Kirsten Gillibrand just made the most disgusting un-American comments about pro-life Christians

Kirsten Gillibrand said the most disgusting things yesterday in an interview with the Des Moines Register on the subject of abortion.

In the interview Gillibrand actually suggested that we shouldn’t allow pro-life Christian judges on the bench in the same way we wouldn’t allow a racist judge on the bench.

“I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable. Imagine saying that it’s okay to appoint a judge who’s racist or anti-Semitic or homophobic.”

She then finishes her thought with this doozy:

“Asking someone to appoint someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America—I don’t think that those are political issues anymore.”



Is she not listening to the words coming out of her mouth? By appointing pro-abortion judges she would be appointing the very people she claims we should not appoint. That is, “someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America”.

I’m telling you things have never been more backward in this world. They are actually equating pro-life Christian views of protecting life with HATE, and pro-abortion baby-murder views with LOVE. It’s insanity on steroids.

And then on top of it all Gillibrand defends her argument using the doctrine of “Separation of Church and State”.

“And we believe in this country in the separation of church and state, and I respect the rights of every American to hold their religious beliefs true to themselves, but our country and our Constitution has always demanded that we have a separation of church and state. And all these efforts by President Trump and other ultra-radical conservative judges and justices to impose their faith on Americans is contrary to our Constitution and that’s what this is”

Absolute nonsense. Her version of the separation of church and state isn’t even in the Constitution. Liberals have been abusing that doctrine for ages. As a founding ideal it simply means to prevent the state from imposing its will on the citizen when it comes to religion. That’s why the first amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

But Gillibrand wants to change all of that and impose her will on judges via an unconstitutional religious test now:

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

To our ad-free users: I apologize for the ad below but unfortunately DISQUS requires this ad in order to use their commenting system and I cannot make it go away.

153 thoughts on “Kirsten Gillibrand just made the most disgusting un-American comments about pro-life Christians

  1. Which brain dead political consultant whispered into this twit’s ears that she should run for president? Whoever told her that she has a snowball’s chance of being elected needs to be committed. Every time she opens her mouth, stupid flies out.

    1. @rwrad I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the idea popped out of that big head of hers.

  2. I’m actually seething right now.

    It’s not just abortion that she’s so hypocritical about.

    So many of our rights as clearly stated in the Bill of Rights are constantly getting trampled on by activist judges.

    I’m so mad right now…I need a few minutes to calm down.

  3. Bye bye western civilization. After teaching the American Revolution etc., daily for decades this tears me apart.

    P.S. I taught the history of this country , including American exceptionalism, as founded

  4. I have no problem putting a racist on the bench, so long as he can segregate (ha, pun) his personal views, and objectively and impartially interpret the law and Constitution. The people who say we should but this kind of person on the bench, or not put that kind of person on the bench, clearly does not appreciate what the Judiciary is supposed to be.

    But worse are the people who are this or that kind of person on the bench.

    Looking at you Ruth-Skeletor.

    I’m telling you things have never been more backward in this world.

    For more than one reason buddy.

  5. Your point needs to be emphasized, Scoop. We have an “establishment” clause and a “free exercise” clause. There is no “separation” clause. Separation of church and state is a Progressive iteration that serves to reverse the Founding intent about the role of faith and religion. Virtue come from our Judeo Christian tradition and virtue is necessary for a free society to properly function. At the heart of which is a protection of life. These Progressive tyrants want to plant their flag and declare the debate over, a debate they’ve lost on substance, if not politically. They want to shut down opposing ideas, and assert this on a bastardization of our history.

  6. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

    -Jesus

    Once the Truth is lost, no definition of any word is safe. No Truth, no truth. Know Truth, know truth.

    These people are Godless, and he has given them over to their depredations.

    Lord, come soon!

  7. The only good thing I can say about Kirsten Gillibrand is that she has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being POTUS.

    She’s polling at 0%. Right where she belongs.

      1. But Bill Clinton, say what else you will about the skunk, was and is a wiley politician. Gillibrand is a nitwit.

      1. Amen to that. Although I suspect she’ll continue to be the Jr. Senator from New York because they seem to have a lot of respect and love for stupid women there.

