Did Giffords Herself Use “Violent” Rhetoric?


giffordsThe answer, simply, is yes. Gabby Giffords, who is in all our prayers, didn’t hold back when it came to sharing how she feels. The following is from an interview on Fox News, on “On the Record,” June 29, 2010:

VAN SUSTEREN: On a 1 to 10 scale, 10 being the worst, 1 to 10 scale, how serious a problem is this illegal immigration in Arizona?

GIFFORDS: Oh, I’d give it a 9. I mean, it’s — you know, I mean, it’s — it’s pretty horrendous right now… it’s more boots on the ground, it’s not more attorneys at the courthouse. I mean, that’s what’s going to solve the problem.

GIFFORDS: Yes. I’m very troubled by this. Ever since SB1070 passed, I’ve been working with the Arizona Hotel and Lodging Association, talking to any group that’s thinking about boycotting Arizona or is boycotting Arizona. I don’t care if it’s a rock band, if it’s a city, a state or the federal government, I’m telling them the boycotts are misguided and oftentimes hurt the very people that these groups espouse that they support.

Well, a lot of this right now is just jump on Arizona. Let’s beat up Arizona. And as a native Tucsonan, I mean, I resent this. And I hold those groups personally responsible for damaging the economy of Arizona even more than it currently has been damaged.

So if you’re angry at the politicians, take out your anger and resentment on the politicians, not over — you know, over the hard-working people’s backs!

Read the full transcript here.

{Noam Amdurski-Matzav.com Newscenter}


  1. I have no idea how anything in the quotes would qualify as violent rhetoric no matter how hard you try to twist it. which line is even being referred to? Let alone “simply” even complexly and with a lot of kneitching i dont see how the question can be answered with anything other than a resounding no
    The answer to the heradline’s question is an unequivocal no

  2. I dont place a negative connotation of “violence” when talking about law enforcement.

    In my opinion, there is no correlations of “violence” between the idea of enforcing the law with police as opposed to someone going to a peaceful assembly, loading a pistol with bullets, and pointing at people and shooting and killing them.

    What shychus???

  3. First of all, her comments were not violent. No where did she actually want to hurt people. Second of all, even if she had made comments then so what? Nothing justifies what that guy did.

  4. It isn’t Palin who is the victim of a “blood libel”, it is Congresswoman Giffords. And the libelers are the people who run matzav.com who try to take an ordinary interview in which she expresses rather right wing views on immigration and use it to imply that she is somehow to blame for violence. This is a chilul HaShem.

  5. Did Giffords Herself Use “Violent” Rhetoric?

    The answer, simply is no. At least, not anywhere in the interview shared on this page or in the full transcript.

    Time to correct this headline and article for the false impression it makes.

  6. There is nothing violent here. Nothing here even approaches the level of putting a shotguns crosshairs over a photo. The headline and first sentence are misleading.

  7. I agree with responses 1-6 and also 7. Perhaps it’s her use of the phrase “to take it out on the politicians”. Really, it’s hard to believe that’s what you meant; that’s quite a stretch from active democracy to violence. If the inflammatory words are in the transcript, you shouldn’t refer to this snippet as “violent”….Emes should be our trademark and your verbiage seems misleading to put it mildly.