Gillibrand almost got it right

She almost got me.  For a moment, I thought Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and I could finally agree on something.  False alarm.

Gillibrand started her statement well enough.  She said, "Some issues ... have such moral clarity that we have ... decided that the other side is not acceptable."  She made it clear that in her view, "the other side" is pro-life.

Killing a baby born alive in an abortion facility is unambiguously a depraved act.  It is never justified.  It is murder and should be regarded as such by the law.  But Gillibrand will not say that.  She would lose too many of her supporters. 

Gillibrand seeks refuge for her despicable disrespect for human life in, of all places, "the separation of church and state."  She then has the gall to claim, "I respect the rights of every American to hold their [sic] religious beliefs true to themselves[.]"

Yes, Gillibrand says, you have a right to your belief that human life is sacred, but keep that belief to yourself, you Nazi.  Don't try to impose your radical beliefs on me — not while I impose mine on you, and not while I advocate for the mass murder of millions of unborn humans, and not while I silence your opinion on the matter.

The Left intends to legislate for any abortion, at any stage of pregnancy or beyond, at your (taxpayer) expense, and it does not end there.  You will not even be allowed to object.  Your right to free speech, guaranteed by the Constitution, does not entitle you to cry out for mercy in an abortion facility, you bigot, you misogynist, you extremist. 

Worst of all, perhaps, health care workers who refuse to kill babies will be punished.  Likewise, refusal to perform any immoral act involving sex "reassignment," euthanasia, or other activities defined by the Left as someone's rights will result in penalties.  This is the authoritarian dictatorship toward which the Left is energetically working.

Having said all that, why did I even for an instant think Gillibrand and I could agree on something?  She does make one good point.  There are indeed, issues, as she says (with faulty grammar), that "are not issues [where] there is a fair other side."

Gillibrand is correct on that point, albeit not as she intends.  Subjecting confused children to the permanent ravages of cross-gender "transitioning" is unequivocally evil.  Demanding that Christian bakers (but not Muslim bakers) violate their religious principles by participating in the celebration of same-sex so-called wedding ceremonies is plainly an act of intolerance.  Eliminating national borders is cultural suicide.  Subsidizing out-of-wedlock birth with welfare stipends, which encourage more of the same, is a form of societal sabotage.  The list is abysmally long.

As the Declaration of Independence notes, "mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."  There is a limit to what is sufferable.  We are swiftly approaching it.

Gillibrand is drawing a line.  She is, although carefully framing her words, declaring war on all that is good and decent.  She is pointing out the cancer and threatening those of us who would excise it.

Gillibrand herself will never be president, but then again, many people thought the same of Barack Obama.  Someone like Gillibrand, in power, will pose an existential threat to American freedom.

As violent leftist demonstrators sometimes say to those who attempt to reason with them, "this is not up for debate."

Indeed, it's not.

Image: U.S. Air Force via Staff Sgt. Joseph McKee.