  8. Wow,that crowd behind Gillibrand don’t appear to like what they are hearing.Cross her off the list as someone who can beat Trump.

    1. @airforcevet98 But that was when she was only representing her rural upstate district. She even said so in her townhall last month. SEE??? :facepalmg:

    2. And she was considered an idiot both before and after. What is it with stupid that is so loved by New York voters?

  9. Please let this woman win the Dem nomination. Please. I say this of course so that everyone can see clearly what the left is like and so she will go down in flames.

  10. “Moral clarity”. Really? This woman who is supposedly a Catholic has a morality deficit larger than the Grand Canyon. The Catholic Church needs to start doing its job and begin excommunicating these Democrat politicians.

    1. @sjmom Yeah, I heard that a couple of them were just denied communion. That’s not enough IMO.

    2. What would excommunication mean to them? Getting kicked out of the bigoted Catholic Church would only give them more cred with the satanic left.

    3. If you are interested in excommunications, wikipedia lists all the excommunications from the First to the twenty-first Centuries.Very interesting to note the reason[s] for the Church’s actions.

    4. “The Catholic Church needs to start doing its job and begin excommunicating these Democrat politicians.”

      That will never happen.

    5. O/T but I thought you, @dr-strangelove and @therightscoop might find this interesting.

      Around 1745, the Spaniards established three missions near where Brushy Creek drains into the San Gabriel River (formerly San Xavier) in Texas (about 75 miles northwest of what is now College Station). The missions were to help shelter the Tonkawa Amerind tribe from the Apaches and convert them. In 1747, the Viceroy in New Spain authorized the San Xavier Presidio to protect the missions.

      By 1749, the garrison arrived and began construction. Things went poorly. The garrison commander, Capitan Rebago y Teran, wanted all the missions (and indians) moved “back” to the much more comfortable and safer San Antonio de Bexar. The friars made it clear they needed to be where the Tonkawa were living. The situation deteriorated.

      The commander ordered the missions moved small distances, basically undoing all the work completed during the previous 5 years. Then, despite the friars insistence the Tonkawa be treated with some respect, a single Tonkawa made the mistake of entering the presidio without removing his weapon. The soldiers beat him within an inch of his life and jailed him for a day. Of course the friars complained, they released the beaten man, but now all the Tonkawas were questioning who was worse, the Apaches or the Spaniards.

      Most of the converts decided to leave. The priests, responsible for garrison religious needs, retaliated by excommunicating the entire command. Individual soldiers were allowed back, but only after apologizing, asking forgiveness, and paying penance.

      A short time later, while some priests were celebrating a feast, a group of soldiers faked an Amerind attack on their mission. One priest was shot with an arrow, while another was shot with a musket and died. This was in 1752 or 1753 and at this point, authorities in San Antonio de Bexar were forced to take action. Given there were so few Amerind converts, they decided to “move” all the missions back to San Antonio. So, in the end, Capitan Rebago y Teran had his way.

      Punishing the victim and rewarding the aggressor/instigator are nothing new.

      There’s no real point, I just think the story is fascinating, especially how the priests used excommunication as a weapon against the garrison.

    6. I wonder if money is involved[donations to the church]is the reason many of these politicians who are Catholic are not excommunicated?

      1. @bigsir74 More than likely. The Catholic Church and Democrats have also always been aligned.

    7. These people wouldn’t know moral clarity if hit them in the side of the head. The Democrat party has become devoid of moral clarity. They call good evil, and evil good.

  11. Why doesn’t someone ask her about the constitutional rights of the babies being slaughtered?

    1. @dr-strangelove Well *someone* would if she would ever let any conservatives near her.

  12. “someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America”.

    Of course it sounds like she’s talking about pro-abortion judges, but that would require that she believes unborn babies are people that have rights. The left doesn’t believe that.

    1. @kong1967 I think that they believe it, it just doesn’t fit the agenda, so they ignore it.

    2. I think they know they’re human, people, but they’re perfectly fine with murder for mommy’s convenience.

  13. Jesus got angry once and started flipping tables saying ” you have turned it into a den of thieves!” One day he’s gonna finally snap and start smiting these jokers for all to see.

    1. @plotevil I saw a bumper sticker a while back that said, Jesus is coming back and he’s pi$$ed.

