s inclusion on the list.
Others kindly offered their concern for the Queen’s well-being:
@HillaryClinton Planned Parenthood? Are you ok or just insane?
— Diego Polanco (@diegopolanco16) November 11, 2015
The truly sad thing is Hillary’s twisted definition of pro-family seems unlikely to slow down this woman’s chances of becoming the Democrat nominee. But this should:
[Note: This article was written by Michelle Jesse, Associate Editor]