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.

92
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
30 Comment threads
62 Thread replies
33 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
newest oldest most voted
One4Life
Member
Active Member
One4Life

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.

john dba
Member
Member
john dba

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?

D Guest
Member
Trusted Member
D Guest

What a cold, heartless woman.

Yimi
Member
Member
Yimi

Damn are these people stupid!

Lord Beyond The Wall
Member
Member
Lord Beyond The Wall

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

@GHalv
Member
Trusted Member
@GHalv

She is filth on steroids… The poster-child of political hackery.

Buzzkill59
Member
Active Member
Buzzkill59

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?

CaptBill56
Member
Active Member
CaptBill56

I live here, can’t disagree….

FedUp
Member
Active Member
FedUp

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.

CruzGal
Member
Noble Member
CruzGal

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.

dman
Member
Active Member
dman

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.

CruzGal
Member
Noble Member
CruzGal

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.

CruzGal
Member
Noble Member
CruzGal

Oh, that witch.

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

AT
Member
Noble Member
AT

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.

Danaellen
Member
Noble Member
Danaellen

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

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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.

Danaellen
Member
Noble Member
Danaellen

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?

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

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.

Danaellen
Member
Noble Member
Danaellen

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

CaptBill56
Member
Active Member
CaptBill56

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

CaptBill56
Member
Active Member
CaptBill56

Thank you D smile

RWrad
Member
Noble Member
RWrad

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.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

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

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

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.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

“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!

tryandgetbyme
Member
Active Member
tryandgetbyme

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.

T_ump
Member
T_ump

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.”

D Guest
Member
Trusted Member
D Guest

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.

T_ump
Member
T_ump

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.

tryandgetbyme
Member
Active Member
tryandgetbyme

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

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

T_ump
Member
T_ump

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.

tryandgetbyme
Member
Active Member
tryandgetbyme

“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.

T_ump
Member
T_ump

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.

tryandgetbyme
Member
Active Member
tryandgetbyme

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”

T_ump
Member
T_ump

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… Read more »

Kenoshamarge
Member
Noble Member
Kenoshamarge

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.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

She’s polling where Bill Clinton was at this point in the race.

Kenoshamarge
Member
Noble Member
Kenoshamarge

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

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

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

Kenoshamarge
Member
Noble Member
Kenoshamarge

True that.

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

She Ain’t no Bill Clinton

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

Look at at those supporters behind her,she really has them rocking out of their seats.

tryandgetbyme
Member
Active Member
tryandgetbyme

May she fade away and never gain power.

Kenoshamarge
Member
Noble Member
Kenoshamarge

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.

New West
Member
Noble Member
New West

At least we know they are all on the same page.

In_Russet_Shadows
Member
Active Member
In_Russet_Shadows

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.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

Agreed. She’s Trump’s MVP.

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

“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.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

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

NbyNW
Member
Member
NbyNW

Which ones?

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

I don’t recall offhand.

bob434
Member
Active Member
bob434

those that were denied had their ‘right to communion aborted’ lol

Kenoshamarge
Member
Noble Member
Kenoshamarge

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.

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

Dr. StrangeloveDr. Strangelove I agree and until the Catholic Church gets serious the pols aren’t going to care.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

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

Watchman
Member
Noble Member
Watchman

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.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

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

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

Texas ChrisTexas Chris Not much because they don’t care.

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

Agreed!

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

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

sjmom
Member
Noble Member
sjmom

Avatarbigsir74 More than likely. The Catholic Church and Democrats have also always been aligned.

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

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.

FedUp
Member
Active Member
FedUp

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

That will never happen.

TXGRunner
Member
Noble Member
TXGRunner

O/T but I thought you, Dr. Strangelove and The Right Scoop 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… Read more »

AirForceVet98
Member
Noble Member
AirForceVet98

And she was considered a moderate before her Presidential run

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

AvatarAirForceVet98 But that was when she was only representing her rural upstate district. She even said so in her townhall last month. SEE??? facepalmg

Kenoshamarge
Member
Noble Member
Kenoshamarge

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

bigsir74
Member
Noble Member
bigsir74

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.

libs r nuts
Member
Member
libs r nuts

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

PlotEvil
Member
Noble Member
PlotEvil

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.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

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

Sentinel
Member
Noble Member
Sentinel

Nice! oops

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

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

Makes my mouth hurt.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

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

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

Dr. StrangeloveDr. Strangelove Well *someone* would if she would ever let any conservatives near her.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

nc checks and balancesnc checks and balances Ah, captive audience. I should have figured.

nc checks and balances
Member
Noble Member
nc checks and balances

Dr. StrangeloveDr. Strangelove Well, I wasn’t thinking captive, more like excluded.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

nc checks and balancesnc checks and balances I guess that you have a right to visit the plantation.

Kenoshamarge
Member
Noble Member
Kenoshamarge
Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

How fitting.

Kelli
Member
Active Member
Kelli

She’s a complete disgrace to the state of NY and to women across this nation.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

“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.

Dr. Strangelove
Member
Famed Member
Dr. Strangelove

kong1967kong1967 I think that they believe it, it just doesn’t fit the agenda, so they ignore it.

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Dr. StrangeloveDr. Strangelove That may very well be true.

Texas Chris
Member
Noble Member
Texas Chris

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

kong1967
Member
Noble Member
kong1967

Texas ChrisTexas 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.

Truth Unites... and Divides
Member
Active Member
Truth Unites... and Divides

“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.

Back to Top of Comments