    2. Revelation says He’ll come back with an iron rod and smash the teeth of His enemies.

      Makes my mouth hurt.

  14. “They are actually equating pro-life Christian views of protecting life with HATE, and pro-abortion baby-murder views with LOVE.”

    Kirsten Gillibrand should be thankful that her mother didn’t “Love” her then.

  15. As a former New Yorker, this does not surprise me. The liberals in NY are completely insane and have no morals. I hated them.

  16. How did this dim bulb get elected to the senate? Oh wait,New York,I understand. Is it a prerequisite to be dumb as a rock(my apologies to rocks!) to represent New York?

  17. These people who believe in murdering a baby because people were irresponsible ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have no morals. One day this woman will pray for the help of a Christian, but it maybe to late! We must pray for these people because they are blind and don’t no any better.

  18. I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable.

    Well, she’s right about this… But she assumes her side is the moral authority.

    Honestly it’s like she’s not hearing us. It’s like she’s more deaf than I am.

  19. Oh, that witch.

    I had a different word to describe her but I didn’t want to actually say it.

  20. The more garbage spewed from the left promoting killing babies the more disturbing I find it. And to basically equate those who stand for life with evil? I have no words.

  21. The more garbage spewed from the left promoting killing babies the more disturbing I find it. And to basically equate those who stand for life with evil? I have no words.

  22. I get it.
    Kill American babies.
    Medical for all illegal aliens.
    GOTCHA!

    How can those people in the back ground sit there and listen to this broad?

  23. I get it.
    Kill American babies.
    Medical for all illegal aliens.
    GOTCHA!

    How can those people in the back ground sit there and listen to this broad?

  24. Democrats are just disgusting. Infanticide is not a human right, it is awful even having to tell that.

  25. How did this dim bulb get elected to the senate? Oh wait,New York,I understand. Is it a prerequisite to be dumb as a rock(my apologies to rocks!) to represent New York?

  26. Democrats are just disgusting. Infanticide is not a human right, it is awful even having to tell that.

  27. If Trump can keep his wits about himself, he will chew up and spit out whichever one of these dumb bastards that achieves the Dimwit nomination. It’s 100% his to lose.

  28. I think there’s some issues that have such moral clarity that we have as a society decided that the other side is not acceptable.

    Well, she’s right about this… But she assumes her side is the moral authority.

    Honestly it’s like she’s not hearing us. It’s like she’s more deaf than I am.

  29. These people who believe in murdering a baby because people were irresponsible ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have no morals. One day this woman will pray for the help of a Christian, but it maybe to late! We must pray for these people because they are blind and don’t no any better.

  30. I’m actually seething right now.

    It’s not just abortion that she’s so hypocritical about.

    So many of our rights as clearly stated in the Bill of Rights are constantly getting trampled on by activist judges.

    I’m so mad right now…I need a few minutes to calm down.

  31. Oh, that witch.

    I had a different word to describe her but I didn’t want to actually say it.

  32. I have no problem putting a racist on the bench, so long as he can segregate (ha, pun) his personal views, and objectively and impartially interpret the law and Constitution. The people who say we should but this kind of person on the bench, or not put that kind of person on the bench, clearly does not appreciate what the Judiciary is supposed to be.

    But worse are the people who are this or that kind of person on the bench.

    Looking at you Ruth-Skeletor.

    I’m telling you things have never been more backward in this world.

    For more than one reason buddy.

  33. Bye bye western civilization. After teaching the American Revolution etc., daily for decades this tears me apart.

    P.S. I taught the history of this country , including American exceptionalism, as founded

    1. I’m currently in a grad history class with a “cultural constructionist” (nee revisionist) prof who has dedicated his life to “destroying” the concept of exceptionalism. This guy is teaching current history teachers, and I’m just gobsmacked by how brazenly leftist he is, constantly chattering about the need to create a “usable past.”

      Usable to whom? Usable for what? Does he mean like when the Nazi sent teams of archaeologists and anthropologists around the globe to justify their racist theories? Or maybe like when Himmler hired historians to create an ancient basis for the SS? Or maybe when Soviet propagandists would airbrush photos to remove “heroes” who are no long in favor?

