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
Even those who appeared to be sympathetic to the rest of the list scratched their heads over Planned Parenthood’s inclusion on the list.
@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
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]