Unethical Quote Of The Week: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

“Our future is: Female. Intersectional. Powered by our belief in one another. And we’re just getting started.”

Senator Kirsten Gillbrand, via tweet this week, calling out to her anti-male bigot supporters everywhere.

It is almost fun watching people twist themselves, language, common sense and decency to justify Gillibrand, Congress’s premier misandrist. As a U.S. Senator, she is pledged and ethically obligated to be working for the entire nation, not a single race, creed, ethnic group or, obviously, gender. The two “our”s and single we is not meant to represent all Americans, by common English construction. She is talking about women, and excluding men. In particular, by adding “intersectionality,” she is excluding white men above all.

It isn’t surprising to see Gillibrand proclaiming the increasingly popular anti-male bigotry that more and more public figures, all Democrats–coincidentally–are openly promoting. After all, she is the same sexist bigot who championed the destructive vendetta by “Mattress Girl” against a male Columbia student, even after he was exonerated. She is the same person who ran Al Franken out of the Senate. She is the same prejudiced hypocrite who declared that she believed Bret Kavanaugh’s accuser simply because he was a man and she was a woman. “I believe her,” Gillibrand said fatuously. “Her story is credible.” That’s a non-sequitur. The fact that a story is “credible” does not mean it should be believed without evidence. Credible means that a story is believable, but untrue stories are frequently believable. Kavanaugh’s defense was also credible, except to bigots, like Senator Hirono, who said she didn’t believe him because he is a conservative, and Gillibrand, who elevates women in status and trustworthiness over men.

She is representative of the most divisive and hypocritical feminism, in which the superiority of one gender over another is assumed and forms the basis for policy.

Senator Marco Rubio properly rebuked her, and issued the definitive rejection of the un-American bigotry that her supporters, defenders and enablers represent, writing:

“Our future is: AMERICAN.”An identity based not on gender,race,ethnicity or religion. But on the powerful truth that all people are created equal with a God given right to life,liberty & the pursuit of happiness.”

A feminist fascist is still a fascist.



17 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Senator Kirsten Gillibrand

  1. I sympathize with you Jack. You seem to get tarred as a conservative by progressives.

    For better or worse, conservatives saying dumb things are considered people with antiquated ideas. The progressives who spout dumb ideas represent the future of stupidity. The progressives scare me more.


  2. So the future doesn’t require men. Interesting. Is Kirsten pioneering sperm farming or cloning in her spare time? I thought demographics are the future of the country. Doesn’t that involve births? Will boy infants be murdered or will genes be genetically modified in utero? In vitro? I’ve got it, trans sexuals will impregnate women! Voila! What was I thinking?

  3. “Our future is: AMERICAN.” An identity based not on gender, race, ethnicity or religion. But on the powerful truth that all people are created equal with a God given right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.”

    What Gillbrand is promoting is up to anyone to define. Is it radical Marxist feminism? Or some bizarre crack-brained nouveau LGBQ definition? Who knows? In a sense who cares. Fair game to ridicule it. Or to pay no attention to it at all. Because it doesn’t mean much.

    But the definition of America offered by Rubio is one that can be discussed. It is not original to America. It is a late ideological arrangement.

    Compare it with what John Jay wrote:

    With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

    It is fine if someone desires to believe the New Credo of Americanism. I would suggest that it is, in itself, an expression of a radical progressivism. But it must be fairly described as new and as progressive-radical.

    One could advocate for that America, that new definition of a ‘Propositional Nation’. One would have that right. But that is what was set in motion in the years after the Second War. To cement a new semi-religious definition of the New America.

    But one has just as much of a right to oppose it, and to work to reverse the trends that have been set in motion. To be truthful *the time* favors such a motion. Here in America and everywhere that anti-liberal and (true) conservative and popular movements are gaining ground.

    (Sorry, but someone has to say something here. It falls to me I guess).

    • “It is not original to America”. Look at the quote you are supposedly rebuking. Although this idea did not originate in America, it took root here. It was put into (imperfect) practice here. Rubio is referencing the Declaration of Independence, if you didn’t know the source. He is pointing out that The United States does have a unique history and ideology and it is one that should be honored. It is one that is needed, especially in today’s world. He is pointing out the American view that these rights to life, liberty, and happiness are not things the government gives us, they are OUR RIGHTS given to us by GOD. Governments of mere men have no right to try to strip them from us. Government employees and representatives are no better than the rest of us. They deserve and have no special rights. They are beholden to the same laws we are. There is no governing class. These ideas may have occurred in other countries, but they did not take root there. They didn’t take root in France, that still has an aristocratic class and treats its citizens like subjects. It didn’t take root in Great Britain, that still has an official aristocracy, a monarchy, and who vies the book 1984 as an instruction manual.