      I love history. I can’t stand this professor. He’s not teaching history or historiography, he indoctrinating victims in his own narrow, political view.

      1. Your post is painful to read. Why don’t people cherish liberty or maybe they just don’t understand it? How do you sit in that class and listen? Do you or anybody else challenge it?

        1. This is online. I challenge every aspect of it and back it up. In the end, this is a political debate they’ve chosen to inject into a history class. I’m abiding none of it and I am pointing how some of their racism.

          For example, both the professor and the author of our primary text argue that students can’t be inspired or fine relevance in history about people don’t “look like them.” Really? So, an Anglo boy can’t be inspired by a Hispanic lady?

          If the first question they ask about every person associated with an event it, “what is their race?” then they are race obsessed and racist.

          1. Stunning! They can’t relate on a mere human level but only a race level. So they rewrite or ignore what doesn’t fit their paradigm. Some people just dont deserve liberty. Thank you for your post

      2. Can you screw with him w/o getting below a 2.0?
        I’d feel better if was at least humilated….

  34. Which brain dead political consultant whispered into this twit’s ears that she should run for president? Whoever told her that she has a snowball’s chance of being elected needs to be committed. Every time she opens her mouth, stupid flies out.

    1. @rwrad I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the idea popped out of that big head of hers.

  35. I could easily and with great malice, tear each part of her insane BS to pieces (as I know many of you could). But I’m a little tired of it and I have to join a staff meeting now.

    Suffice it to say, NOT ONE of these democratic candidates is fit for POTUS. They are evil, alien and polluted. And if the voters of this country can’t clearly see that, then we are truly lost.

  36. “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

    -Jesus

    Once the Truth is lost, no definition of any word is safe. No Truth, no truth. Know Truth, know truth.

    These people are Godless, and he has given them over to their depredations.

    Lord, come soon!

  37. Your point needs to be emphasized, Scoop. We have an “establishment” clause and a “free exercise” clause. There is no “separation” clause. Separation of church and state is a Progressive iteration that serves to reverse the Founding intent about the role of faith and religion. Virtue come from our Judeo Christian tradition and virtue is necessary for a free society to properly function. At the heart of which is a protection of life. These Progressive tyrants want to plant their flag and declare the debate over, a debate they’ve lost on substance, if not politically. They want to shut down opposing ideas, and assert this on a bastardization of our history.

    1. I guess someone maybe should have explained the “Founding intent” to Thomas Jefferson:

      Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.”

      1. the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions

        restore to man all his natural rights

        Maybe someone needs to explain Jefferson to you. TJ clearly was saying the ‘wall’ was to protect religious liberty from government, contrary to what liberal judges would like.

        1. Walls function both ways, and Jefferson wanted to keep government out of religion, and religion out of government. So of course the wall protected “religious liberty” from the government. But your idea of “religious liberty” and his are not necessarily the same. He had no issue with anyone’s religion only so far as it did not impinge upon or injure others. As he put it in his Notes on Virginia:

          “The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

          In other words, believe what you want, but your belief does not justify injuring others.

      2. Yeah, Jefferson would totally support abortion and “reproductive freedom”. / s

        I’m aware he wrote a letter to Danbury Baptists in 1802.

        1. I never said he would.

          If you are familiar with his writings than you know he would very likely disagree with you regarding the role religion and religious faith out to play in governance.

          1. “I never said he would” That’s good, because this Progressive (Gillibrand) is using the Progressive iteration of “separation” to end the debate in favor of so-called abortion rights, a violation of natural rights. No, I don’t see much daylight between Jefferson and my understanding. His use of the phrase, as I read it, was in defense of religious liberty while the modern Regressive is not interested in religious liberty. They want abortion at all costs. These Regressives like the phrase “separation of church and state”. They like the fact that they borrowed phrase from Jefferson via Hugo Black, and they use it in place of “establishment” and “free exercise”. No, this is not the Founders intent.

            1. If you don’t see much difference between his position and yours then you very little about Jefferson’s take on religion, Christianity, and the relationship between religion and government.

              Note that I’m not defending Gillibrand or her silly position. But one need not create an equally silly position in the opposite direction to counter her argument.

