When she was appointed by Governor David Paterson to replace Hillary Clinton, NY Senator Kirsten Gillibrand was known as a moderate Democrat. That reputation was wrong. Sen. Gillibrand has turned out to be a spineless hack who changes her stance every time the direction of the wind shifts.
Take a look at her latest statement about ICE:
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., said she supports abolishing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because it has become a “deportation force.”
“I believe that it has become a deportation force. And I think you should separate out the criminal justice from the immigration issues,” she added. “I think you should reimagine ICE under a new agency, with a very different mission, and take those two missions out. So we believe that we should protect families that need our help, and that is not what ICE is doing today.”
Should Congress Remove Biden from Office?
Gillibrand is not an idiot, she knows that ICE is only enforcing the laws that she and the other members of Congress write, but she is going with the flow. In fact, when she was first appointed to the Senate, there were objections because she was an immigration hardliner. On January 27, 2009, the NY Times wrote:
During her one term in the House of Representatives, from a largely rural, traditionally Republican district, Kirsten E. Gillibrand was on safe political ground adopting a tough stance against illegal immigration.
Ms. Gillibrand, a Democrat, opposed any sort of amnesty for illegal immigrants, supported deputizing local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration laws, spoke out against Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s proposal to allow illegal immigrants to have driver’s licenses and sought to make English the official language of the United States.
When she was named by Paterson, the Spanish language daily El Diario ran Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s photo on their front page and the blaring headline “ANTI INMIGRANTE” (anti-immigrant)
New York Assemblyman Peter Rivera, the senior Hispanic in the state legislature, issued a statement condemning her for among other things, wanting to “use local police to enforce federal immigration law, against the advice of state law enforcement groups,” and supporting “more walls and guards on our southern border.”
But the direction of the winds shifted, and the Democratic Party became the no borders party, therefore, so the spineless Gillibrand gave up her belief and shifted.
After the horrible shooting at the Capital Gazette newspaper, it wasn’t a big surprise when Gillibrand appeared on CNN and called for a ban on every type of gun but the one the shooter used.
In response to the Annapolis shooting, Democrat Senator Kirsten Gillibrand says that assault weapons, bump stocks, and high capacity magazines need to be banned.
The shooter used a shotgun pic.twitter.com/ynCYSt7YTb
— Ryan Saavedra ???????? (@RealSaavedra) June 29, 2018
Gillibrand has been calling for more gun control ever since the Democratic Party moved that way. But when she was appointed:
Gun-control advocates, including Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a Democrat from Nassau County, have also taken sharp issue with Ms. Gillibrand’s opposition to some gun control measures, with Ms. McCarthy threatening to run against her.
Another NY representative, Carolyn Maloney threatened to run against Gillibrand because she felt that the appointed Senator had no real positions on issues, she changed them just to get elected.
Another issue that proves Gillibrand has no backbone is Israel.
When she was questioning Chuck Hagel during his Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearings in 2013, she asked more questions about Hagel’s horrid history of trashing Israel than anyone else on the committee. She attacked his anti-Israel positions so many times, I felt terrible for the guy even though I didn’t want him confirmed. Beginning with her opening statement practically every question/statement she made emphasized the importance of the Jewish State to America. In fact, per the committee transcript Senator Gillibrand spoke 597 words in questioning Hagel, 381 of them (64%) were very pro-Israel directed questions or statements.
That same year hen speaking on a panel with John McCain at the 2013 AIPAC conference, she agreed with McCain that there should be no daylight between Israel and the United States on Iran. But as Obama continued with his presidency and became more and more anti-Israel, and the Democratic Party moved against Israel with him, Gillibrand moved with the party.
The first indication was when she decided that it was okay for the US and Israel to have daylight between them on Iran by ignoring her constituents and supporting the Iran deal. Even worse she endorsed a filibuster so the Iran deal couldn’t be voted on by the Senate.
Gillibrand began to move even closer to the positions of the progressive anti-Israel wing running the Democratic Party.
She voted against the nomination of David Friedman to be United States Ambassador to Israel. All she said was that she was concerned about his appointment. It’s unknown whether her vote was motivated by Freidman’s strong pro-Israeli positions, or to support of Senator Schumer’s movement to oppose every nomination sent to the Senate by President Trump.
In the April “Time 100” issue of Time Magazine, Senator Gillibrand wrote a piece supporting “four extraordinary women–Tamika Mallory, Bob Bland, Carmen Perez and Linda Sarsour” for organizing the Women’s March on Washington, DC on January 21. All four of these women have supported the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, and all four of them have slandered Israel with false charges. Perhaps Gillibrand didn’t know about their hatred before she wrote in time, but she didn’t condemn them when it became national news. In fact, when Sarsour’s anti-Israel history was pointed out to Ms. Gillibrand by Rabbi Abraham Cooper of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who asked Gillibrand to reconsider her endorsement of Sarsour, the NY Senator stuck to her support of the anti-Israel activist.
Continuing in her quest to be loved by progressive Israel haters, Gillibrand even claimed the Netanyahu didn’t have a vision for peace. Senator Gillibrand is a smart person she knows very well about Netanyahu’s idea of peace. As a sitting Senator, she sat in the House chamber in 2011 to hear Netanyahu lay out his vision for peace.
But Gillibrand needed to attack Netanyahu to please the anti-Israel progressives who control the Democratic Party, and perhaps to please her Iranian donors (her campaigns have been supported by the Iranian American Political Action Committee (IAPAC) and by the pro-Iran lobby’s Hassan Nemazee).
So when Gillibrand says she wants to abolish ICE, wants more restrictions on guns, trashes Netanyahu, or takes any other position, don’t trust her, because as they tend to do political winds change and when they change Kirsten Gillibrand will change with them.