      We are at a point in our history where a large group of people no longer believe in our American ideals. They believe that we only have the rights the government gives us. We must do what is best for the government and
      that we can only make the decisions the government decides we should make. Look at the reaction of the government class to the ‘improper’ choice of electing President Trump. Look at the Universities that have disciplines student government representatives for not voting the proper way on resolutions. We now have a self-perpetuating governing class and that is un-American. The governing class now believes they are above the law. Look at the FBI raid of the whistleblowers house. Look at the fact that the Clinton campaign violated campaign finance laws to the tune of over $80 million. Look at all the laws Clinton apparently broke but was not punished for. Look at the FBI and CIA conspiring against their own legally elected boss. Look at the ‘civil forfeiture’ laws, where people’s property is sized and sold without any need for trial and no ability for a defense to be heard before the property is taken (and often sold). Look at the two men killed recently during ‘Red Flag Seizures’ where a person’s Constitutional rights are stripped of them based on the accusation of 1 person without substantiation and without any notice, much less ability, for a defense to be raised. Look at all the federal judges who blatantly violate the Constitution they swore to uphold by claiming they can micromanage the Executive Branch at their whim, that they can deny citizens Constitutional rights that they don’t like, and by ruling by emotion instead of the law. This all breeds contempt of the governing class by those who are still Americans and believe in American ideals. France is currently dealing with a situation where the contempt of the governing class grows too big. We need to make sure that doesn’t happen here.

      • I appreciate what you wrote here. You might have misunderstood my use of the phrase ‘original to America’. My understanding is that what is original to America is what John Jay stated.

        My questions in general revolve around ‘Who owns America?’ and I would tend to a Catholic definition of property and ownership as my own starting point.

        You may not have read much of what I write (I am generally dismissed here), but I have unpopular opinions. Not to be difficult, through difficulty arises, but because I think our present is significantly skewed. We live under a ‘regime of ideation’ which, like the fish who is unaware of water, we are also unaware of. I think we have to seek out and expose this regimented ideology and see it for what it is.

        At this point in my journey to try and understand what is going on in America right now (which really is a sort of Odyssey!) I define ‘false-conservatives’ and ‘true-conservatives’. Rubio is a false-conservative. And the American Conservative establishment is grounded in principles that can be proven to be not conservative, but false-conservative and, often progressive (or simply politically crack-brained).

        “Our future is: AMERICAN.” An identity based not on gender, race, ethnicity or religion. But on the powerful truth that all people are created equal with a God given right to life, liberty & the pursuit of happiness.

        This is not a statement original to America, if John Jay (and many others with similar views) is taken as an original American. I think it fair to say that they would take a very contrary view of it. This statement is a far more modern statement that developed later and for ideological purposes. It is not completely incorrect though. It is significantly incorrect, but more in the way that the statement has been used (to bring out radical projects not the least being ‘ethnic replacement’). And the ideology that it expresses needs, in my view, to be challenged.

  4. To establish a totalitarian regieme, there has to be some way to unite enough of the competing factions to allow you to take control ‘for their own good’ or ‘for ‘the good of society’. Usually, some group is demonized and declared the enemy of all the other groups. The Nazi’s chose the Jews. Many other have chosen the aristocrats, or the business owners. The left has chosen white men. They have chosen this group because it is the only group that more or less clings to the ideals of individual rights and liberty. Every other group has at least been warm to the idea of lining up at the government trough and trading liberty for ‘security’ or ‘tolerance’. White men, at least the left believes, are the last group that understands that with a steady job and the money it pays comes enough power that you don’t need much from the government. What the left can’t understand is why so many white women believe this as well. It lets them know that not everyone is buying the lie and that frustrates them.

  5. What the left can’t understand is why so many white women believe this as well. It lets them know that not everyone is buying the lie and that frustrates them.

    Gillibrand was just reelected with 67% of the vote. Not everyone is buying the lie, but a huge proportion, perhaps a majority, of the electorate does buy it.

    • We’re not sure what the voters motives were. Knowing how much the Democrats are aiming for a single-party government (just like Cuba, North Korea and China), the Dembots may have just been voting against a sane, intelligent canditate.

  6. How interesting that women who have attained real power — which according to Gillebrand are the ones who should have it — include such warm, fuzzing, loving, female leaders as Elizabeth I, Argentina’s Eva Peron, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meir, and Hillary Clinton. Are those her models? They were as masculine in their behavior as any male leader could have been. And often, just as or more destructive.

    Gillebrand has two sons: are we to assume they have no place in the future?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.