              1. Ok, so where do we differ? I mean other than Jefferson being a far more eloquent and prolific writer than I.. What have I said that indicates to you what my position is? and what makes it a silly, un-Jeffersonian position? We seem to agree about the modern Leftist malpractice and abuse of the phrase “Separation of church and state”

                1. Gillibrand’s application is absurd, but Separation of Powers was an important idea to Jefferson and others. In brief, they saw government as a threat to religion and religion as a threat to government. Jefferson in particular was quite suspicious of organized religion, and saw it as a corrupting force throughout history. He rejected the notion that our laws were based on the Judeo-Christian tradition.

                  As for Jefferson himself, he viewed himself as a “sect of one” and believed that matters of faith were between a man and his maker, and that there was no accounting to anyone other than God. He occasionally used the term, but he was by no means a Christian in the way we understand the term. For example, he did not believe Jesus was born of virgin birth, performed miracles, or died for our sins and was resurrected.

                  Ever hear of the Jefferson Bible, which Jefferson called “The Philosophy of Jesus Christ?” Jefferson took a blade to his Bible and cut out portions of the four Gospels with which he agreed, and pasted them into a new book. (He later told Adams that the true parts stood out like “diamonds in a dungheap.”) He not only discarded everything outside of the Gospels, he also discarded everything in the Gospels involving miracles or the suggestion that Jesus was the Son of God. The book ends before the Resurrection. Jefferson did this with Bibles in four languages. (He had created an earlier version as well, but it was lost.)

                  Is this the Jefferson with which you feel a strong kinship on matters of religion?

  38. The only good thing I can say about Kirsten Gillibrand is that she has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever being POTUS.

    She’s polling at 0%. Right where she belongs.

      1. But Bill Clinton, say what else you will about the skunk, was and is a wiley politician. Gillibrand is a nitwit.

        1. True. But it would be dangerous to underestimate the stupidity of the Democrat primary voter.

      1. Amen to that. Although I suspect she’ll continue to be the Jr. Senator from New York because they seem to have a lot of respect and love for stupid women there.

  39. Please let this woman win the Dem nomination. Please. I say this of course so that everyone can see clearly what the left is like and so she will go down in flames.

  40. “Moral clarity”. Really? This woman who is supposedly a Catholic has a morality deficit larger than the Grand Canyon. The Catholic Church needs to start doing its job and begin excommunicating these Democrat politicians.

    1. @sjmom Yeah, I heard that a couple of them were just denied communion. That’s not enough IMO.

      1. Well it is a big deal to be denied communion, as the Eucharist is at the very center of the Catholic church.

          1. @dr-strangelove yeah i was able to glean that from your comment. But excommunication is huge and I think those bishops want to leave room for repentance and reconciliation.

            1. @therightscoop OK, I see that. But if they are merely denied communion, they continue to claim that they are Catholic.

        1. @therightscoop You’re right it’s a big deal….for some but apparently not for all. I’ve yet to hear of any Democrat politician who has changed their mind on abortion because they were denied Communion. At this point IMHO people should be excommunicated.

      2. I don’t think it’s enough either. But it’s a start and right now with the mood of the country I’ll take what I can get.

      3. @dr-strangelove I agree and until the Catholic Church gets serious the pols aren’t going to care.

      4. @sjmom Like they care. If they’re excommunicated, they can no longer claim to be Catholic.

    2. These people wouldn’t know moral clarity if hit them in the side of the head. The Democrat party has become devoid of moral clarity. They call good evil, and evil good.

    3. What would excommunication mean to them? Getting kicked out of the bigoted Catholic Church would only give them more cred with the satanic left.

    4. I wonder if money is involved[donations to the church]is the reason many of these politicians who are Catholic are not excommunicated?

      1. @bigsir74 More than likely. The Catholic Church and Democrats have also always been aligned.

    5. If you are interested in excommunications, wikipedia lists all the excommunications from the First to the twenty-first Centuries.Very interesting to note the reason[s] for the Church’s actions.

    6. “The Catholic Church needs to start doing its job and begin excommunicating these Democrat politicians.”

      That will never happen.

