(LifeSiteNews) — Every so often, Hillary Clinton emerges from retirement to remind us of why we should be grateful that she never became the president of the United States. In a recent appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Clinton warned that a potential revival of Christianity could do great “damage” to America:
🚨 NEW: Hillary Clinton WARNS against the rise of Christianity, says white Christian men are causing “such damage” to the United States
“The idea you could turn the clock back and try to recreate a world that never was, dominated by – let’s say it! White men of a certain… pic.twitter.com/4WuEegZdRR
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 24, 2025
“We haven’t gotten to the ‘more perfect union,’ and we fought a Civil War over part of it,” Clinton said. “People have been protesting for hundreds of years that things were not as they should be given our ideals and how we should be moving toward them. I think that’s what makes us so special as a country.”
She continued: “The idea you could turn the clock back and try to recreate a world that never was, dominated by – let’s say it – white men of a certain persuasion, certain religion, certain ideology, it’s just doing such damage to what we should be aiming for. And we were on the path toward that … we were on the right trajectory.”
The “certain religion” Clinton is highlighting, of course, is Christianity—the religion not only of the founders, as Charlie Kirk so eloquently pointed out, but also of the American civil rights movement and the abolitionist movement that fought slavery. The “trajectory” Clinton believes was the “right one” was in fact an America in which children could be killed in the womb right until birth, for any reason or for no reason at all.
To Clinton, “turning the clock back” means pro-life laws protecting children in the womb; it means reaffirming the fundamental reality that there are only two sexes; it means recognizing that Christianity was the founding faith of America, and that without it, America moves—and indeed has moved—persistently and tragically away from her foundational ideals, and towards the moral chaos and injustice championed by people like herself.
Meanwhile, the second woman that Donald Trump beat for the presidency—Kamala Harris—has been on a book tour, parroting similar lines and insistently inhabiting a reality that does not resemble America. After losing to Trump, Clinton published an attempt at an exculpatory memoir to reframe her loss titled What Happened; Harris has now done the same in 107 Days.
If Harris is to be believed, she ran a near-perfect campaign and was primarily a victim of her loyalty to Joe Biden, whom she now, of course, admits should not have run again. She claims, for example, that her response to a protestor who called out “Jesus is Lord!” with “Oh, you’re at the wrong rally!” was an example of her winning the moment, but losing the “spin” later on. She brags that her rallies for abortion were packed, and that she was at her best when plugging for feticide. (Indeed, abortion is one of the few things that Harris, like Clinton, truly believes in.)
But fundamentally, Harris is too much of an ideologue to understand why she lost. She spends four pages agonizing over Donald Trump’s famous and brutally effective ads pinpointing her support for insane transgender policies, which closed with the famous lines: “Kamala Harris is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” Bill Clinton was so alarmed by the impact of the ads that, according to the New York Times, he reached out to the Harris camp and urged them to repudiate their support for the policy of tax-funded sex changes for criminals.
But she couldn’t, of course. Harris was bought and paid for by the LGBT movement, and in too deep to backtrack. But she insists, in contravention of all evidence, that the Trump ad did not derail her campaign. That, she writes, is “the conventional wisdom of middle-aged men who don’t live in battleground states,” and that she should in fact have gone further in her support for the transgender movement—her regret is that she did not “follow my protective instincts.”
“I wish I could have gotten the message across that there isn’t a distinction between ‘they/them’ and ‘you,’” Harris writes. “The pronoun that matters is ‘we.’ We the people.”
But according to post-election reports, people in battleground states very much opposed her positions:
Among swing voters, this issue moved swing votes away from Harris more than any other. Swing voters said they did not vote for the Democratic ticket in 2024, because “Kamala Harris is focused more on cultural issues like transgender issues rather than helping the middle class.” That statement ranked one point ahead of voter dissatisfaction with inflation and two points higher than illegal immigration, according to Blueprint, a new public opinion research initiative funded by LinkedIn founder Reid Hoffman and designed to “provide insights and recommendations on how to reach the voters who will be essential to delivering the Democrats the White House and control of Congress.”
“[L]iberal women were much less comfortable than they were with any other issue,” the New York Times stated. “[M]oms get really visibly angry” at this issue, noted Republican pollster Jim McLaughlin, “It’s a fairness issue. They don’t want their daughters to lose a scholarship, and they don’t want them to get hurt.”
Other Democrats, like California Governor Gavin Newsom, clearly disagree with Harris’s assessment and are attempting to find a way around the thorny transgender issue that allows them to maintain their commitment to the LGBT movement without hemorrhaging votes amongst normal people. But Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris, thankfully, are candidates of the past. Listening to their interviews, one shudders to think where they would have taken America if they had gotten the chance.