    7. O/T but I thought you, @dr-strangelove and @therightscoop might find this interesting.

      Around 1745, the Spaniards established three missions near where Brushy Creek drains into the San Gabriel River (formerly San Xavier) in Texas (about 75 miles northwest of what is now College Station). The missions were to help shelter the Tonkawa Amerind tribe from the Apaches and convert them. In 1747, the Viceroy in New Spain authorized the San Xavier Presidio to protect the missions.

      By 1749, the garrison arrived and began construction. Things went poorly. The garrison commander, Capitan Rebago y Teran, wanted all the missions (and indians) moved “back” to the much more comfortable and safer San Antonio de Bexar. The friars made it clear they needed to be where the Tonkawa were living. The situation deteriorated.

      The commander ordered the missions moved small distances, basically undoing all the work completed during the previous 5 years. Then, despite the friars insistence the Tonkawa be treated with some respect, a single Tonkawa made the mistake of entering the presidio without removing his weapon. The soldiers beat him within an inch of his life and jailed him for a day. Of course the friars complained, they released the beaten man, but now all the Tonkawas were questioning who was worse, the Apaches or the Spaniards.

      Most of the converts decided to leave. The priests, responsible for garrison religious needs, retaliated by excommunicating the entire command. Individual soldiers were allowed back, but only after apologizing, asking forgiveness, and paying penance.

      A short time later, while some priests were celebrating a feast, a group of soldiers faked an Amerind attack on their mission. One priest was shot with an arrow, while another was shot with a musket and died. This was in 1752 or 1753 and at this point, authorities in San Antonio de Bexar were forced to take action. Given there were so few Amerind converts, they decided to “move” all the missions back to San Antonio. So, in the end, Capitan Rebago y Teran had his way.

      Punishing the victim and rewarding the aggressor/instigator are nothing new.

      There’s no real point, I just think the story is fascinating, especially how the priests used excommunication as a weapon against the garrison.

    1. @airforcevet98 But that was when she was only representing her rural upstate district. She even said so in her townhall last month. SEE??? :facepalmg:

    2. And she was considered an idiot both before and after. What is it with stupid that is so loved by New York voters?

  41. Wow,that crowd behind Gillibrand don’t appear to like what they are hearing.Cross her off the list as someone who can beat Trump.

  42. As a former New Yorker, this does not surprise me. The liberals in NY are completely insane and have no morals. I hated them.

  43. Jesus got angry once and started flipping tables saying ” you have turned it into a den of thieves!” One day he’s gonna finally snap and start smiting these jokers for all to see.

    1. @plotevil I saw a bumper sticker a while back that said, Jesus is coming back and he’s pi$$ed.

    2. Revelation says He’ll come back with an iron rod and smash the teeth of His enemies.

      Makes my mouth hurt.

  44. Why doesn’t someone ask her about the constitutional rights of the babies being slaughtered?

    1. @dr-strangelove Well *someone* would if she would ever let any conservatives near her.

  45. “someone who takes away basic human rights of any group of people in America”.

    Of course it sounds like she’s talking about pro-abortion judges, but that would require that she believes unborn babies are people that have rights. The left doesn’t believe that.

    1. @kong1967 I think that they believe it, it just doesn’t fit the agenda, so they ignore it.

    2. I think they know they’re human, people, but they’re perfectly fine with murder for mommy’s convenience.

      1. @texas-chris You will never hear them admit it because it would destroy their own arguments. They focus on the rights of the mother and almost never mention the baby because it’s part of the mother’s body. If it’s not a life they can do whatever they want to it.

  46. “They are actually equating pro-life Christian views of protecting life with HATE, and pro-abortion baby-murder views with LOVE.”

    Kirsten Gillibrand should be thankful that her mother didn’t “Love” her then.

  47. If Trump can keep his wits about himself, he will chew up and spit out whichever one of these dumb bastards that achieves the Dimwit nomination. It’s 100% his to lose.

  48. I could easily and with great malice, tear each part of her insane BS to pieces (as I know many of you could). But I’m a little tired of it and I have to join a staff meeting now.

    Suffice it to say, NOT ONE of these democratic candidates is fit for POTUS. They are evil, alien and polluted. And if the voters of this country can’t clearly see that, then we are truly lost.

Comments are closed.